We aren't looking to take action Armageddeon-style at the last minute. There are two factors to keep in mind: the likely solutions will involve moving the asteroid over time, so the sooner we get started doing that, the better. Second: we have to get our solution to the asteroid, which is probably easiest when it is close to earth (delta-v might be greater depending on the orbit, but preventing disaster may allow a large budget for rocket fuel). Those 18 months might not be adding to a 26 year window but a coulple of years, depending on the required timing of everything.
Be sure to write to your state's AG, get enough complaints against a company and he may jump on the chance for popular headlines. He isn't subject to arbitration clauses.
Very, very bad idea. The moment congress sees that number they will start drafting a budget to use every penny of it. Then, when Disney doesn't renew (either due to not having the money, or lobbying to get the law changed again), congress will make a big show of cutting their budget by half. Do you realize how big of a problem we will have when the government puts us 10 septillion dollars in debt in one year? You better learn to think through to their logical conclusion.
He is simply asking that we stick to facts instead of hyperbole. Nowhere in your citations do I see anything about artists being given a 0.000001% cut of the profits, but rather that their cut is decieving due to all the advances and fees that get deducted. Yes, an artist that barely paid all that off might actually wind up with 0.000001% of overall profits, but without the explanation it is misleading, especially as the original post was referring to Whitney Houston, who is not a good example of a typical musician.
Yes, he was wrong about "Disney copyrights" being off the mark, but he's right to call out "0.000001%" as dishonest. You say that, and RIAA & Co. can say "no, it says right here in their contract they get 20%" (or whatever cut). You say they never see their cut due to (specified) dishonest accounting tricks, and now you have an argument that makes RIAA shills squirm.
NB: going into blind hate mode against someone that is just asking for the facts to speak for themselves makes you look bad in exactly the way he was warning against.
I realize I'm way late posting, but I bet the extreme security measures aren't being taken because they expect the risk of attack to be so high, but because it is a good chance for them to get some experience at both the logistical and operational experience of running such a large security operation. Think of it as practice for the next time we host the Olympics.
I'll say it again: the original question was how to get the average person to side with you. My whole point is that you are relying on details and a good understanding of related topics in order for people to follow your argument. The idea with the over-the-top murder analogy is to picture making that argument to the average person, and picture their response.
I have no idea what you thought my post was about. At no point did I disagree with your argument.
(Bear with me)
Facts:
1. People have a tendency to kill other people.
2. This wasn't as much of an issue back when we had crude weapons.
3. Weapons today make it trivial to kill people.
4. You can easily kill people remotely, making the murderer hard to notice by anyone.
Conclusion:
1. Anyone can freely kill anyone else.
2. Laws against murder are not enforceable anymore.
The average person is against murder, so the painting the above (extreme) picture to them will bring them to the conlcusion "That's why we need (have) strong laws!". If your average person supports copyright in the belief that it protects our economy, your explanation of how the internet breaks copyright will bring them to the conclusion "That's why we need strong laws".
Avoiding the debate over the pros and cons of copyright, the question is to explain SOPA, ACTA in terms that would get the typical person on your side. Apparently your solution is to open a whole new can of worms discussing the effects of encryption/obfuscation and the very fun idea of laws being freely broken with no way to stop it. Yeah, you're going to scare the average person and make them convinced that whatever it is you want, it is scary and their senator better stop you from having it. As someone hoping to see ACTA and its ilk die a fiery death, I ask you never talk about them to any non-techie.
You do have the argument that bad/reckless drivers put themselves at risk*, therefore the statistic of concern is the change in safety for innocent drivers. At the least, that would be the number I would be interested in before handing control of my car to a computer (although I would hope the worst drivers would convert sooner). Of course, it is likely the biggest safety concern for good drivers is the bad drivers so the breaking point may not quite put the AI better than a good driver, but it wouldn't set the status quo at the level of the idiot driver.
*Yes, the bad driver's life is important, but if we save 5 bad drivers from themselves but kill 4 good drivers I wouldn't call it an improvement. I don't want to penalize good drivers any more than bad drivers already do.
You have a big problem with your analogy: scribes and printing presses didn't create content, they just copied it. As their function gets superseded by better technology, it only makes sense that they go obsolete, as they have no real benefit to society (beyond any claims of the quality of the old format). At no point along that line were the ones CREATING the content losing their business model, they just change what kind of copies they sell. Today, we have digital distribution models with MP3 stores and E-books, making traditional publishers obsolete. But with digital copies being easy to perfectly reproduce, this is the first time a change in reproduction methods truly gives the average person the ability to distribute on a similar level as a corporation.
While I don't expect the abolishment of copyright would create much loss in terms of creators deciding not to make something because they don't stand to profit, I do expect significant loss due to creators not being able to devote as much time to their work (or devoting that time anyway at personal expense, sacrificing quality). Admittedly this is speculation, but I would think those making games for Humble Indy Bundles are motivated to sacrifice a little more to polish up their games knowing the past success of the program, knowing that there is likely a good payday ahead (i.e. they can afford to take a well-deserved break). That extra quality would not be there if people just freely copied. The model still depends on (enough) people acting the same as though copyright were in full force. Keep in mind name-your-price and freely piratable sales are the exception, not the norm, so we do not know yet how successful the model is in the long run.
Okay, so we can't know if repealing copyright works (it might) without trying it, but there's no going back once that happens. Yes, more content can be produced building off of otherwise copyrighted works, but that impact is severely reduced if copyright is brought back to a reasonable duration (if we're talking about a world where we can abolish copyright, it is one where we can make copyright more sane). We have good reason to believe things will be pretty good with sane copyright, compared to the unknown land of abolished copyright. Either way you argue, it is all assumptions and no hard facts as to which is better. If we could set copyright however we wanted, I would feel abolishment would risk losing too much for too little potential gain. I understand many will disagree with that, and I can't do much about it, but I figure putting my logic out there at least helps further rational discussion on the topic.
Yes, the ability to enforce copyright is quickly becoming difficult to do, but copyright going obsolete is more because society increasingly ignores copyright. The way to address that isn't to clamp down on copyright, but to lighten up and raise discussion. However tautological, this therefore isn't a moot discussion.
You can contact Ford here. Especially those of you who own a Ford vehicle should consider writing to them. I doubt enough people would write to them to make a difference, but in the event that Ford did switch I think it would be a huge boost for us, as that would do a lot to kill the argument that the bill protects American workers and productivity.
I have a Ford Focus I am very happy with, but I'm writing to Ford to let them know if SOPA passes I won't be buying Ford again (of course my Focus is only a year old though, so I can't say I'm going out an purchasing a Toyota next week). GoDaddy was an easy company to boycott, but make it clear you intend to vote with your wallet when it comes to any of these companies. Plus, as we've seen with GoDaddy, companies really do consider the opinions of their consumers, at least more-so than congressmen (who seem to ignore us entirely). Yes, those who care about SOPA are quite a minority of Ford customers compared to GoDaddy, but it doesn't take much time to make your voice heard.
I would love to see other countries speak out against the US on this. I wish we could get economic sanctions from passing a law like this. If you aren't American maybe it's at least something to write to your representatives and ask them to release a statement against the US about this, or even seek to take action (such as push to end the lopsided power we wield over the internet). Sure, some Canadian politician writing a complaint to the US might not mean much, but if said complaint is signed by dozens, and similar occurs in many European countries, at the very least the American public might realize SOPA is a big deal.
Can you clarify your argument? How is your computer at risk because its closed-source virus scanner had its source code released, as opposed to using open-source from the get-go? Yes, maybe the closed-source program has easy exploits that wouldn't exist in open-source, but until such an exploit becomes news I don't see what you are getting at.
When you mentioned the broadband rollout scam I came up with a potential solution that could stop that from happening any more:
Any company benefitting* by $X or more from the government has to have a top executive testify to congress their overall plan to use the money. For example, if the ISPs did this and didn't mention the "make shell corp. and pocket the money" strategy, the executive would have lied to congress and face jail time. Not that the lobbyists would allow such a law...
*I say benefitting so it isn't just the company directly getting the money, to avoid the shell game as much as possible.
Your original argument was basically copyright abuse is part and parcel with copyright. But your support is that a corrupt(able) government enacting regulation is part and parcel with abuse of said regulations, which not the same thing. Yes, I am arguing more toward ideals than what happens in practice. I still stand by what I said.
No, it is not a feature of copyright. In a typical monopoly, they control the market so they can define the terms as they see fit. Copyright, on the other hand, is a contract between the public and private entities, so the private entities don't get to abuse copyright as they wish. Now, we all know that isn't the case, becuase the government, representing the public, all too often lets itself become controlled by those private entities and allows abuse. So no, the problem is not with copyright but with our government.
TL/DR: my thesis is "if someone makes your life better, and you have the means, you should reciprocate".
I'm not so much trying to write a direct rebuttal here so much as explain my logic better. I don't claim to have a perfect position and I recognize that, so I appreciate a chance to better analyze the consistency of my views.
I said copyrighted work because the set of things that make sense to give the right to copy to the creator are largely the same as the set of things that are copyrightable. I'm not drawing upon the legal framework so much as the initial reasoning that created the laws in the first place. I understand for a thorough argument I should be more clear, but to keep it simple I treated the two sets as equivalent. I will continue to use copyright to refer to the concept for the sake of simplicity, but I certainly agree copyright law is an abomonation
Now, there doesn't seem to be a good reason why fashion isn't copyrightable other than it being the tradition of the industry apparently. While I feel that is a gap in copyright law, I also feel that it doesn't make sense to apply copyright as-is to fashion. I feel the weight of the moral issue of copying someone's work (against their wishes) depends on the amount of time, effort and "genious" to create it. Against that you have to balance the issue of holding those creations out of others' hands seemingly arbitrarily (with increasing time making this a stronger factor). We have a uniform legal concept of copyright, but I tend to agree with other posts suggesting copyright should work differently depending on the kind of work.
I guess I'll try to explain my line of thought this way: If I take a photograph of a tree and try to sell copies, then you come along and take a photograph of the same tree, it is fine for you to sell your own copies. It would not be okay for you to make copies of my photograph and then sell those copies (if I claimed copyright (the right to copy)). If I make a painting of the tree and you make your own painting of the tree, you can sell copies of your own painting, even if you tried to imitate mine. Now, if you make copies of my painting and try to sell that, we once again have an issue. The logic is that the morality hinges on the fact that I am doing some creative work, and it doesn't make sense for you to profit from my creative work. It is important to distinguish the creativity of, say, composing a work from that of performing the work.
Going with the music idea here: if I compose a song and you want to perform it, we both have a creative effort involved. If you perform the song it would be immoral for you to refuse giving me just compensation should I declare copyright (the value of "just" a whole different argument, no time for that). At the same time, I feel it would be immoral for me to tell you that you cannot perform my song (i.e. prevent you from creating a creative work of your own). It would also be immoral for me to try to sell recordings of your performance. I suppose a result of my logic here is that licensing terms for people to make derivative works should be set automatically, as the author should not have the right to lock their work down completely (otherwise they shouldn't release the work at all).
The chair argument gets harder for me to work out cleanly - if I make an ornate chair design and you make a chair loosely inspired by the design, you've put in enough creative effort it may be more your design than mine, in which case I might not deserve any copyright claim (although it would be immoral for you to claim you made up the design entirely by yourself, credit may be due). If you tried your best to make a copy of my chair (and do a good enough imitation that you don't have much of your own style in it), I feel a copyright claim would be justified. Part of the value of something that was designed is in the fact that people usually have a distinct enough style that an artist's work can be recognizable as theirs, so it gets hard to make anywhere ne
There was a recent EPA report that found water was contaminated by fracking. Yes, it's just one report, but it has only been a recent issue* so we will have to see as more studies are done. I won't claim fracking needs to be stopped immediately, but I'm not about to support the practice without more time for research.
*So far as I am aware, they only relatively recently started fracking horizontally, the "for decades" claim people love to use seems misleading.
Hey, if I randomly pull the pegs out of this Jenga tower one at a time there won't be as much of it to fall down all at once!
Sure, the "break the Big One into little ones" theory sounds plausible to me, but if we still don't stand a chance at predicting quakes I think it's safe to say we wouldn't have a goddamn clue what we're doing trying to defuse one.
It's immoral for the same reason it is immoral to give the finger to someone holding the door open for you. If someone is providing a service for you*, you should be respectful. If someone produces a copyrighted work and expects to be compensated by anyone that wants a copy, you should respect his wishes and pay him if you want that copy (i.e. if you use his services). Sure, you aren't sending a profane email to the copyright holder, but it isn't far from it (just ask a waiter what a lack of a tip says to them).
*Within reason, obviously people who wash your windows and then ask for compensation aren't really trying to provide a service. No, copyright holders aren't in the practice of covertly putting their works on your computer and then demanding payment.
My point was that he's accusing the other guy of doing exactly what he's doing. Whether they're valid points or not I'm trying to draw attention (faceciously) to the blind "my side is all right your side is all wrong" back-and-forth we are getting in this "discussion". I don't want to get mired in this OWS/TP debate (I have agreements and issues with both sides), but I would like to see people debate more honestly and rationally, hence my post that didn't take sides and generically applies to many posts on either side of this debate.
Slashdot Mirror
IwantMyLawyerImNotTalkingToYouPigs
That's IwantMyLawyerI'mNotTalkingToYouPigs. Learn to spell.
We aren't looking to take action Armageddeon-style at the last minute. There are two factors to keep in mind: the likely solutions will involve moving the asteroid over time, so the sooner we get started doing that, the better. Second: we have to get our solution to the asteroid, which is probably easiest when it is close to earth (delta-v might be greater depending on the orbit, but preventing disaster may allow a large budget for rocket fuel). Those 18 months might not be adding to a 26 year window but a coulple of years, depending on the required timing of everything.
Be sure to write to your state's AG, get enough complaints against a company and he may jump on the chance for popular headlines. He isn't subject to arbitration clauses.
Like they say, "If life gives you lemons, stop buying GM".
Very, very bad idea. The moment congress sees that number they will start drafting a budget to use every penny of it. Then, when Disney doesn't renew (either due to not having the money, or lobbying to get the law changed again), congress will make a big show of cutting their budget by half. Do you realize how big of a problem we will have when the government puts us 10 septillion dollars in debt in one year? You better learn to think through to their logical conclusion.
He is simply asking that we stick to facts instead of hyperbole. Nowhere in your citations do I see anything about artists being given a 0.000001% cut of the profits, but rather that their cut is decieving due to all the advances and fees that get deducted. Yes, an artist that barely paid all that off might actually wind up with 0.000001% of overall profits, but without the explanation it is misleading, especially as the original post was referring to Whitney Houston, who is not a good example of a typical musician.
Yes, he was wrong about "Disney copyrights" being off the mark, but he's right to call out "0.000001%" as dishonest. You say that, and RIAA & Co. can say "no, it says right here in their contract they get 20%" (or whatever cut). You say they never see their cut due to (specified) dishonest accounting tricks, and now you have an argument that makes RIAA shills squirm.
NB: going into blind hate mode against someone that is just asking for the facts to speak for themselves makes you look bad in exactly the way he was warning against.
I realize I'm way late posting, but I bet the extreme security measures aren't being taken because they expect the risk of attack to be so high, but because it is a good chance for them to get some experience at both the logistical and operational experience of running such a large security operation. Think of it as practice for the next time we host the Olympics.
*whoosh*
I'll say it again: the original question was how to get the average person to side with you. My whole point is that you are relying on details and a good understanding of related topics in order for people to follow your argument. The idea with the over-the-top murder analogy is to picture making that argument to the average person, and picture their response.
I have no idea what you thought my post was about. At no point did I disagree with your argument.
(Bear with me)
Facts:
1. People have a tendency to kill other people.
2. This wasn't as much of an issue back when we had crude weapons.
3. Weapons today make it trivial to kill people.
4. You can easily kill people remotely, making the murderer hard to notice by anyone.
Conclusion:
1. Anyone can freely kill anyone else.
2. Laws against murder are not enforceable anymore.
The average person is against murder, so the painting the above (extreme) picture to them will bring them to the conlcusion "That's why we need (have) strong laws!". If your average person supports copyright in the belief that it protects our economy, your explanation of how the internet breaks copyright will bring them to the conclusion "That's why we need strong laws".
Avoiding the debate over the pros and cons of copyright, the question is to explain SOPA, ACTA in terms that would get the typical person on your side. Apparently your solution is to open a whole new can of worms discussing the effects of encryption/obfuscation and the very fun idea of laws being freely broken with no way to stop it. Yeah, you're going to scare the average person and make them convinced that whatever it is you want, it is scary and their senator better stop you from having it. As someone hoping to see ACTA and its ilk die a fiery death, I ask you never talk about them to any non-techie.
You do have the argument that bad/reckless drivers put themselves at risk*, therefore the statistic of concern is the change in safety for innocent drivers. At the least, that would be the number I would be interested in before handing control of my car to a computer (although I would hope the worst drivers would convert sooner). Of course, it is likely the biggest safety concern for good drivers is the bad drivers so the breaking point may not quite put the AI better than a good driver, but it wouldn't set the status quo at the level of the idiot driver.
*Yes, the bad driver's life is important, but if we save 5 bad drivers from themselves but kill 4 good drivers I wouldn't call it an improvement. I don't want to penalize good drivers any more than bad drivers already do.
You have a big problem with your analogy: scribes and printing presses didn't create content, they just copied it. As their function gets superseded by better technology, it only makes sense that they go obsolete, as they have no real benefit to society (beyond any claims of the quality of the old format). At no point along that line were the ones CREATING the content losing their business model, they just change what kind of copies they sell. Today, we have digital distribution models with MP3 stores and E-books, making traditional publishers obsolete. But with digital copies being easy to perfectly reproduce, this is the first time a change in reproduction methods truly gives the average person the ability to distribute on a similar level as a corporation.
While I don't expect the abolishment of copyright would create much loss in terms of creators deciding not to make something because they don't stand to profit, I do expect significant loss due to creators not being able to devote as much time to their work (or devoting that time anyway at personal expense, sacrificing quality). Admittedly this is speculation, but I would think those making games for Humble Indy Bundles are motivated to sacrifice a little more to polish up their games knowing the past success of the program, knowing that there is likely a good payday ahead (i.e. they can afford to take a well-deserved break). That extra quality would not be there if people just freely copied. The model still depends on (enough) people acting the same as though copyright were in full force. Keep in mind name-your-price and freely piratable sales are the exception, not the norm, so we do not know yet how successful the model is in the long run.
Okay, so we can't know if repealing copyright works (it might) without trying it, but there's no going back once that happens. Yes, more content can be produced building off of otherwise copyrighted works, but that impact is severely reduced if copyright is brought back to a reasonable duration (if we're talking about a world where we can abolish copyright, it is one where we can make copyright more sane). We have good reason to believe things will be pretty good with sane copyright, compared to the unknown land of abolished copyright. Either way you argue, it is all assumptions and no hard facts as to which is better. If we could set copyright however we wanted, I would feel abolishment would risk losing too much for too little potential gain. I understand many will disagree with that, and I can't do much about it, but I figure putting my logic out there at least helps further rational discussion on the topic.
Yes, the ability to enforce copyright is quickly becoming difficult to do, but copyright going obsolete is more because society increasingly ignores copyright. The way to address that isn't to clamp down on copyright, but to lighten up and raise discussion. However tautological, this therefore isn't a moot discussion.
You can contact Ford here. Especially those of you who own a Ford vehicle should consider writing to them. I doubt enough people would write to them to make a difference, but in the event that Ford did switch I think it would be a huge boost for us, as that would do a lot to kill the argument that the bill protects American workers and productivity.
I have a Ford Focus I am very happy with, but I'm writing to Ford to let them know if SOPA passes I won't be buying Ford again (of course my Focus is only a year old though, so I can't say I'm going out an purchasing a Toyota next week). GoDaddy was an easy company to boycott, but make it clear you intend to vote with your wallet when it comes to any of these companies. Plus, as we've seen with GoDaddy, companies really do consider the opinions of their consumers, at least more-so than congressmen (who seem to ignore us entirely). Yes, those who care about SOPA are quite a minority of Ford customers compared to GoDaddy, but it doesn't take much time to make your voice heard.
I would love to see other countries speak out against the US on this. I wish we could get economic sanctions from passing a law like this. If you aren't American maybe it's at least something to write to your representatives and ask them to release a statement against the US about this, or even seek to take action (such as push to end the lopsided power we wield over the internet). Sure, some Canadian politician writing a complaint to the US might not mean much, but if said complaint is signed by dozens, and similar occurs in many European countries, at the very least the American public might realize SOPA is a big deal.
Can you clarify your argument? How is your computer at risk because its closed-source virus scanner had its source code released, as opposed to using open-source from the get-go? Yes, maybe the closed-source program has easy exploits that wouldn't exist in open-source, but until such an exploit becomes news I don't see what you are getting at.
When you mentioned the broadband rollout scam I came up with a potential solution that could stop that from happening any more:
Any company benefitting* by $X or more from the government has to have a top executive testify to congress their overall plan to use the money. For example, if the ISPs did this and didn't mention the "make shell corp. and pocket the money" strategy, the executive would have lied to congress and face jail time. Not that the lobbyists would allow such a law...
*I say benefitting so it isn't just the company directly getting the money, to avoid the shell game as much as possible.
Your original argument was basically copyright abuse is part and parcel with copyright. But your support is that a corrupt(able) government enacting regulation is part and parcel with abuse of said regulations, which not the same thing. Yes, I am arguing more toward ideals than what happens in practice. I still stand by what I said.
Did the people do it knowingly
So you're asking if the people who admitted to pirating content know whether they've pirated content? And you are expecting some of them to say "No"?
No, it is not a feature of copyright. In a typical monopoly, they control the market so they can define the terms as they see fit. Copyright, on the other hand, is a contract between the public and private entities, so the private entities don't get to abuse copyright as they wish. Now, we all know that isn't the case, becuase the government, representing the public, all too often lets itself become controlled by those private entities and allows abuse. So no, the problem is not with copyright but with our government.
TL/DR: my thesis is "if someone makes your life better, and you have the means, you should reciprocate".
I'm not so much trying to write a direct rebuttal here so much as explain my logic better. I don't claim to have a perfect position and I recognize that, so I appreciate a chance to better analyze the consistency of my views.
I said copyrighted work because the set of things that make sense to give the right to copy to the creator are largely the same as the set of things that are copyrightable. I'm not drawing upon the legal framework so much as the initial reasoning that created the laws in the first place. I understand for a thorough argument I should be more clear, but to keep it simple I treated the two sets as equivalent. I will continue to use copyright to refer to the concept for the sake of simplicity, but I certainly agree copyright law is an abomonation
Now, there doesn't seem to be a good reason why fashion isn't copyrightable other than it being the tradition of the industry apparently. While I feel that is a gap in copyright law, I also feel that it doesn't make sense to apply copyright as-is to fashion. I feel the weight of the moral issue of copying someone's work (against their wishes) depends on the amount of time, effort and "genious" to create it. Against that you have to balance the issue of holding those creations out of others' hands seemingly arbitrarily (with increasing time making this a stronger factor). We have a uniform legal concept of copyright, but I tend to agree with other posts suggesting copyright should work differently depending on the kind of work.
I guess I'll try to explain my line of thought this way: If I take a photograph of a tree and try to sell copies, then you come along and take a photograph of the same tree, it is fine for you to sell your own copies. It would not be okay for you to make copies of my photograph and then sell those copies (if I claimed copyright (the right to copy)). If I make a painting of the tree and you make your own painting of the tree, you can sell copies of your own painting, even if you tried to imitate mine. Now, if you make copies of my painting and try to sell that, we once again have an issue. The logic is that the morality hinges on the fact that I am doing some creative work, and it doesn't make sense for you to profit from my creative work. It is important to distinguish the creativity of, say, composing a work from that of performing the work.
Going with the music idea here: if I compose a song and you want to perform it, we both have a creative effort involved. If you perform the song it would be immoral for you to refuse giving me just compensation should I declare copyright (the value of "just" a whole different argument, no time for that). At the same time, I feel it would be immoral for me to tell you that you cannot perform my song (i.e. prevent you from creating a creative work of your own). It would also be immoral for me to try to sell recordings of your performance. I suppose a result of my logic here is that licensing terms for people to make derivative works should be set automatically, as the author should not have the right to lock their work down completely (otherwise they shouldn't release the work at all).
The chair argument gets harder for me to work out cleanly - if I make an ornate chair design and you make a chair loosely inspired by the design, you've put in enough creative effort it may be more your design than mine, in which case I might not deserve any copyright claim (although it would be immoral for you to claim you made up the design entirely by yourself, credit may be due). If you tried your best to make a copy of my chair (and do a good enough imitation that you don't have much of your own style in it), I feel a copyright claim would be justified. Part of the value of something that was designed is in the fact that people usually have a distinct enough style that an artist's work can be recognizable as theirs, so it gets hard to make anywhere ne
There was a recent EPA report that found water was contaminated by fracking. Yes, it's just one report, but it has only been a recent issue* so we will have to see as more studies are done. I won't claim fracking needs to be stopped immediately, but I'm not about to support the practice without more time for research.
*So far as I am aware, they only relatively recently started fracking horizontally, the "for decades" claim people love to use seems misleading.
Hey, if I randomly pull the pegs out of this Jenga tower one at a time there won't be as much of it to fall down all at once!
Sure, the "break the Big One into little ones" theory sounds plausible to me, but if we still don't stand a chance at predicting quakes I think it's safe to say we wouldn't have a goddamn clue what we're doing trying to defuse one.
It's immoral for the same reason it is immoral to give the finger to someone holding the door open for you. If someone is providing a service for you*, you should be respectful. If someone produces a copyrighted work and expects to be compensated by anyone that wants a copy, you should respect his wishes and pay him if you want that copy (i.e. if you use his services). Sure, you aren't sending a profane email to the copyright holder, but it isn't far from it (just ask a waiter what a lack of a tip says to them).
*Within reason, obviously people who wash your windows and then ask for compensation aren't really trying to provide a service. No, copyright holders aren't in the practice of covertly putting their works on your computer and then demanding payment.
My point was that he's accusing the other guy of doing exactly what he's doing. Whether they're valid points or not I'm trying to draw attention (faceciously) to the blind "my side is all right your side is all wrong" back-and-forth we are getting in this "discussion". I don't want to get mired in this OWS/TP debate (I have agreements and issues with both sides), but I would like to see people debate more honestly and rationally, hence my post that didn't take sides and generically applies to many posts on either side of this debate.
(somewhat simplified, idealistic description of the "other side")
Wrong. (Biased caricature of "other side").
(Biased caricature of "my side")
Wrong. (Insult for using biased caricature of "my side"). (More biased caricature of "other side").
How was this modded up?