Distinguish between positive and negative rights first. Then discuss rights. (Not necessarily aimed at parent, just the discussion in general).
Eg. if we say the renal patient has a positive right to life, we do, de facto, owe him a kidney. If he has a negative right to life, we are not allowed to murder or eviscerate him - nor him us.
Ad 1. Video taken out of context is a basic problem of video in courts of law. Should we ban video evidence? It also wastes department resources to handle evidence properly, should we stop doing that?
Ad 2. Bad guys will already do recon, with or without video, with or without protection from the law.
Ad 3. Nonsense. A right to record is not a right to bug a location that is not yours, nor a government work place.
-
I agree with your conclusion, though. I just would not call those reasons legitimate in the first place. Maybe some officers would use those reasons, for perfectly understandable and well-meant reasons - but they are not legitimate, any more than wanting not to pay taxes is a legitimate reason to stop doing it (difference between legitimate wish and reason, really...)
Whenever you get handed special privileges, you should expect to get sufficient special treatment to ensure said privileges are not being abused. You are, however, free to not be a cop.
All cops should be videotaped, 24/7. Any complaint, and the tape gets reviewed. Same for politicians.
On a related note, punishments should be equally high. Imagine a king accepting that a soldier attacked him, or that an advisor lied to him... A democratic system should no more accept attacks on, or lies to, its citizens - especially not from those who have been given special trust.
Checks and balances. As hard as they have to be. Same for the punishments. If one person decides to be a cop without taking his job so serious in the first place, that he feels threatened by such measures should never have been a cop in the first place.
Copper, Nickel, etc. are no more real. Some have an actual use value, yes, but that is not what they are being traded for, and it varies greatly depending on location and time. If everyone decided that gold was no longer cool, that would be the end of the gold standard too.
The only standards that are somewhat stable would be food and shelter...
Bitcoin is a better standard, being more easily transferable. It may have problems re. the auto-inflation - or it may be a strength. I don't know, I am not an economist.
But Bitcoins are no more silly than seashells, paper or some arbitrary metal. It's just that fewer people use them...
I'll gladly admit I had no clue one could do fusion as a science fair project - I thought the journalist had either been taken in, or was reporting in the usual science-journalism-style where everything is exaggerated to its Star Trek equivalent. That building the fusor was part of the 'news' (which it appears it is not - newsworthy, that is), did give the impression that what had been achieved was something worth writing about; sustainable fusion.
There is a second shite factor here, though. Using this to 'fight terrorism'. A geiger counter could do as well, and I do not see this guy running around containers either way. A student building a known source of neutrons, and using it as an active scanner where a passive already exists, is not a great step up for Homeland Security. I am, in other words, not convinced that he just saved us all from a Horrible Death...
All respect for the kid though - I can't imagine an active scanner setup is simple, and he does have a great attitude towards science.
You really can't though. Really. You not buying those Nike sneaks does not stop the slave factories, and whatever cell phone you bought, some black kid probably had to crawl through a dark whole to get the Rarebit-ium. 'Not actively supporting' is not the same as 'dealing with'...
It's like this: in voting with your wallet, as in other forms of democracy...
Just a quick voting with your wallet is not democracy. At best, it is a really broadly enfranchised oligarchy with a continuum of degrees of participation.
We do not agree so much as to warrant that tone, actually. Calm down:-)
I absolutely agree that religious extremism, political and military intervention are factors. But I do believe that they are primarily factors that redirect and transport the hate, so to speak.
When a poor peasant from religion X blows up poor peasants of religion Y, I think you are totally right that this is most often the result of some kind of manipulation. I have no reason to doubt your example of ISI interference. But I was talking about terrorist attacks against the West...
When relatively well-off people attack the West, this is obviously not out of desperation in their own lives. This was what I meant by religious extremism allowing people to hold on to a communal "us" that has been harmed over time, and over income brackets, obviously.
> You are supporting suicide attacks by terrorists as necessary?
No. A necessary means if one wants to harm the West. Asymetrical warfare, you know?
> That is a ridiculous argument. How is trade stealing?
When you oust a publically elected leader, and insert your own puppet that then makes a profitable deal with you, that is stealing from a country. It is just a dishonest way to do it..
> Hey you know what, those damn oil sheikhs are the ones stealing from us! Let's have a crusade against them! They didn't create the oil, they did nothing to earn it, why are we paying for it?
Actually, We are close to the mark here. The oil sheiks are indeed stealing the profits of entire countries, from their fellow countrymen. And the US makes deals with them, assisting that theft. Of course the sheiks and those who dare not oppose them will name the US the real theif (they are equally culpable, if you ask me), call the West the great Satan, etc. etc.
I never claimed everything that happened is because of Western interference. But when we chose to deal with thieves (and help set some of them up), we are exposing ourselves to the rightful hate of those we (help) steal from. This hate is being twisted, exagerated, harnessed and used against us. Sometimes by well-off oil sheiks with an agenda, sometimes by twisted extremists like Bin Laden.
Your point is well taken, and I am not claiming that "fucked by the west" must lead to "terrorism". Only that the hateful attitude towards the west and desperate measures owes a large part of its explanation to the fact that these people have been exploited and live squalid lives. Also, propaganda and religious extremism is being used to spread these claims to have a greater effect than they would in itself. That might be the difference we are looking for, or at least part of it - still not claiming to have _all_ the answers:-)
So you are suggesting a purely theoretical approach to teaching kids about the internet - books about how google works, a lecture on wikipedia, teaching word processing using a typewriter and explaining the differences?
Of course we need computers, and internet, in schools. Both because they are invaluable resources in themselves, but also because it is the best way to learn how to be safe and productive when using them.
You can learn what you need to know about buses, without having one in school. Not so with the internet.
...but governments don't combat "uncontrollable... bazaars for contraband" by eliminating the currency used in said bazaars, they do it by sending heavily-armed soldiers to break up the party.
We are talking about situations where the party is not necessarily gathered in one specific place, at one specific time. Delivery of goods and services will, of course, be vulnerable - but bitcoin transfers will do away with the very real "problem" of the money trace (with regards to both the investigation and litigation). A lot of things can be bought and sold entirely online, and bitcoin does change the game.
But no, it does not make any contraband bazaar "uncontrollable", or impervious to government interference, as the article suggests.
I humbly suggest that global connectivity is a part of our world, and that schools should therefore reflect this. Internet access is kind off useful in schools, you know?
All the retoric (from the terrorists themselves) aside, what they really hate is being fucked by the West.
If Israeli rockets were not hitting housing blocks, if the US did not install dictators to give them a good price on oil, if we did not vilify them every step of they way, if they did not live squalid lives while we wallow in luxury based on their natural resources, etc. etc.
Of course religion plays a role here. It functions as a rallying cry. And comfort in your desperation over the non-existent chances of any true success (world caliphate? noone believes that?) and necessary suicide tactics. But mostly, it plays the role of lumping all those disparate grievances together, so they seem to have been perpetrated on the same "us".
The perfect solution is to go back thirty years and not kill and steal. In thirty years, someone will say the same about some new group out for revenge for the shit we are doing now. There is no solution now - but it is never too late to start thinking ahead...
Except when the results are expected to be random:-)
All kidding aside, it is not the particular results that are themselves random or not (once picked, any result has a probability of 1), but rather the method of choosing them. Or to be more precise, as our anonymous friend pointed out, that they had an even chance to be picked before they were even results.
Yeah. That would only make sense if Pakistan was less than 100% behind this whole get-Bin-Laden-thing they totally promised everyone they totally were.
As part of the worldwide conspiracy that includes Obama, the seal team that faked the mission and numerous government bureaucrats who are luckily unable to send an email to wikileaks, let me obfuscate and lie by suggesting this:
If you are hiding for your life and do not want your mansion to stick out, would you invest in a satellite dish, even if you are not going to use it, for fear of surveillance? Maybe even go through the trouble of installling it?
- "That is illogical. If the information can be copied at no loss to the owner, why shouldn't you then make money off it? If the owner has the right to stop you making money off it, why shouldn't he also have the right not to let you copy it at all?"
In a nutshell: Because the money that can be made from a given piece of information is not non-scarce like the information itself. There is a finite amount of money to be made, but an infinite amount of copies. Hence; it is ok to make copies, not money.
If a given work can bring in 1,000$, who should have them? The guy who made it? Anyone? The guy with the printer? Noone is being deprived of anything that is in any sense of the word "theirs" (or costless) if we give it all to the creator. So lets do that. (Print shops will have to sell at-cost, or make a deal with the creator).
Because if we do not allow it, then everyone will just be able to get what they want. Non-scarce good. That someone could make money of it, if we allowed it, is an argument that can equally be applied for a patent on breathing, the right to use gravity and protection rackets.
Gravity and breathing aren't inventions or creative works.
This is beside the point. I was arguing that just because a system of ownership (or other system of privileges) will enable someone to make money, this does not mean that system is a good idea. Allowing ownership over the concept of zero (which was indeed quite the invention) would halt all progress or allow one guy to own basically everything. Not a good idea, even though money can be made. This was my point, in the above section.
We do not need an incentive system, for people to want music, literature and other art. People already want it, and charging for it will not make them want it more (except if you put a lowercase "i" in front of it too).
If someone wants to sell their art, I don't see why that should be a problem. It's their work, they should decide the terms it is shared with others.
I respectfully disagree. They can of course sell it all they want, but if they want to control what I and others do, and do with our computers and networks, they should be able to cite good reason.
Do *you* work for free?
And this is where your analogy breaks down. Because you are assuming already, that what is going on is work done for money. Under the current system, this is often true. Under a system where one cannot own knowldge, it is not (there, it is only a cultural exchange, done for enjoyment, etc.). It is really a matter of positive vs negative rights:
A painter has the absolute right to paint, and do with those paintings as he wishes. Sell, sell copies, whatever. Noone has any right to stop him try to make a living - he has a negative right to. But, he does not have the positive right to be able to make money off it. If he cannot sell his originals for enough money, how is that a problem?
I cannot live off holding lectures in the street, but I am not asking to be subsidised with money or privileges.
Copyright is a privilege which increases the value of works, by stripping everyone else of the right to do something they otherwise would be allowed to. The artist (ie. record company) is given control over me, so they can sell me back that control piecemeal.
I do not work for free, but I do not ask that the worth of my work be increased by taking away other people's rights.
Re. the incentive system, then I am sorry if I misunderstood you. As an incentive system for creators, and not a natural right, copyright might have some justification. Not in its current form, and not with one type of copyright to rule over every vastly different type of work. I am pretty much in sync with Lessig on this one, albeit maybe a bit more radical...:-)
Now, looking back, I have been pretty unclear. What I meant was:
We should have a right to be the only one to make money off something. Not be the only one to decide who uses a given piece of information, but to commercialize it. This is why I responded, and what I originally meant by: "There is no good reason why a person or company should get to make money off something another person created - but neither is there a reason not to allow people to enjoy those goods."
The poster I responded to was pointing out something that looks hypocritical; that we do not want Sony to own music, but we want to own our photos. My "middle way" is that both Sony and me are allowed to own a "right to make money off a given piece of information". Only I can sell my picture to twitpic, only Sony can sell copies of the music they have the rights to. But I am free to listen to the radio, download, change and enjoy any music I
Because if we do not allow it, then everyone will just be able to get what they want. Non-scarce good. That someone could make money of it, if we allowed it, is an argument that can equally be applied for a patent on breathing, the right to use gravity and protection rackets.
We do not need an incentive system, for people to want music, literature and other art. People already want it, and charging for it will not make them want it more (except if you put a lowercase "i" in front of it too).
But I was actually just arguing that without an agreement, there is no reason to allow it. I am for a very, very thin copyright where this is more or less the only thing you are not allowed to do.
True in one sense (which still makes them hypocrites).
What is often heard defended here is the freedom to use any information that is free, for personal enjoyment or helping others. I don't think I have seen anyone argue that you can make money directly off other people's information (in itself). There is no good reason why a person or company should get to make money off something another person created - but neither is there a reason not to allow people to enjoy those good.
Enjoyment of art, science, knowledge and any information is, just like the information itself, a non-scarce good.
Slashdot Mirror
Distinguish between positive and negative rights first. Then discuss rights. (Not necessarily aimed at parent, just the discussion in general).
Eg. if we say the renal patient has a positive right to life, we do, de facto, owe him a kidney. If he has a negative right to life, we are not allowed to murder or eviscerate him - nor him us.
Ad 1.
Video taken out of context is a basic problem of video in courts of law. Should we ban video evidence?
It also wastes department resources to handle evidence properly, should we stop doing that?
Ad 2.
Bad guys will already do recon, with or without video, with or without protection from the law.
Ad 3.
Nonsense. A right to record is not a right to bug a location that is not yours, nor a government work place.
-
I agree with your conclusion, though. I just would not call those reasons legitimate in the first place. Maybe some officers would use those reasons, for perfectly understandable and well-meant reasons - but they are not legitimate, any more than wanting not to pay taxes is a legitimate reason to stop doing it (difference between legitimate wish and reason, really...)
Yes.
Whenever you get handed special privileges, you should expect to get sufficient special treatment to ensure said privileges are not being abused. You are, however, free to not be a cop.
All cops should be videotaped, 24/7. Any complaint, and the tape gets reviewed. Same for politicians.
On a related note, punishments should be equally high. Imagine a king accepting that a soldier attacked him, or that an advisor lied to him... A democratic system should no more accept attacks on, or lies to, its citizens - especially not from those who have been given special trust.
Checks and balances. As hard as they have to be. Same for the punishments. If one person decides to be a cop without taking his job so serious in the first place, that he feels threatened by such measures should never have been a cop in the first place.
Copper, Nickel, etc. are no more real. Some have an actual use value, yes, but that is not what they are being traded for, and it varies greatly depending on location and time. If everyone decided that gold was no longer cool, that would be the end of the gold standard too.
The only standards that are somewhat stable would be food and shelter...
Bitcoin is a better standard, being more easily transferable. It may have problems re. the auto-inflation - or it may be a strength. I don't know, I am not an economist.
But Bitcoins are no more silly than seashells, paper or some arbitrary metal. It's just that fewer people use them...
I'll gladly admit I had no clue one could do fusion as a science fair project - I thought the journalist had either been taken in, or was reporting in the usual science-journalism-style where everything is exaggerated to its Star Trek equivalent.
That building the fusor was part of the 'news' (which it appears it is not - newsworthy, that is), did give the impression that what had been achieved was something worth writing about; sustainable fusion.
There is a second shite factor here, though. Using this to 'fight terrorism'. A geiger counter could do as well, and I do not see this guy running around containers either way. A student building a known source of neutrons, and using it as an active scanner where a passive already exists, is not a great step up for Homeland Security. I am, in other words, not convinced that he just saved us all from a Horrible Death...
All respect for the kid though - I can't imagine an active scanner setup is simple, and he does have a great attitude towards science.
That is all
Ah... Slashdot is not quite dead - a comment far more interesting than the article :-)
Mod up, please.
I can deal with corps by not buying from them...
You really can't though. Really. You not buying those Nike sneaks does not stop the slave factories, and whatever cell phone you bought, some black kid probably had to crawl through a dark whole to get the Rarebit-ium. 'Not actively supporting' is not the same as 'dealing with'...
I think we are about to find out, whether a lawsuit-amendment-process be slashdotted...
It's like this: in voting with your wallet, as in other forms of democracy...
Just a quick voting with your wallet is not democracy. At best, it is a really broadly enfranchised oligarchy with a continuum of degrees of participation.
Maybe a common anonymiser in China uses Taiwan servers?
We do not agree so much as to warrant that tone, actually. Calm down :-)
I absolutely agree that religious extremism, political and military intervention are factors. But I do believe that they are primarily factors that redirect and transport the hate, so to speak.
When a poor peasant from religion X blows up poor peasants of religion Y, I think you are totally right that this is most often the result of some kind of manipulation. I have no reason to doubt your example of ISI interference. But I was talking about terrorist attacks against the West...
When relatively well-off people attack the West, this is obviously not out of desperation in their own lives. This was what I meant by religious extremism allowing people to hold on to a communal "us" that has been harmed over time, and over income brackets, obviously.
> You are supporting suicide attacks by terrorists as necessary?
No. A necessary means if one wants to harm the West. Asymetrical warfare, you know?
> That is a ridiculous argument. How is trade stealing?
When you oust a publically elected leader, and insert your own puppet that then makes a profitable deal with you, that is stealing from a country. It is just a dishonest way to do it..
> Hey you know what, those damn oil sheikhs are the ones stealing from us! Let's have a crusade against them! They didn't create the oil, they did nothing to earn it, why are we paying for it?
Actually, We are close to the mark here. The oil sheiks are indeed stealing the profits of entire countries, from their fellow countrymen. And the US makes deals with them, assisting that theft. Of course the sheiks and those who dare not oppose them will name the US the real theif (they are equally culpable, if you ask me), call the West the great Satan, etc. etc.
I never claimed everything that happened is because of Western interference. But when we chose to deal with thieves (and help set some of them up), we are exposing ourselves to the rightful hate of those we (help) steal from. This hate is being twisted, exagerated, harnessed and used against us. Sometimes by well-off oil sheiks with an agenda, sometimes by twisted extremists like Bin Laden.
Your point is well taken, and I am not claiming that "fucked by the west" must lead to "terrorism". Only that the hateful attitude towards the west and desperate measures owes a large part of its explanation to the fact that these people have been exploited and live squalid lives. :-)
Also, propaganda and religious extremism is being used to spread these claims to have a greater effect than they would in itself. That might be the difference we are looking for, or at least part of it - still not claiming to have _all_ the answers
"We meant those other drugs. Those untaxed drugs. Those are the ones that are bad for you."
So you are suggesting a purely theoretical approach to teaching kids about the internet - books about how google works, a lecture on wikipedia, teaching word processing using a typewriter and explaining the differences?
Of course we need computers, and internet, in schools. Both because they are invaluable resources in themselves, but also because it is the best way to learn how to be safe and productive when using them.
You can learn what you need to know about buses, without having one in school. Not so with the internet.
...but governments don't combat "uncontrollable... bazaars for contraband" by eliminating the currency used in said bazaars, they do it by sending heavily-armed soldiers to break up the party.
We are talking about situations where the party is not necessarily gathered in one specific place, at one specific time. Delivery of goods and services will, of course, be vulnerable - but bitcoin transfers will do away with the very real "problem" of the money trace (with regards to both the investigation and litigation). A lot of things can be bought and sold entirely online, and bitcoin does change the game.
But no, it does not make any contraband bazaar "uncontrollable", or impervious to government interference, as the article suggests.
I humbly suggest that global connectivity is a part of our world, and that schools should therefore reflect this. Internet access is kind off useful in schools, you know?
All the retoric (from the terrorists themselves) aside, what they really hate is being fucked by the West.
If Israeli rockets were not hitting housing blocks, if the US did not install dictators to give them a good price on oil, if we did not vilify them every step of they way, if they did not live squalid lives while we wallow in luxury based on their natural resources, etc. etc.
Of course religion plays a role here. It functions as a rallying cry. And comfort in your desperation over the non-existent chances of any true success (world caliphate? noone believes that?) and necessary suicide tactics. But mostly, it plays the role of lumping all those disparate grievances together, so they seem to have been perpetrated on the same "us".
The perfect solution is to go back thirty years and not kill and steal. In thirty years, someone will say the same about some new group out for revenge for the shit we are doing now. There is no solution now - but it is never too late to start thinking ahead...
Unexpected results are, by definition, random.
Except when the results are expected to be random :-)
All kidding aside, it is not the particular results that are themselves random or not (once picked, any result has a probability of 1), but rather the method of choosing them. Or to be more precise, as our anonymous friend pointed out, that they had an even chance to be picked before they were even results.
Yeah. That would only make sense if Pakistan was less than 100% behind this whole get-Bin-Laden-thing they totally promised everyone they totally were.
What is the purpose of the Satellite Dish?
As part of the worldwide conspiracy that includes Obama, the seal team that faked the mission and numerous government bureaucrats who are luckily unable to send an email to wikileaks, let me obfuscate and lie by suggesting this:
If you are hiding for your life and do not want your mansion to stick out, would you invest in a satellite dish, even if you are not going to use it, for fear of surveillance? Maybe even go through the trouble of installling it?
- "That is illogical. If the information can be copied at no loss to the owner, why shouldn't you then make money off it? If the owner has the right to stop you making money off it, why shouldn't he also have the right not to let you copy it at all?"
In a nutshell: Because the money that can be made from a given piece of information is not non-scarce like the information itself. There is a finite amount of money to be made, but an infinite amount of copies.
Hence; it is ok to make copies, not money.
If a given work can bring in 1,000$, who should have them? The guy who made it? Anyone? The guy with the printer? Noone is being deprived of anything that is in any sense of the word "theirs" (or costless) if we give it all to the creator. So lets do that. (Print shops will have to sell at-cost, or make a deal with the creator).
---
Because if we do not allow it, then everyone will just be able to get what they want. Non-scarce good. That someone could make money of it, if we allowed it, is an argument that can equally be applied for a patent on breathing, the right to use gravity and protection rackets.
Gravity and breathing aren't inventions or creative works.
This is beside the point. I was arguing that just because a system of ownership (or other system of privileges) will enable someone to make money, this does not mean that system is a good idea. Allowing ownership over the concept of zero (which was indeed quite the invention) would halt all progress or allow one guy to own basically everything. Not a good idea, even though money can be made. This was my point, in the above section.
We do not need an incentive system, for people to want music, literature and other art. People already want it, and charging for it will not make them want it more (except if you put a lowercase "i" in front of it too).
If someone wants to sell their art, I don't see why that should be a problem. It's their work, they should decide the terms it is shared with others.
I respectfully disagree. They can of course sell it all they want, but if they want to control what I and others do, and do with our computers and networks, they should be able to cite good reason.
Do *you* work for free?
And this is where your analogy breaks down. Because you are assuming already, that what is going on is work done for money. Under the current system, this is often true. Under a system where one cannot own knowldge, it is not (there, it is only a cultural exchange, done for enjoyment, etc.). It is really a matter of positive vs negative rights:
A painter has the absolute right to paint, and do with those paintings as he wishes. Sell, sell copies, whatever. Noone has any right to stop him try to make a living - he has a negative right to.
But, he does not have the positive right to be able to make money off it. If he cannot sell his originals for enough money, how is that a problem?
I cannot live off holding lectures in the street, but I am not asking to be subsidised with money or privileges.
Copyright is a privilege which increases the value of works, by stripping everyone else of the right to do something they otherwise would be allowed to. The artist (ie. record company) is given control over me, so they can sell me back that control piecemeal.
I do not work for free, but I do not ask that the worth of my work be increased by taking away other people's rights.
Re. the incentive system, then I am sorry if I misunderstood you. As an incentive system for creators, and not a natural right, copyright might have some justification. Not in its current form, and not with one type of copyright to rule over every vastly different type of work. I am pretty much in sync with Lessig on this one, albeit maybe a bit more radical... :-)
Now, looking back, I have been pretty unclear. What I meant was:
We should have a right to be the only one to make money off something. Not be the only one to decide who uses a given piece of information, but to commercialize it. This is why I responded, and what I originally meant by: "There is no good reason why a person or company should get to make money off something another person created - but neither is there a reason not to allow people to enjoy those goods."
The poster I responded to was pointing out something that looks hypocritical; that we do not want Sony to own music, but we want to own our photos. My "middle way" is that both Sony and me are allowed to own a "right to make money off a given piece of information". Only I can sell my picture to twitpic, only Sony can sell copies of the music they have the rights to. But I am free to listen to the radio, download, change and enjoy any music I
Because if we do not allow it, then everyone will just be able to get what they want. Non-scarce good. That someone could make money of it, if we allowed it, is an argument that can equally be applied for a patent on breathing, the right to use gravity and protection rackets.
We do not need an incentive system, for people to want music, literature and other art. People already want it, and charging for it will not make them want it more (except if you put a lowercase "i" in front of it too).
But I was actually just arguing that without an agreement, there is no reason to allow it. I am for a very, very thin copyright where this is more or less the only thing you are not allowed to do.
True in one sense (which still makes them hypocrites).
What is often heard defended here is the freedom to use any information that is free, for personal enjoyment or helping others. I don't think I have seen anyone argue that you can make money directly off other people's information (in itself). There is no good reason why a person or company should get to make money off something another person created - but neither is there a reason not to allow people to enjoy those good.
Enjoyment of art, science, knowledge and any information is, just like the information itself, a non-scarce good.