Well, that's just great. Now in order to respond to you, I have to expand on your car analogy.
His point is that they are driving around with a FUBARed car and don't give a damn that it is a threat to themselves or others. They are in effect driving around with their radio turned way up so they can't hear their brakes squeal and grind as the exposed rivets in their pads write "01010101" repeatedly into their rotors as they careen towards a school zone with kids in the crosswalk.
I'm tempted to reply "... and Windows is the OS for people to stupid to figure out Linux", but I'm not feeling quite that snarky at the moment. Honestly, folks, Linux isn't that difficult.
If you happen to happen to favor Windows, fine, so be it. Just don't assume that Linux is as hard for everyone else as it is for you.
FWIW, I just spent a chunk of this past weekend working on a friend's Win XP box, removing viruses and trojans, editing useless, orphaned crap out of the registry, minimizing the amount of crap launched at system startup, and various other tuning and tweaking. Say what you will about the time to run a Linux box, but I've never had to devote that much time to getting any kind of *nix system un-fubarred, and I've worked on more than a few.
I apologize in advance, but just so you know, I'm going to plagiarize that story and "That's the longest it's ever gone without a crash" for the rest of my life. Frickin' hilarious.
That's funny. Paying $15 for a drink would make you a laughingstock in the social circles I run in.
Sing it with me now!! "'Cause I've got friends in low places
Where the whiskey drowns
And the beer chases my blues away
And I'll be okay
I'm not big on social graces
Think I'll slip on down to the oasis
Oh, I've got friends in low places
That would not be "making available" said copyrighted content. So far, we've yet to see the RIAA chase anything like that or even show serious interest in trying.
"Yet."
[tinfoil_hat]
The RIAA et al hunt the low-hanging fruit. This proposed change could shift downloaders into the low-hanging spectrum. Who is to say they wouldn't try then? If they did try, they might not get anywhere, but they might make some people's lives hell in the meantime.
[/tinfoil_hat]
Not exactly. Our solar system is one little tiny node that makes up part of one of the spiral arms, and we move with those arms as they rotate around the galactic center. As the arms move through space, they do encounter dust and gas. Most of the collision there is at the leading edge of the spiral arms, and can birth new stars. However, as we rotate around the center, we also wobble perpendicular to the galactic plane, oscillating back and forth (or up and down, if you prefer) from one side of the galactic plane to the other.
Not to mention a lapse on the part of the former principal. Although this would not seem to be a case of plagiarism per se, since he does not appear to be taking credit for someone else's work, his grasp of honesty and intellectual property rights should be advanced enough to prevent him from doing this. Legally bound or not, I think he was ethically bound not to republish without consent, and it shows enormously poor judgment for someone in his position. If the piece was inflammatory enough to result in death threats and the closure of a family business, he must have had some idea of how it would be received before he sent it in.
I'm not clear on whether the newspaper was complicit in publishing something they knew to be copyrighted. Did the principal send it in with a note that said 'Hey, I found this on the internet, thought you might like to publish it.', or did he simply send it in as if it came from her directly?
Some societal improvements come at the cost of privacy and freedom.
As members of society, we accept that no rights are absolute, and there is a need for balance and compromise. However, I believe (as did the founding fathers) that it is generally healthy to critique closely any attempt to restrict personal freedom.
The point being that those privacies are meaningless ones and freedoms provided no great quality (except to the ideologically driven).
I strongly disagree. Perhaps you would care to illustrate some of the "meaningless" freedoms you refer to?
Well, obviously it is having a adverse effect on this person.
I don't believe that.
It's your prerogative not to believe him, but the way I see it, if this person wants to move out of his country, something must be pushing him to do it. Perhaps not famine or war, but something significant nonetheless. You seem all about trading that which is of little value for that which is of high value... it seems to me that this guy is doing just that. He is looking to see if he can find an environment which will give him a reasonable degree of comfort and security without unduly infringing on his rights and freedoms. He is making a rational choice to seek a better balance of comfort and freedom.
Almost all such claims on the internet are from libertarian minded ideologues who are fighting for ideas, not real world benefits.
I call BS. You have conducted an exhaustive search of "all such claims on the internet"? You have ascertained that "almost" all of them come from "libertarian minded ideologues"? Are you positive that their ideas don't correlate with real world benefits? You're obviously exaggerating here, whether you're conscious of it or not.
You're as much of an ideologue as the "libertarians" you attack. Since your views seem to be those of a modern liberal, it would follow that you would perceive much of the rest of the world to be libertarian by comparison.
Freedom and liberty are only simple, one dimensional words to libertarians. They encompass much more than basic negative liberties to normal, everyday people (whether they consciously realise it or not).
And to authoritarians, "positive liberty" is an excuse to enforce their will on others because they say they know best.
Taken in a more pragmatic way, negative liberties (freedom of speech, freedom to peaceably assemble, etc) enable positive liberties, both at the personal level and within society (the freedom to march to protest Jim Crow laws). Infringing the negative liberties is the first step of a repressive government to suppress dissent, whether the beaten marchers are in Birmingham or in Tehran. If you can't accept that as wrong, I don't think we're going to find much common ground here.
What good is the freedom to own a gun when it is at the price of the freedom to live without fear.
That's a false choice. Living without a gun (or any guns, anywhere) does not equal living without fear, and living with a gun does not mean living with fear. The potential for violence exists regardless. In fact, data shows that being a weak target increases the likelihood of being victimized. Taken further, owning a gun (or having other suitable means of defense in a gunless world) can contribute to living with less fear, both as a deterrent and as a means of self-assurance.
You see what you want to see, not what is really there.
Right back at you.
By "the ideologically driven" you seem to mean "those who are driven by an ideology different than mine".
Practically speaking, what that means is that either a) a news web site will give everyone blanket permission to link to it, or b) they try deny all or most linkers, creating a headache for themselves as they attempt to track and sue the whole internet. Oh yeah, and with option b, their site folds within a year because of lack of traffic because no one other than their own employees has ever heard of them.
Trick question. The volume of what was termed a hogshead appears to be dependent on the contents. Please specify if you are looking for a hogshead of ale, wine, or tobacco.
It depends where the ideology came from. If it came from pragmatic intentions, then it'll have some real world applicability. What this person is describing doesn't sound that way.
Ensuring privacy and freedom does not need to conflict with pragmatic governance.
Yes, I'm saying that. There's nothing that's been done in the UK that's having any negative impact on peoples' quality of life. Just because someone's privacy or liberty is being limited, does not automatically mean it is hurting them. Judge each one on its practical merits, not on whether it conflicts with your ideology.
Well, obviously it is having a adverse effect on this person.
So? It's not the technology or infrastructure that's at fault, but the ideology. The same technologies and infrastructure exists in all modern societies. Throwing them away would be lunacy.
It's the same old libertarian logical failing as always. "Anything the government does might go bad! So don't do anything at all!"
Get real.
Calm down. I'm not arguing against government, I'm arguing that unfettered government and unprotected individual rights is a recipe for trouble, and history - as well as current events - bears the proof.
Then move to an anarchy and live a shit life, every day until you die, just so you can be sure that the government isn't going to do anything that they might be able to use against you if they turn bad.
Or alternatively you could live somewhere where you have a decent level of trust in your government and the country's political systems, and from there allow growing and evolving social and political systems to continue to improve your quality of life.
That's a false choice. There is no need to chose between a) wallowing in anarchy vs b) surrendering to your betters and trust that they will make your life comfy. Government can exist in a way that provides comfort, protection, and freedom.
A government that does not recognize it's citizens' rights to freedom is not worthy of their trust.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's just great. Now in order to respond to you, I have to expand on your car analogy.
His point is that they are driving around with a FUBARed car and don't give a damn that it is a threat to themselves or others. They are in effect driving around with their radio turned way up so they can't hear their brakes squeal and grind as the exposed rivets in their pads write "01010101" repeatedly into their rotors as they careen towards a school zone with kids in the crosswalk.
Won't someone please think of the children?
I'm tempted to reply " ... and Windows is the OS for people to stupid to figure out Linux", but I'm not feeling quite that snarky at the moment. Honestly, folks, Linux isn't that difficult.
If you happen to happen to favor Windows, fine, so be it. Just don't assume that Linux is as hard for everyone else as it is for you.
FWIW, I just spent a chunk of this past weekend working on a friend's Win XP box, removing viruses and trojans, editing useless, orphaned crap out of the registry, minimizing the amount of crap launched at system startup, and various other tuning and tweaking. Say what you will about the time to run a Linux box, but I've never had to devote that much time to getting any kind of *nix system un-fubarred, and I've worked on more than a few.
I apologize in advance, but just so you know, I'm going to plagiarize that story and "That's the longest it's ever gone without a crash" for the rest of my life. Frickin' hilarious.
That's funny. Paying $15 for a drink would make you a laughingstock in the social circles I run in.
Sing it with me now!!
"'Cause I've got friends in low places
Where the whiskey drowns
And the beer chases my blues away
And I'll be okay
I'm not big on social graces
Think I'll slip on down to the oasis
Oh, I've got friends in low places
Canadian voters wear uniforms? I never knew.
That would not be "making available" said copyrighted content. So far, we've yet to see the RIAA chase anything like that or even show serious interest in trying.
"Yet."
[tinfoil_hat]
The RIAA et al hunt the low-hanging fruit. This proposed change could shift downloaders into the low-hanging spectrum. Who is to say they wouldn't try then? If they did try, they might not get anywhere, but they might make some people's lives hell in the meantime.
[/tinfoil_hat]
I'm trying to picture the world after you save it this way. Children of the Corn? Lord of the Flies?
Not exactly. Our solar system is one little tiny node that makes up part of one of the spiral arms, and we move with those arms as they rotate around the galactic center. As the arms move through space, they do encounter dust and gas. Most of the collision there is at the leading edge of the spiral arms, and can birth new stars. However, as we rotate around the center, we also wobble perpendicular to the galactic plane, oscillating back and forth (or up and down, if you prefer) from one side of the galactic plane to the other.
Good point. I missed that.
Dear Coalinga,
Thanks for proving my rant accurate beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Sincerely,
- The 20something girl
PS: You still suck.
Not to mention a lapse on the part of the former principal. Although this would not seem to be a case of plagiarism per se, since he does not appear to be taking credit for someone else's work, his grasp of honesty and intellectual property rights should be advanced enough to prevent him from doing this. Legally bound or not, I think he was ethically bound not to republish without consent, and it shows enormously poor judgment for someone in his position. If the piece was inflammatory enough to result in death threats and the closure of a family business, he must have had some idea of how it would be received before he sent it in.
I'm not clear on whether the newspaper was complicit in publishing something they knew to be copyrighted. Did the principal send it in with a note that said 'Hey, I found this on the internet, thought you might like to publish it.', or did he simply send it in as if it came from her directly?
IANAL either, but yesterday it was asserted that there is implicit copyright to any published material.
in this judge's court. while you're at it, ask him again if the newspapers are the ones who need protection.
That's covered under "right to privacy".
Some societal improvements come at the cost of privacy and freedom.
As members of society, we accept that no rights are absolute, and there is a need for balance and compromise. However, I believe (as did the founding fathers) that it is generally healthy to critique closely any attempt to restrict personal freedom.
The point being that those privacies are meaningless ones and freedoms provided no great quality (except to the ideologically driven).
I strongly disagree. Perhaps you would care to illustrate some of the "meaningless" freedoms you refer to?
I don't believe that.
It's your prerogative not to believe him, but the way I see it, if this person wants to move out of his country, something must be pushing him to do it. Perhaps not famine or war, but something significant nonetheless. You seem all about trading that which is of little value for that which is of high value ... it seems to me that this guy is doing just that. He is looking to see if he can find an environment which will give him a reasonable degree of comfort and security without unduly infringing on his rights and freedoms. He is making a rational choice to seek a better balance of comfort and freedom.
Almost all such claims on the internet are from libertarian minded ideologues who are fighting for ideas, not real world benefits.
I call BS. You have conducted an exhaustive search of "all such claims on the internet"? You have ascertained that "almost" all of them come from "libertarian minded ideologues"? Are you positive that their ideas don't correlate with real world benefits? You're obviously exaggerating here, whether you're conscious of it or not.
You're as much of an ideologue as the "libertarians" you attack. Since your views seem to be those of a modern liberal, it would follow that you would perceive much of the rest of the world to be libertarian by comparison.
Freedom and liberty are only simple, one dimensional words to libertarians. They encompass much more than basic negative liberties to normal, everyday people (whether they consciously realise it or not).
And to authoritarians, "positive liberty" is an excuse to enforce their will on others because they say they know best.
Taken in a more pragmatic way, negative liberties (freedom of speech, freedom to peaceably assemble, etc) enable positive liberties, both at the personal level and within society (the freedom to march to protest Jim Crow laws). Infringing the negative liberties is the first step of a repressive government to suppress dissent, whether the beaten marchers are in Birmingham or in Tehran. If you can't accept that as wrong, I don't think we're going to find much common ground here.
What good is the freedom to own a gun when it is at the price of the freedom to live without fear.
That's a false choice. Living without a gun (or any guns, anywhere) does not equal living without fear, and living with a gun does not mean living with fear. The potential for violence exists regardless. In fact, data shows that being a weak target increases the likelihood of being victimized. Taken further, owning a gun (or having other suitable means of defense in a gunless world) can contribute to living with less fear, both as a deterrent and as a means of self-assurance.
You see what you want to see, not what is really there.
Right back at you.
By "the ideologically driven" you seem to mean "those who are driven by an ideology different than mine".
Pfft. Deletee kye? I never usses taht aneemore.
Or maybe they'll lose $6bill in revenue when even more people get sick of their schemes and just stop buying crap.
Practically speaking, what that means is that either a) a news web site will give everyone blanket permission to link to it, or b) they try deny all or most linkers, creating a headache for themselves as they attempt to track and sue the whole internet. Oh yeah, and with option b, their site folds within a year because of lack of traffic because no one other than their own employees has ever heard of them.
Well then, I'd expect that your capacity would be about .4% of a Library of Congress.
Burnt feathers vs bat poo? Either way, this is going to stink like hell.
Dammit, you beat me to it.
Trick question. The volume of what was termed a hogshead appears to be dependent on the contents. Please specify if you are looking for a hogshead of ale, wine, or tobacco.
Don't you dare interfere with my 2nd Amendment right to bear poultry!
Yes, but they make up for that by spreading the news over 10 pages of ads and pop-ups.
It depends where the ideology came from. If it came from pragmatic intentions, then it'll have some real world applicability. What this person is describing doesn't sound that way.
Ensuring privacy and freedom does not need to conflict with pragmatic governance.
Yes, I'm saying that. There's nothing that's been done in the UK that's having any negative impact on peoples' quality of life. Just because someone's privacy or liberty is being limited, does not automatically mean it is hurting them. Judge each one on its practical merits, not on whether it conflicts with your ideology.
Well, obviously it is having a adverse effect on this person.
So? It's not the technology or infrastructure that's at fault, but the ideology. The same technologies and infrastructure exists in all modern societies. Throwing them away would be lunacy.
It's the same old libertarian logical failing as always. "Anything the government does might go bad! So don't do anything at all!"
Get real.
Calm down. I'm not arguing against government, I'm arguing that unfettered government and unprotected individual rights is a recipe for trouble, and history - as well as current events - bears the proof.
Then move to an anarchy and live a shit life, every day until you die, just so you can be sure that the government isn't going to do anything that they might be able to use against you if they turn bad.
Or alternatively you could live somewhere where you have a decent level of trust in your government and the country's political systems, and from there allow growing and evolving social and political systems to continue to improve your quality of life.
That's a false choice. There is no need to chose between a) wallowing in anarchy vs b) surrendering to your betters and trust that they will make your life comfy. Government can exist in a way that provides comfort, protection, and freedom.
A government that does not recognize it's citizens' rights to freedom is not worthy of their trust.