Amateur Radio regularly schedules "Field Days", where a simulated emergency is posited, and people have 24 hours to make as many radio contacts as they can. IIRC, their score is also affected by the conditions under which they operate... contestants using 110-volt wall current have to make more contacts to score as high as those using gasoline-powered generators.
Amateur radio usually gets info in and out of disaster areas first.
These people were knocked back to the 1800s. Let bring them back to indoor plumbing before we go all crazy with teh intarweb.
So what if they're in the 1800's? If we use 21st-century technological solutions, do we violate the Prime Directive or something?
As someone else has already pointed out, this would be going on at shelters where food and water are already available. I don't think anyone would suggest that people who are trying to get out of a flooding house would be trying to lug a laptop with them.
However, for information... well, I remembered that during Hurricane Katrina, either the floods or the power failures took out the local TV and radio transmitters (to say nothing of the receivers). At the shelters, the internet would be (and was!) available to get information in and out.
During Hurricane Katrina, the Internet proved its value during disasters and disaster recovery. It was available when the TV and radio stations were flooded out or blacked out.
During the initial recovery, instead of having to fill out reams of paper, people were able to electonically submit their information over the Internet.
Instead of overloading the Post Office with "Where are you?" notes and "Here I am!" responses, people were able to use the Internet to send E-mail.
Face it, people - the Internet did what it was supposed to do: stay connected even during emergencies. We've gotten used to it, our non-immediate disaster relief efforts now expects Internet access, and we made use of it when the usual media failed.
So, posters who ask, "Well, what do they need Internet access for at a shelter?" - I offer my answer.
Consider Kansas. It's a primarily Republican state. Outside of a few counties, almost all of the state offices go to members of the Republican party.
This usually means that, during primary season, the Democrats try to find someone that is willing to fight a battle where they are most likely out-recognized and out-spent by the existing Republican contender, unless the Republican has done something egregious. It's extremely rare for the Democrats to run more than one person for a seat during the primaries.
In Kansas (and in other states), the Republican primaries are closed primaries - the only people who can vote in them are party members (the Democrat primaries are open to anyone not voting Republican). As a result, some people who see no other way to get their voice heard become "paper Republicans." This lets them have some say in who is running in November, and can at least try to trim off some of the extremists at the primary level.
1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
So, "criminal" would mean "pertaining to a crime," which means "in violation of a law." You violate copyright law. Therefore, you commit a crime.
You've tried special pleading, you've tried ad hominem attacks on the person pointing out your error - they haven't worked. It boils down to this basic concept:
Breaking the law is a crime.
Pretty it up all you want, justify it as much as you like. If you find it to be unpalatable, I am truly sorry, but there it is.
Well, for one, the use of the word "theft" to indicate an obviously non-theft action indicates that you hold a bias.
You accuse me of bias when you use such terms as "obviously" to paper some parts of your point.
Secondly, you have used "criminal" a number of times regarding IP law violations.
You disagree with the idea of using the word "criminal" for "IP law violations."
Given many historical situations unrelated to the discussion at hand, Rosa Parks not giving up her seat doesn't make her immoral in my eyes, I wouldn't accept any such assertion of illegal==immoral for all cases.
You even, for God only knows what reason, drag Rosa Parks into this. (Who did end up going to jail for breaking what I agree was an unjust law.)
I never brought the concept of morality into this. I'm sure that the people who uploaded the original copy of ROTS onto the Internet felt that their morals were sound, that this was being done for the "greater good." (If I am allowed to play the off-topic distraction game, Joanne Linville, as the Romulan Commander in "The Enterprise Incident", pointed out "Duty! Everybody does their duty!")
The point is that, by your own admission, they violated the law. I agree with that law (it might be personal for me - I've had programs swiped in that manner myself), and so, by your definitions, that makes me biased. However, you disagree with the law concerning intellectual property. Doesn't that make you biased as well?
I think that, since we both are exhibiting these signs of bias, that we are at an impasse.
No, your reasoned response was not lost on me. If the only matter that you are raising is that you disagree with calling it "theft," but that it should be referred to by another name, then I am amazed that this argument has gone on as long as it has.
However, you seemed to be saying, "It isn't really theft - and so it isn't really a crime."
If you believe that their actions were in fact criminal (and I'll allow that we're both assuming guilt on this, but it seems unlikely that either of us will be in the jury pool) then we may have a lot less to argue about than I thought.
It's not an idea that's ahead of its time, it's an idea I was raised with as a child - if you take something that isn't yours, that you have no right to take, then it's theft.
There's such things as "theft of services" (to which people might say, "Well, no one ELSE was using that computer, and so I made some good come out of it by hosting that profitable porn site, so what's the fuss?"), and "theft of intellectual property" (which leads to the response that "It wasn't that good a program until I got the source code, and now at least someone made some money with it.")
It's amazing the amount of rationalization that some people will do to justify "If I want it, I'll take it, and it'll all turn out good - for me, at least!"
"Unjustifiably harsh" I can possibly agree with. My big problem with the punishment is that if it's too light, then a large company could flout the rights of individual programmers and chalk up the fines and legal fees as "the cost of doing business," yet if it's too harsh, then the matters you raised become relevant.
However, I think we are talking at cross purposes here. We don't hold the same viewpoint on intellectual property here, and perhaps we've both been trying to proselytize our views. Shall we call it a draw and move on?
MOST people who pirate things do so because they can't afford to and are living beyond their means, or because they don't think it's worth the price tag, or the legal way to watch it is too damned inconvenient.
Bummer. I'd like to get a copy of Visual Studio Enterprise Edition (don't start a MS/Linux holy war flame fest on this). I can't afford it, I'm living beyond my means, and it would be too much bother to acquire it legally. Does that justify me simply ripping it off?
Expense and inconvenience are no excuse for breaking the law.
That depends - did he give out a screener that he had no right to hand out, or did he provide a purchased DVD to someone? If the former, then that's infringing the copyright. If the latter, then I don't see the studio having a leg to stand on.
You're taking matters to an extreme, which I never advocated. Again, as I posted to another reply, if it was your software or other form of intellectual property, you'd scream your lungs out... and I'd help make it a chorus. (It's sort of personal for me - I've had some of my software pirated.)
It wasn't anyone's property. It was information, an arrangement of colors over time, and as such no one has a legitimate claim to own it.
Specious argument.
"He wasn't a living person, just a collection of carbon compounds and water, so why's everyone so upset that I hit him?" doesn't excuse assault.
If it had been a program that you had written - your "intellectual property" - then you'd be screaming bloody murder if someone had distributed it without your say-so - and you'd be right to do so.
To those who say, "Well, they can afford it, so what's the harm?", I say, "The harm is done to the concept of intellectual property."
It wasn't their property to broadcast onto the internet. Whether their actions cost the studio $10 million in lost ticket sales or increased the the movie's profits by $10 million is irrelevant.
These bozos committed theft, pure and simple. Throw the book at 'em.
This is one time that I say "Thank _____ for snail-mail!"
The person who posted the parent to this has raised a valid point. What would have happened had they provided an E-mail server?
My guess is that there might have been 50 or so well-reasoned posts with clever and plausible arguments indicating why they shouldn't go with the proposed policy... unfortunately, scattered amongst the 50,000 robot-driven "Microsoft Sucks!" E-mails that would have brought their server to its knobby little knees.
And which E-mails would have been seen as the majority opinion?
The particulars of this case, though, I do find troublesome, with the fact that Burlington Northern Santa Fe are using an unproven method and are preparing to take action on it. However, a good lawyer will probably be able to stop them from (a) firing someone who shows the genetic markers for "carpal tunnel susceptibility," and (b) suggesting that people who do put in claims for carpal tunnel were "going to get it anyway," and disallowing the claims (unless they can show that they did take some action).
There will always be employers who are willing to jump to the conclusion that a predisposition towards something is a guarantee that it will happen. These people will use genetic tests for the latest-found markers, and will wind up not being able to hire anybody.
I think you're overlooking something -- the term "blocked entry" may be a little vague. It could range from "Get out of here and don't come back!" to "Please wait one minute, please, sir/ma'am - we need to check a couple of things."
Secondly, they don't say how long a period this covers. Blocking 9000 people in a single day would be highly insular, but if this is over, say, a 5 year period, that comes down to 5 a day -over the entire U.S. border.
I agree that this is troubling, but I don't think we need to panic yet.
A few years ago there was yet another attempt to pass a flag-burning amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I wrote my senator with my qualms about the idea. I'll give him credit - he wrote back (or one of his aides did). He said basically that he had taken his stance, and so wasn't going to change his mind.
If you write your congressman, I doubt he is going to say, "Oh, my! What was I thinking? Perhaps RockStar got punished enough by forcing GTA:SA to be re-rated! Now, back to important things...."
He is a lot more likely to say, "Judging from the mail I've received, this is a hot-button topic, so if I choose a stance that will help me come election time next year, I can stay in office! Now, back to those poll figures...."
This may not be universally true and it may not be a fair criticism, but look how far witch-hunting got Senator McCarthy and his assistant, Richard Nixon.
I'm sorry he's dead. I don't think he was killed by someone who got one spam too many, though. Spam may make people angry, even veins-bulging-over-reddened-forehead angry, perhaps even grab-handy-blunt-instrument-and-smash-computer-scr een angry, but I can't see it making someone angry enough for long enough to go into his apartment and beat him to death.
I think he was killed either by a business rival or by some random wacko.
The biggest problem might not have been the sex.
on
Hot Coffee Cooling Off
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The big problem wasn't that there was sex involved in GTA:SA. So you have ways of moving the pixels so that it looks like some guy is banging the hell out of some girl. Big deal.
The major problem was with the timeline:
Rockstar tells the MSRB, "Yeah, OK, we have some adult-themed material in this game, but that's why we figure an M-rating to be about right, because there's nothing explicit in the game."
Hot Coffee comes out, showing the sex, and Rockstar says "Those @#$%ing modders! They must have inserted that porn!"
Rockstar comes out and says, "Well, OK, the modders didn't insert the porn - it was already in there, but no fair drawing adverse inferences!"
It wasn't so much the sex, but the lies that got people up in arms about Rockstar. (No videotape this time, at least) We don't like being made to look like fools, and so the ESRB lowered the boom on GTA:SA.
I, on the other hand, am willing to throw brickbats all of the involved parties:
Rockstar for lying about what content it did provide and for trying to blame the modders who exposed (pardon the expression) the hidden stuff;
The ESRB for having such a skewed viewpoint about the difference between "M" and "AO"
Above all, the parents who bought the game for Little Johnny and Janey who ignored the "M" rating and the criminal and violent subtext of the game, but were shocked, shocked! when sex reared its head.
A plague, not on one, not on both, but on all your houses!
Hey hippies---are you happy you got DDT banned now? All those dead Africans say thank you!
Got news for you - it isn't banned. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDTwikipedia, and you'll find that it is definitely in use in Africa, and other tropical areas "where mosquito-borne malaria and typhus are greater health problems than DDT's potential toxicity."
Try checking your facts before you start calling names, would you?
How could anybody accuse Microsoft, who has been known for years as an above-board protector of digital copyright, freedom of innovation, and the American way... <Irony = 0%> Oh, crap, did I forget to set the Irony to 100% on that? I hate it when that happens!
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, you're right.
Amateur Radio regularly schedules "Field Days", where a simulated emergency is posited, and people have 24 hours to make as many radio contacts as they can. IIRC, their score is also affected by the conditions under which they operate... contestants using 110-volt wall current have to make more contacts to score as high as those using gasoline-powered generators.
Amateur radio usually gets info in and out of disaster areas first.
These people were knocked back to the 1800s. Let bring them back to indoor plumbing before we go all crazy with teh intarweb.
So what if they're in the 1800's? If we use 21st-century technological solutions, do we violate the Prime Directive or something?
As someone else has already pointed out, this would be going on at shelters where food and water are already available. I don't think anyone would suggest that people who are trying to get out of a flooding house would be trying to lug a laptop with them.
However, for information... well, I remembered that during Hurricane Katrina, either the floods or the power failures took out the local TV and radio transmitters (to say nothing of the receivers). At the shelters, the internet would be (and was!) available to get information in and out.
During Hurricane Katrina, the Internet proved its value during disasters and disaster recovery. It was available when the TV and radio stations were flooded out or blacked out.
During the initial recovery, instead of having to fill out reams of paper, people were able to electonically submit their information over the Internet.
Instead of overloading the Post Office with "Where are you?" notes and "Here I am!" responses, people were able to use the Internet to send E-mail.
Face it, people - the Internet did what it was supposed to do: stay connected even during emergencies. We've gotten used to it, our non-immediate disaster relief efforts now expects Internet access, and we made use of it when the usual media failed.
So, posters who ask, "Well, what do they need Internet access for at a shelter?" - I offer my answer.
Sometimes party registration is a local thing.
Consider Kansas. It's a primarily Republican state. Outside of a few counties, almost all of the state offices go to members of the Republican party.
This usually means that, during primary season, the Democrats try to find someone that is willing to fight a battle where they are most likely out-recognized and out-spent by the existing Republican contender, unless the Republican has done something egregious. It's extremely rare for the Democrats to run more than one person for a seat during the primaries.
In Kansas (and in other states), the Republican primaries are closed primaries - the only people who can vote in them are party members (the Democrat primaries are open to anyone not voting Republican). As a result, some people who see no other way to get their voice heard become "paper Republicans." This lets them have some say in who is running in November, and can at least try to trim off some of the extremists at the primary level.
And sometimes it even works...
For what it's worth, here's what California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has about Diesel:
Diesel Environmental Effects (including long-term)
I couldn't find anything about hybrid emissions, but the search continues.
Just my two cents - leave the change in the penny tray.
Are you really that stupid?
So much for your efforts at civilized conversation.
If I was to illegally copy a CD and give it to a friend (a violation of copyright law) is it is criminal act?
Let's try the dictionary:
Crime:
1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
So, "criminal" would mean "pertaining to a crime," which means "in violation of a law." You violate copyright law. Therefore, you commit a crime.
You've tried special pleading, you've tried ad hominem attacks on the person pointing out your error - they haven't worked. It boils down to this basic concept:
Breaking the law is a crime.
Pretty it up all you want, justify it as much as you like. If you find it to be unpalatable, I am truly sorry, but there it is.
Well, for one, the use of the word "theft" to indicate an obviously non-theft action indicates that you hold a bias.
You accuse me of bias when you use such terms as "obviously" to paper some parts of your point.
Secondly, you have used "criminal" a number of times regarding IP law violations.
You disagree with the idea of using the word "criminal" for "IP law violations."
Given many historical situations unrelated to the discussion at hand, Rosa Parks not giving up her seat doesn't make her immoral in my eyes, I wouldn't accept any such assertion of illegal==immoral for all cases.
You even, for God only knows what reason, drag Rosa Parks into this. (Who did end up going to jail for breaking what I agree was an unjust law.)
I never brought the concept of morality into this. I'm sure that the people who uploaded the original copy of ROTS onto the Internet felt that their morals were sound, that this was being done for the "greater good." (If I am allowed to play the off-topic distraction game, Joanne Linville, as the Romulan Commander in "The Enterprise Incident", pointed out "Duty! Everybody does their duty!")
The point is that, by your own admission, they violated the law. I agree with that law (it might be personal for me - I've had programs swiped in that manner myself), and so, by your definitions, that makes me biased. However, you disagree with the law concerning intellectual property. Doesn't that make you biased as well?
I think that, since we both are exhibiting these signs of bias, that we are at an impasse.
No, your reasoned response was not lost on me. If the only matter that you are raising is that you disagree with calling it "theft," but that it should be referred to by another name, then I am amazed that this argument has gone on as long as it has.
However, you seemed to be saying, "It isn't really theft - and so it isn't really a crime."
If you believe that their actions were in fact criminal (and I'll allow that we're both assuming guilt on this, but it seems unlikely that either of us will be in the jury pool) then we may have a lot less to argue about than I thought.
It's not an idea that's ahead of its time, it's an idea I was raised with as a child - if you take something that isn't yours, that you have no right to take, then it's theft.
There's such things as "theft of services" (to which people might say, "Well, no one ELSE was using that computer, and so I made some good come out of it by hosting that profitable porn site, so what's the fuss?"), and "theft of intellectual property" (which leads to the response that "It wasn't that good a program until I got the source code, and now at least someone made some money with it.")
It's amazing the amount of rationalization that some people will do to justify "If I want it, I'll take it, and it'll all turn out good - for me, at least!"
"Unjustifiably harsh" I can possibly agree with. My big problem with the punishment is that if it's too light, then a large company could flout the rights of individual programmers and chalk up the fines and legal fees as "the cost of doing business," yet if it's too harsh, then the matters you raised become relevant.
However, I think we are talking at cross purposes here. We don't hold the same viewpoint on intellectual property here, and perhaps we've both been trying to proselytize our views. Shall we call it a draw and move on?
MOST people who pirate things do so because they can't afford to and are living beyond their means, or because they don't think it's worth the price tag, or the legal way to watch it is too damned inconvenient.
Bummer. I'd like to get a copy of Visual Studio Enterprise Edition (don't start a MS/Linux holy war flame fest on this). I can't afford it, I'm living beyond my means, and it would be too much bother to acquire it legally. Does that justify me simply ripping it off?
Expense and inconvenience are no excuse for breaking the law.
That depends - did he give out a screener that he had no right to hand out, or did he provide a purchased DVD to someone? If the former, then that's infringing the copyright. If the latter, then I don't see the studio having a leg to stand on.
You're taking matters to an extreme, which I never advocated. Again, as I posted to another reply, if it was your software or other form of intellectual property, you'd scream your lungs out... and I'd help make it a chorus. (It's sort of personal for me - I've had some of my software pirated.)
It wasn't anyone's property. It was information, an arrangement of colors over time, and as such no one has a legitimate claim to own it.
Specious argument.
"He wasn't a living person, just a collection of carbon compounds and water, so why's everyone so upset that I hit him?" doesn't excuse assault.
If it had been a program that you had written - your "intellectual property" - then you'd be screaming bloody murder if someone had distributed it without your say-so - and you'd be right to do so.
To those who say, "Well, they can afford it, so what's the harm?", I say, "The harm is done to the concept of intellectual property."
... I say "Good!"
It wasn't their property to broadcast onto the internet. Whether their actions cost the studio $10 million in lost ticket sales or increased the the movie's profits by $10 million is irrelevant.
These bozos committed theft, pure and simple. Throw the book at 'em.
"That's what the Commie / Greenie / Hippy / Unwashed / Socialist / Liberal / Lesbian / Girly men at the NYT want you to think."
Or is that possibly what the conspiracy WANTS you to think?
Except that there IS no conspiracy. There never was. Nothing to see here, citizens, move along. Fnord.
This is one time that I say "Thank _____ for snail-mail!"
The person who posted the parent to this has raised a valid point. What would have happened had they provided an E-mail server?
My guess is that there might have been 50 or so well-reasoned posts with clever and plausible arguments indicating why they shouldn't go with the proposed policy... unfortunately, scattered amongst the 50,000 robot-driven "Microsoft Sucks!" E-mails that would have brought their server to its knobby little knees.
And which E-mails would have been seen as the majority opinion?
Now, that image might be scary enough to possibly justify a warning rating as well!
The particulars of this case, though, I do find troublesome, with the fact that Burlington Northern Santa Fe are using an unproven method and are preparing to take action on it. However, a good lawyer will probably be able to stop them from (a) firing someone who shows the genetic markers for "carpal tunnel susceptibility," and (b) suggesting that people who do put in claims for carpal tunnel were "going to get it anyway," and disallowing the claims (unless they can show that they did take some action).
There will always be employers who are willing to jump to the conclusion that a predisposition towards something is a guarantee that it will happen. These people will use genetic tests for the latest-found markers, and will wind up not being able to hire anybody.
I think you're overlooking something -- the term "blocked entry" may be a little vague. It could range from "Get out of here and don't come back!" to "Please wait one minute, please, sir/ma'am - we need to check a couple of things."
Secondly, they don't say how long a period this covers. Blocking 9000 people in a single day would be highly insular, but if this is over, say, a 5 year period, that comes down to 5 a day -over the entire U.S. border.
I agree that this is troubling, but I don't think we need to panic yet.
A few years ago there was yet another attempt to pass a flag-burning amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I wrote my senator with my qualms about the idea. I'll give him credit - he wrote back (or one of his aides did). He said basically that he had taken his stance, and so wasn't going to change his mind.
If you write your congressman, I doubt he is going to say, "Oh, my! What was I thinking? Perhaps RockStar got punished enough by forcing GTA:SA to be re-rated! Now, back to important things...."
He is a lot more likely to say, "Judging from the mail I've received, this is a hot-button topic, so if I choose a stance that will help me come election time next year, I can stay in office! Now, back to those poll figures...."
This may not be universally true and it may not be a fair criticism, but look how far witch-hunting got Senator McCarthy and his assistant, Richard Nixon.
I'm sorry he's dead. I don't think he was killed by someone who got one spam too many, though. Spam may make people angry, even veins-bulging-over-reddened-forehead angry, perhaps even grab-handy-blunt-instrument-and-smash-computer-scr een angry, but I can't see it making someone angry enough for long enough to go into his apartment and beat him to death.
I think he was killed either by a business rival or by some random wacko.
The major problem was with the timeline:
It wasn't so much the sex, but the lies that got people up in arms about Rockstar. (No videotape this time, at least) We don't like being made to look like fools, and so the ESRB lowered the boom on GTA:SA.
I, on the other hand, am willing to throw brickbats all of the involved parties:
A plague, not on one, not on both, but on all your houses!
Hey hippies---are you happy you got DDT banned now? All those dead Africans say thank you!
Got news for you - it isn't banned. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDTwikipedia, and you'll find that it is definitely in use in Africa, and other tropical areas "where mosquito-borne malaria and typhus are greater health problems than DDT's potential toxicity."
Try checking your facts before you start calling names, would you?
How could anybody accuse Microsoft, who has been known for years as an above-board protector of digital copyright, freedom of innovation, and the American way...
<Irony = 0%>
Oh, crap, did I forget to set the Irony to 100% on that? I hate it when that happens!
Is Theo demonstrating sour grapes? Perhaps a little.
Is Theo's criticism on target? Perhaps a little. He raises some good points about how Linux could be "corporatized" (like "nationalized").
Might the reporter have accentuated the differences between Linux and BSD to help generate controversy? Perhaps a lot.