Natural Rights philosophy was discovered specifically to say, "I am no longer your property. I am no longer a serf. I can say whatever I please." It was a rebellion against the old feudal system where humans did not own themselves, but instead were owned by the manor's master or lord.
That was very informative. Thanks. However, that is what rights were in the beginning. And since we no longer live in a feudal society (although it's not too far either), the definition calls for revision.
Dismantling the system would be nice, because a good rebuild is in order. For the moment, we can hammer out some bends, however. Don't think you cannot make a difference, that's what they want you to think. Take no shit from anyone. Organize yourselves. Defend your rights.
Point is, if people stopped taking shit from other people, the system would be considered dismantled. The reason that doesn't happen is that the system is still in place and supported by those who fall victim to it.
Remember some things: those clowns cannot even touch you unless you give them GOOD reason to do it
It also helps to know that 'these clowns' happen to be ordinary people like you (?) and me (???), and they also happen to work in a system. Whether you hate the system or not, that has nothing to do with them. And fucking with a random clown is not going to dismantle the system. It will simply remove one of its agents (the sec worker and sec company), but that's about the extent of the damage you are able to inflict. Another sec company will fill the void.
A guy I knew once was just touched by a private security guard at a mall who was trying to play Dirty Harry. He immediately fell to the ground screaming like a stuck pig.
Good going. You blew the cover now. Your friend will not be thrown into jail and forced to pay the security company for damages.
Your private thoughts cannot be taken from you, so there is the first right. Your emotions, state-of-mind, knowledge, intellect and understanding are likewise yours and yours alone.
It's interesting to note that you are linking 'rights' to 'ownership', whereas I would think rights have more to do with action and expression than with shit you own.
Instead of having the 'right to speak freely' you have 'right to free speech' as if 'free speech' is something you can take and own. Thinking like that leads to concepts like 'taking away' things instead of 'preventing you from doing something'. Needless to say, stopping you from 'expressing' or 'doing' is quite different from 'taking something from you'.
If you objectify your action, you, at the same time, externalize it. It's as if it's not something you can do, but something you must obtain (or be given) in order to use. So, from the very beginning it's formulated in a way that introduces the concepts of 'giving' and 'taking away'.
With actions, there is nothing to 'give' or 'take'. You can only forcibly prevent them (or choose not to).
[...] you have no rights because anything you have, or are could be taken by force.
Provided the statement above is true, 'rights' would simply be a belief. And as with any belief system, they are non-debatable. You either believe you have rights or you don't, and reality ceases to matter.
Think about it. The helthier you are, the less your employer has to pay for your medical insurance. It is only natural that they want to penalize your whopper scarfing.
And make you feel miserable for it. A better way would be to have government invest our tax money into health care so neither the company nor its employees have to act under pressure. But of course, some governments obviously prefer to get weapons instead.
Rumor is Microsoft is cutting expenses on that project by recycling IBM code from the 1940s designed for a government client that wanted to track public health.
So they seek to repeat their success with MS-DOS, then?
Do you remember the new 3d-scanning game interface that MS made? Can you link now the dots? And honestly, when i heard about their new visual interface, i was impressed, i wish i had one.....but now i am scared, and would never buy one.
Next thing, they'll be issuing service packs for unpatched vulnerabilities... in my kid.:)
Sigh. We've gotten so angry that we have started to look like the bad guys.
This can only be (ab)used by RIAA as long as there is a majority of people who believe that one cannot be angry at them even if RIAA ass-fucks her/him, don't you think?
Is that a problem? Sounds to me that the market is setting a fair price for work that even an amateur can do.
It's not "work that even an amateur can do". Amateurs will do just about anything. That's what they do. Some of them do it well, too. The way it sounds is "they are setting a price for what amateurs did for free". For better or worse.
I'm sure it's not for pros. With the price of $1, Getty surely wants the amateur stuff that stands out. Someone else has pointed out already: "cheap and good enough".
If deployed properly this could actually enhance security a bit.
I don't think it's all about security. For example, if it's only about security, there's no need to check who clicked the link. You only need to block the content on the other end.
Wanna catch consumers of kiddy pr0n? No kiddy pr0n => no consumers => no need to catch anyone. So, again, blocking the target page instead of sniffing user activity takes care of this (at least on Twitter).
So, obviously, logging user data without a good reason is only useful if you intend to do something entirely different with it. I'm not all worked up about the privacy issues around this. For me, it sounds perfectly normal that the likes of Twitter and Facebook (oh, and Google, of course) would want to identify arbitrary activities on the Internet. It's useful for advertising and related activities.
The law is structured in such a way that copyright holders have an unfair share of power in the whole affair[...]
Just that in this case, the supposed copyright holder told Google to remove "Tetris clones". Google understood it as "all games that work like Tetris", whereas "working like Tetris" is not copyrightable. You can only copyright stuff that "look like Tetris", or "the 'Tetris' name". So it's not the copyright holder that has the power here. More like a combo of Mr. Dumb-ass and Mr. I-own-the-store-and-don't-really-givashit.
Slashdot Mirror
Natural Rights philosophy was discovered specifically to say, "I am no longer your property. I am no longer a serf. I can say whatever I please." It was a rebellion against the old feudal system where humans did not own themselves, but instead were owned by the manor's master or lord.
That was very informative. Thanks. However, that is what rights were in the beginning. And since we no longer live in a feudal society (although it's not too far either), the definition calls for revision.
Dismantling the system would be nice, because a good rebuild is in order. For the moment, we can hammer out some bends, however. Don't think you cannot make a difference, that's what they want you to think. Take no shit from anyone. Organize yourselves. Defend your rights.
Point is, if people stopped taking shit from other people, the system would be considered dismantled. The reason that doesn't happen is that the system is still in place and supported by those who fall victim to it.
Remember some things: those clowns cannot even touch you unless you give them GOOD reason to do it
It also helps to know that 'these clowns' happen to be ordinary people like you (?) and me (???), and they also happen to work in a system. Whether you hate the system or not, that has nothing to do with them. And fucking with a random clown is not going to dismantle the system. It will simply remove one of its agents (the sec worker and sec company), but that's about the extent of the damage you are able to inflict. Another sec company will fill the void.
A guy I knew once was just touched by a private security guard at a mall who was trying to play Dirty Harry. He immediately fell to the ground screaming like a stuck pig.
Good going. You blew the cover now. Your friend will not be thrown into jail and forced to pay the security company for damages.
You missed the other "there" which should be "their."
It was just a warning shot.
Your private thoughts cannot be taken from you, so there is the first right. Your emotions, state-of-mind, knowledge, intellect and understanding are likewise yours and yours alone.
It's interesting to note that you are linking 'rights' to 'ownership', whereas I would think rights have more to do with action and expression than with shit you own.
Instead of having the 'right to speak freely' you have 'right to free speech' as if 'free speech' is something you can take and own. Thinking like that leads to concepts like 'taking away' things instead of 'preventing you from doing something'. Needless to say, stopping you from 'expressing' or 'doing' is quite different from 'taking something from you'.
If you objectify your action, you, at the same time, externalize it. It's as if it's not something you can do, but something you must obtain (or be given) in order to use. So, from the very beginning it's formulated in a way that introduces the concepts of 'giving' and 'taking away'.
With actions, there is nothing to 'give' or 'take'. You can only forcibly prevent them (or choose not to).
[...] you have no rights because anything you have, or are could be taken by force.
Provided the statement above is true, 'rights' would simply be a belief. And as with any belief system, they are non-debatable. You either believe you have rights or you don't, and reality ceases to matter.
Some people will find the products so entertaining that they'll voluntarily give up private data without a thought.
So you advocate ignorance?
Think about it. The helthier you are, the less your employer has to pay for your medical insurance. It is only natural that they want to penalize your whopper scarfing.
And make you feel miserable for it. A better way would be to have government invest our tax money into health care so neither the company nor its employees have to act under pressure. But of course, some governments obviously prefer to get weapons instead.
Obviously photoshopped.
It's the baseball cap, isn't it?
Rumor is Microsoft is cutting expenses on that project by recycling IBM code from the 1940s designed for a government client that wanted to track public health.
So they seek to repeat their success with MS-DOS, then?
80+ hour work weeks lead to fast food eating / quick snacks.
Or death...
Do you remember the new 3d-scanning game interface that MS made? Can you link now the dots? And honestly, when i heard about their new visual interface, i was impressed, i wish i had one.....but now i am scared, and would never buy one.
Next thing, they'll be issuing service packs for unpatched vulnerabilities... in my kid. :)
To me, the idea that people are thinking of this kind of thing is what this story is about. Not that they might get a patent for it.
Reminds me of:
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2008/06/securitymatters_0626
c'mon.. you know RIAA could appear to have justified anything.
Fixed that for ya.
Sigh. We've gotten so angry that we have started to look like the bad guys.
This can only be (ab)used by RIAA as long as there is a majority of people who believe that one cannot be angry at them even if RIAA ass-fucks her/him, don't you think?
I have no doubt that the RIAA are working on getting thought crimes like this criminalized in the UK as we speak.
Doesn't UK have their own association?
Is that a problem? Sounds to me that the market is setting a fair price for work that even an amateur can do.
It's not "work that even an amateur can do". Amateurs will do just about anything. That's what they do. Some of them do it well, too. The way it sounds is "they are setting a price for what amateurs did for free". For better or worse.
I'm sure it's not for pros. With the price of $1, Getty surely wants the amateur stuff that stands out. Someone else has pointed out already: "cheap and good enough".
If deployed properly this could actually enhance security a bit.
I don't think it's all about security. For example, if it's only about security, there's no need to check who clicked the link. You only need to block the content on the other end.
Wanna catch consumers of kiddy pr0n? No kiddy pr0n => no consumers => no need to catch anyone. So, again, blocking the target page instead of sniffing user activity takes care of this (at least on Twitter).
So, obviously, logging user data without a good reason is only useful if you intend to do something entirely different with it. I'm not all worked up about the privacy issues around this. For me, it sounds perfectly normal that the likes of Twitter and Facebook (oh, and Google, of course) would want to identify arbitrary activities on the Internet. It's useful for advertising and related activities.
So you would prefer to keep using bit.ly, which is Libya. I'm sure we can trust that government. Good thinking!
bit.ly is actually based in New York, NY. So I guess you're right... :)
but neither can I text my Underwood typewriter and have it relay the message to my friends.
I think he meant people who want to text their friends en masse are morons in general.
The law is structured in such a way that copyright holders have an unfair share of power in the whole affair[...]
Just that in this case, the supposed copyright holder told Google to remove "Tetris clones". Google understood it as "all games that work like Tetris", whereas "working like Tetris" is not copyrightable. You can only copyright stuff that "look like Tetris", or "the 'Tetris' name". So it's not the copyright holder that has the power here. More like a combo of Mr. Dumb-ass and Mr. I-own-the-store-and-don't-really-givashit.
if greenpeace had their way we'd all live in the forrest eating berries and passing the time by throwing our own shit at each other.
And we'd ask a goat for advice on political issues, no doubt.
We live in a democratic society, not a police state.
So, maybe that's where you err.
"And again. This is slashdot" <-- Not this, the whole site