In a way I kind of agree with you, but the moe I think about it, tough shit. You have no right to make money on the internet. If you can good for you, but we don't have to make it easy. Furthermore, it's pretty simple, if you play with fire, expect to get burned occasionally. I'm not saying I agree with anyone copying your text and placing it on their site as their own, but I can't say that I really care either. Corporate rights on the internet are not a big concern of mine, and never will be.
3.) You can trap the right mouse button so that an error box comes up that says 'Please do not link to this page, send them to the home page instead.' Being polite about it, like that, would be useful in preventing somebody from doing something you don't want them
Useless. Turn off javascript and you're powerless. In fact everyway that would prevent deep links is circumventable (I don't think that's spelled right;)) just use the right browser. The openness of the internet is it's strength, it's very difficult to stop someone from doing something they are determined to do. It really pisses me off that, although the government started the net, it was the hackers, computer geeks, usenet posters ect. that made it strong. And now corporations want to jump on something we built and take over. That's bullshit.
Exactly, they have no right telling me I can't tell someone else about information on their site, and provide them with a method to get there. It's usually not a good idea to draw an analogy with RL but here goes anyway: You own a resort on an island, I own a boat. Someone asks me where they can go stay for a couple of days and relax. I point out your resort, and tell them they can use my boat to get there. What's the difference.
If there's concern on the website's part about internal linking, don't allow access to internal pages. If they're too lazy or stupid to prevent internal linking, tough. Don't expect the law to do it for you.
I wish I could understand where the Us vs. Them mentality comes into play. I mean your average citizen wants to maintain their privacy, for the most part, they want to trade mp3's ect. Fill in any law that get's tons of people up in arms. The people who run the government are ordinary people too, how can they not understand that the evil they sometimes spread is wrong. You're not even talking about mob mentality here, your talking about some laws that make no sense and are just plain wrong. And they seem to think it's a good idea. I'm going to have to assume it's monetarily motivated, no other explanation makes sense (or no other explanation that's not to horrible in my mind to vocalize).
The second question, although I think I know the answer is how do these laws continue to get passed. It's almost as if we (in the US) don't really have the power to influence our government. Things get passed and there's nothing we can do. You can blame apathy, but does that really work? The voice of the irritated minority gets louder when most people are apathetic. Mob mentality? What?
Second that. I have my doubts that a national id card would help, and would definitley fall into my personal definition of invasion of privacy. I certainly don't want the incompetents that currently fuck up the system to have access to stronger weapons. Hell look at the people who work for the government, do you want them in charge of YOUR identity.
Oh yeah boycott the boycott of the boycott of the Great Slashdot Blackout.
I didn't say I expected them to go away. I would just prefer if they did. Most of there money seems to be coming out of my pocket.
Though it does bug me that speed limits are kept low through the efforts of insurance lobbyists. It's not for the sake of safety, it's been shown that the speed limit doesn't make a big difference in accident rates, in fact in some cases the raising the speed limit has resulted in less accidents. Nor am I happy that the same rules apply to different classes of vehicles. On a motorcycle I am much safer at high speeds than a car, and vice versa in an SUV. It's basically an artificial way to create a crime to generate revenue.
If they want to do that fine, but how about this, allow a high speed license, you can still limit it , but set it higher for those that took the advanced driving course, renew their license every year, and pay extra for the privilege. Then you get my money every year, regardless of whether or not I get caught, plus you can still nail people who are speeding without the license. It's a pipe dream I know, but it's mine;)
Anyway what I was trying to point out your taxes aren't earmarked for any particular thing than mine are. You can say how much of my our money goes to specific things. If the government had to keep that kind of accounting they'd have to triple taxes just to afford to do that much more work. Besides the fact that if you divvied it up, you'd probably find that a miniscule percentage of you money goes toward any one particular thing. Personally there's a lot of things that my taxes pay for that I don't like, I get raped while people with kids get a break, I get raped because I make too much money to write off my tuition, welfare, ect. But the amount of money I pay probably is well short of the amount needed to fund those things that I do want, national defense, FDIC, ect. Same as everyone else.
You are a dumb ass. Hunting down car thieves lowers the probability that your car will get stolen. Just the fact that it's been done once helps you out. I don't want my tax dollars paying for cops sitting on the road with a radar gun, however I do want them to continue getting real criminals off of the street. Guess what, that's the beauty of the tax system, you can pretend that your money doesn't go to sting operations and I can pretend mine doesn't go to traffic cops.
I don't give a shit if he intended to commit the act or not. He saw an oppurtunity to commit a crime and took it. Fuck that if it's entrapment, someone that unstable deserves to be punished.
I've said this before, but that's a judgement call. Anyone could implant the seeds, the criminal (yes criminal) should have had enough sense not to commit the crime. It's still a crime regardless of whether or not an officer suggest it or a private citizen. I think ven the extreme case of a cop egging someone on to commit a crime makes any difference.
Officer: "come on kill that guy, you know you want to, come on kill him"
Citizen: (after ten minutes of being bugged) Oh ok.
I was expecting the same thing. People tend to cry entrapment whenever police come up with a way to catch them doing something illegal. I think the whole entrapment law is kinda fuzzy. If the cops leave something lying around and you steal it, your guilty of theft. Just because it was left by the police instead of a private citizen doesn't make you any less guilty.
Even better start a project to replace spyware binaries with benign, or even annoying replacements. Send them back total crap.
Of course that's where the DMCA and UCITA work together to fuck you up the ass as a consumer. EULA's are legally binding, you've allowed this software to exist on your machine, and the DMCA basically says you can do nothing about it. A company could even attempt to prosecute you for circumventing their protection schemes that prevent you from deleting the spyware. Corp's are rapidly jumping on the bandwagon to homestead my machine. If they want it, they have to pay for it.
I have a website on my box that says that by installing their software on my machine they must pay me $100 per hour that the process is running. what they didn't read it? That's too bad, this is my property, I set the rules.
there are certain rights you cannot waive, for example, you can't be legally bound to a stipulation in a contract that allows someone to kill you. In the case of software it's possible for a comapany to practically rape an end user because either 1) they didn't read the quasi legal EULA, 2) didn't understand the EULA. There are laws in this country expressly for preventing corporations, and individual, from unfairly taking advantage of people who are ignorant of certain facts. This should be no different. As more and more spyware get's installed on Joe Shmoe's computer, the value he's getting from the computer he just laid out his hard earned money gets progressively smaller. Using spare cycles is a deceptive term. I don't have spare cycles in my single processor machine. If you start firing off processes using "spare cycles" my machine slows down, it's as simple as that. The memory you're using is unavailable to me as well. Joe Schmoe, (I as well for that matter) did not pay for a computer to have spyware companies gradually take it over, regardless of an EULA.
This entire attitude is bordering on hypocrisy. The common reaction, of techies, to RL law being applied unchanged to the digital world usually erupts into cries of "The internet is not the real world, the existising laws don't fit". But your attitude is just the opposite. A contract is binding in RL, we'll assume a click thorugh is a real contract (regardless of the absurdness of this assumption) and apply RL laws to it.
Forget not knowing the language. What if I as a rule do not read little boxes that pop up on my screen. My procedure is to try clicking on the leftmost button (without reading it) if that doesn't seem to work start over and click the button next to that.
The point is click through licenses have no way to prove that the person who installed the software read any part of the license, that anyone using the software clicked through the licens, or even that the person who installed the software is the person who is in charge of that particular machine. The click through license should not be a legally binding contract. It's whole basis is on assumed consent. I could have my kid install all my software, click through, and not be legally bound as a minor.
If a software company wants to impose these ridiculous caveats on me, they should be required to get an actual contract, notarized, with my signature on it.
First take a few minutes to look up the word "shouldn't" in a dictionary. Then read my post and see that I said shouldn't not doesn't. And it was also in response to someone saying that all laws are legislating morality.
Besides I was pointing out that depending on your veiwpoint you can view laws as not moral decisions but pplitical ones. As for your example, go re-read your history. Lincoln didn't want to free the slaves, he had to to maintain his political goal to stay in power. It was a small but, strong abolotionist lobby group that forced him into it. A decision based on pragmatism with moral consequences does not make it a moral decision.
Your wrong. Perhaps because I didn't make the point clearly enough. Slavery like the others is a moral issue, but it's also a society issue. The decision to free the slaves, in this country was not a moral decision, it was a political one.
Regardless, holding someone against their will, no matte if you make them work or not still falls under my explanation. You don't want to be held against your will, neither do I so we ban slavery. It doesn't have to be about morality.
Besides I didn't say government DOESN'T try to legislate morality, only that it SHOULDN'T. As opposed to the person who said that that's ALL it does.
The government should not legislate morality. Yes murder, rape, ext. are illegal, because they have the practical effect of ruining the ability to maintain the civilization that we live in. We do not ban them because they are wrong, we ban them because even the most basic society can't survive when people are killing each other with impunity. So no those laws are not based on out collective morality, they are based on our collective wish to not be killed, raped, ect.
That's fine, AT THAT LEVEL OF GRANULARITY. It doesn't reflect content. It reflects broad enough categories that free speech isn't an issue, it's more of a tax category issue than anything else. And I'd have no problem if that scheme was stuck to. It's the step beyond that's proposed here that's the problem.
The problem is that you have no business deciding what level of protection minors need. You really have no business deciding they need ANY protection. That's up to their parents. Not you.
I agree, I don't want my site being forced into a prn category because it happens to show nudity. Especially if it's benign. Let me say this loudly to make it clear: IT'S NOT UP TO THE GOVERNMENT TO LEGISLATE MORALITY. Maybe I don't mind my children seeing nude women, I don't see a huge problem with them seeing playboy, in my mind it's not skanky, and there's nothing wrong with the human body, and if I'm willing to let my kids see that, there may be other parents who feel it's to let their kids see racier stuff. That's up to them, and between the two of us it's our responsibility to make sure that neither of our children see what we don't want them to.
How long until other categories are created,.subversive,.crackpot, ect? If this were to be done at all, then do it like usenet. alt.* could contain anything but prn.* would contain only porn. There should be a catchall tld for those who want it.
Slashdot Mirror
In a way I kind of agree with you, but the moe I think about it, tough shit. You have no right to make money on the internet. If you can good for you, but we don't have to make it easy. Furthermore, it's pretty simple, if you play with fire, expect to get burned occasionally. I'm not saying I agree with anyone copying your text and placing it on their site as their own, but I can't say that I really care either. Corporate rights on the internet are not a big concern of mine, and never will be.
Useless. Turn off javascript and you're powerless. In fact everyway that would prevent deep links is circumventable (I don't think that's spelled right
If there's concern on the website's part about internal linking, don't allow access to internal pages. If they're too lazy or stupid to prevent internal linking, tough. Don't expect the law to do it for you.
The second question, although I think I know the answer is how do these laws continue to get passed. It's almost as if we (in the US) don't really have the power to influence our government. Things get passed and there's nothing we can do. You can blame apathy, but does that really work? The voice of the irritated minority gets louder when most people are apathetic. Mob mentality? What?
I'm not disagreeing with your ideas just your ability to spell them. ;)
Second that. I have my doubts that a national id card would help, and would definitley fall into my personal definition of invasion of privacy. I certainly don't want the incompetents that currently fuck up the system to have access to stronger weapons. Hell look at the people who work for the government, do you want them in charge of YOUR identity.
Oh yeah boycott the boycott of the boycott of the Great Slashdot Blackout.
Though it does bug me that speed limits are kept low through the efforts of insurance lobbyists. It's not for the sake of safety, it's been shown that the speed limit doesn't make a big difference in accident rates, in fact in some cases the raising the speed limit has resulted in less accidents. Nor am I happy that the same rules apply to different classes of vehicles. On a motorcycle I am much safer at high speeds than a car, and vice versa in an SUV. It's basically an artificial way to create a crime to generate revenue.
If they want to do that fine, but how about this, allow a high speed license, you can still limit it , but set it higher for those that took the advanced driving course, renew their license every year, and pay extra for the privilege. Then you get my money every year, regardless of whether or not I get caught, plus you can still nail people who are speeding without the license. It's a pipe dream I know, but it's mine ;)
Anyway what I was trying to point out your taxes aren't earmarked for any particular thing than mine are. You can say how much of my our money goes to specific things. If the government had to keep that kind of accounting they'd have to triple taxes just to afford to do that much more work. Besides the fact that if you divvied it up, you'd probably find that a miniscule percentage of you money goes toward any one particular thing. Personally there's a lot of things that my taxes pay for that I don't like, I get raped while people with kids get a break, I get raped because I make too much money to write off my tuition, welfare, ect. But the amount of money I pay probably is well short of the amount needed to fund those things that I do want, national defense, FDIC, ect. Same as everyone else.
Fair enough ;) But that's a whole lot different than entrapment. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want that guy walking the streets.
In a word. Yes.
In four. What a stupid question.
You are a dumb ass. Hunting down car thieves lowers the probability that your car will get stolen. Just the fact that it's been done once helps you out. I don't want my tax dollars paying for cops sitting on the road with a radar gun, however I do want them to continue getting real criminals off of the street. Guess what, that's the beauty of the tax system, you can pretend that your money doesn't go to sting operations and I can pretend mine doesn't go to traffic cops.
I don't give a shit if he intended to commit the act or not. He saw an oppurtunity to commit a crime and took it. Fuck that if it's entrapment, someone that unstable deserves to be punished.
Officer: "come on kill that guy, you know you want to, come on kill him"
Citizen: (after ten minutes of being bugged) Oh ok.
(In court)
Citizen: it way entrapment your honor
Judge: you fucking killed somebody dumbass
I was expecting the same thing. People tend to cry entrapment whenever police come up with a way to catch them doing something illegal. I think the whole entrapment law is kinda fuzzy. If the cops leave something lying around and you steal it, your guilty of theft. Just because it was left by the police instead of a private citizen doesn't make you any less guilty.
Things have got to come to a head. Eventually the government is going to start passing laws that make people finally stand up and just say no.
Of course that's where the DMCA and UCITA work together to fuck you up the ass as a consumer. EULA's are legally binding, you've allowed this software to exist on your machine, and the DMCA basically says you can do nothing about it. A company could even attempt to prosecute you for circumventing their protection schemes that prevent you from deleting the spyware. Corp's are rapidly jumping on the bandwagon to homestead my machine. If they want it, they have to pay for it.
I have a website on my box that says that by installing their software on my machine they must pay me $100 per hour that the process is running. what they didn't read it? That's too bad, this is my property, I set the rules.
This entire attitude is bordering on hypocrisy. The common reaction, of techies, to RL law being applied unchanged to the digital world usually erupts into cries of "The internet is not the real world, the existising laws don't fit". But your attitude is just the opposite. A contract is binding in RL, we'll assume a click thorugh is a real contract (regardless of the absurdness of this assumption) and apply RL laws to it.
The point is click through licenses have no way to prove that the person who installed the software read any part of the license, that anyone using the software clicked through the licens, or even that the person who installed the software is the person who is in charge of that particular machine. The click through license should not be a legally binding contract. It's whole basis is on assumed consent. I could have my kid install all my software, click through, and not be legally bound as a minor.
If a software company wants to impose these ridiculous caveats on me, they should be required to get an actual contract, notarized, with my signature on it.
Besides I was pointing out that depending on your veiwpoint you can view laws as not moral decisions but pplitical ones. As for your example, go re-read your history. Lincoln didn't want to free the slaves, he had to to maintain his political goal to stay in power. It was a small but, strong abolotionist lobby group that forced him into it. A decision based on pragmatism with moral consequences does not make it a moral decision.
Not me, I'm amazed that Katz can use a computer. OR that he's even allowed to. ;)
Regardless, holding someone against their will, no matte if you make them work or not still falls under my explanation. You don't want to be held against your will, neither do I so we ban slavery. It doesn't have to be about morality.
Besides I didn't say government DOESN'T try to legislate morality, only that it SHOULDN'T. As opposed to the person who said that that's ALL it does.
Not having a real dictionary on me this is from
here since it was handy:
"Granularity is the relative size, scale, level of detail, or depth of penetration that characterizes an object or activity"
The government should not legislate morality. Yes murder, rape, ext. are illegal, because they have the practical effect of ruining the ability to maintain the civilization that we live in. We do not ban them because they are wrong, we ban them because even the most basic society can't survive when people are killing each other with impunity. So no those laws are not based on out collective morality, they are based on our collective wish to not be killed, raped, ect.
That's fine, AT THAT LEVEL OF GRANULARITY. It doesn't reflect content. It reflects broad enough categories that free speech isn't an issue, it's more of a tax category issue than anything else. And I'd have no problem if that scheme was stuck to. It's the step beyond that's proposed here that's the problem.
The problem is that you have no business deciding what level of protection minors need. You really have no business deciding they need ANY protection. That's up to their parents. Not you.
How long until other categories are created,