> It's hard to report numbers on something that could very well be going undetected due to lower beef production standards.
It's usually pretty obvious when a cow is infected by Mad Cow. So unless everyone involved near those cases are covering it up (which is a possibility, I admit, although slim) the stats are pretty accurate.
> The US passed a law to sue Canadian companies that did business with Cuba.
A bit dishonest be leaving the obvious raesoning out. A US law only affects people & businesses in the U.S., so those "canadian companies" do business in the U.S. and while doing business in the U.S. must follow U.S. laws. Add into that that we have a trade embargo (right word? It's childishly stupid, but that's not the point) on Cuba.
The idea is that since we do not trade with Cuba, Canadians are not allowed to act as middlemen in trading cuban goods to the U.S. The U.S. cannot stop a Canadian company from selling Cuban goods in Canada, and has not tried.
> So you differentiate on the basis of what you feel people need rather than what they want.
Of course, I would hope you do as well. If the government starts getting into what people want, as opposed to "need," they might as well give you all your clothes as well.
> I think you'd agree that people definitely need food.
No, actually, I don't agree that people "definitely" need food. Of course, I am being very specific, as I am currently fasting.
> On the basis of your argument shouldn't the government supply food
No, because food is already free. You'll say "what? I pay for my food, asshole!" Sure, most people do. But you don't have to. If you must (and know how, of course) you can live just fine without buying anything at all. May not be fun or easy, but you can. You can go to a lake & get a fish to eat (ignoring fishing license laws of course) at no cost except time. I can't just go to a transformer and "catch" me a few amps of electricity. I can't just snap my fingers and have waste disappear. Unless I live near a spring or well, I can't just go & grab some clean (as opposed to lake water) water.
> Show me a sentient raccoon and I'll show you someone who deserves the same consideration I do.
They wash their food. There are humans that don't even do that... They are definitely smarter than many humans. Humans are too damn arrogant and assume that something is stupid just because it can't speak.
> The wood ends up scorched black and smoking from the ten minutes of fierce drilling that it takes to get through it. > And this is a good thing..?
My thoughts exactly! I mean, who WOULDN'T want their house made of soft wood that will rot through %50 faster and can hold about 3/4 as much weight safely. Pssh, screw that, I say MAKE MY HOUSE SUPPORT BEAMS OUT OF SILLY PUTTY!
Sometimes a little honest thinking sounds like a troll to those who don't.
> You don't think phone service is a necessary utility?
Of course I don't think it's a necessary utility.
> how can you dial 9-11 if you don't have phone service?
That's a stretch of an argument. How can you dial 911 if you don't have a phone now? You do realize that there are still (large) communities that don't participate in 9-1-1 now, don't you? If you want to make it a utility, how about making a network of emergency buttons that are installed in everyone's house. It's simpler and cheaper than a phone and can go over preexisting lines.
> It doesn't make sense to have 5 lines going into your house, from 5 different companies.
That's why there are laws that require these companies to sell a certain amount of access to their lines. So that they DON'T have a stranglehold on access.
If you are going to say that phone service is necessary just because of 911, then you should first argue that 911 be accessible to everyone for free.
> You seem to be saying that local government shouldn't provide municipal electricity, water, or sewage services either? Or is there something special about telephone service?
Actually, my reasoning is that there ISN'T anything special about the telephone, opposed to water, sewage, or electricity. Without sewage service, people would be getting sick more often, since sewage will just sit on their property (unless they can afford to pay someone to haul it off). Without electricity some people would freeze in their homes, or maybe they won't be able to maek food -- they certainly wouldn't be able to keep any perishable food at home (no fridge), so electricity is a major convenience, verging on necessity. Water service is a necessity as well, since most people do nat have a well or spring on their property.
As for telephones, you don't need to chat to your friends over the phone. It is not a necessity. Sure, 911 is important in emergencies, but you don't call 911 anywhere near as often as you use the toilet, or eat. At least you shouldn't.
> The law clearly states that the state can not forbid "Any Enity." What about a local goverment is not an enity.
Because that local area is a subdivision of the state, which has the ability to regulate itself. The idea is that when you say "You cannot regulate anyone," you do not also mean "that means you can't regulate yourself."
> what the hell is wrong with people, coming together as a community and providing cheap telephone service?
That's fine, and there is nothing wrong with that, since people can choose to create a company to offer whatever the hell they want. GOVERNMENTS DO NOT AND SHOULD NOT HAVE THIS ABILITY. As for your "parenthetical remark:"
> (perhaps in the form of the local government)
As soon as the government gets into things they get an unfair advantage over private companies because they can subsidize things with taxpayer money, thereby ruining the other business's chances. Also, when the government controls things, they have more opportunity to demand other things. They can then demand that EVERYONE pay a certain tax, part of which goes to upgrading their telecom infrastructure. Well, if I don't use that phone service, I should not have to pay, but that is the way things work in the U.S. You always pay for things you'll never use.
> isn't the government of the people and for the people?
Yes, that statement is true. This one is not: "The government is of the people who want cheap phone service, for the people who want cheap phone service, at the expense of local phone companies."
Would you say it was perfectly fine for local governments to get into some other business, such as web hosting? What if, since they can support it, they decided that they would offer web hosting for their community at $1 per month. You own an ISP/host in that community. Wouldn't you be pissed off that the local government effectively put you out of business? Sure, you can argue about quality of service, but that is not part of this question, since we cannot guess what the quality of service would be for a nonexistant entity.
> they're probably the ones pricipally motivated by the perceived economic advantage of it anyway
Not only that, but they are the ones who were only good at Quake and figured "computers are easy, and with all my l33t gaming skills, I'll get hired as a game developer in NO time!" Had two of those in a class of 20 CS (SE, really) majors.
Well, open your eyes, son! Err... Sun! You are obviously not a System administrator, and reverse DNS is becoming pretty standard (at least for mail servers) internet-wide. Now obviously, many workstations (behind NAT guaranteed, behind DHCP usually) will not respond to reverse-lookup.
> Let's say I became a fake priest in a fake religion based on my fake doctorate
Sounds like L. Ron Hubbard. Actually, if you leave out the doctorate, you have every religion. Except the ONE TRUE religion, of which I am not allowed to tell you.
> you also assume everyone would use the duplicator rather than buy an original
I'm not arguing either way here, but if the second is of exactly the same quality as the original, then yes, everyone would use a duplicator. Well, a few extremely rich people might buy hand-built ones just to say they did...
> Piracy is piracy whether or not P2P leads to million or billion CD sales.
True, because piracy is theft on the high seas, while we are talking about copyright infringement, which is 100% different..
But that is completely unrelated to the topic at hand.
> If you don't like the copyright laws, try to have the laws changed. However, until the laws do change, you STILL don't have the right to [illegally infringe] copyrighted works.
My attitude in this is likely to be seen as a cop-out, but it really is not. It is simply my view of reality. I hold the belief that all copyrights -- and laws, for that matter -- are made-up bullshit, completely man-made, and of no concern to me. If something is available to me and I want it, I will use it, as long as it does not adversely affect someone else. If I were to use it to make money, that would be immoral, since I am using others' hard work for easy profit.
I, OTOH, just sit in my apartment listening to songs -- this doesn't affect anyone. I own quite a few CDs, but certainly not for all the MP3s I have collected. You can bring up the argument that "I'm stealing potential revenue," but to say such a thing is a lie. I would not have bought them anyway, each song is worth little over a few pennies each to me.
To say I have no "right" to listen to the music is as correct as saying that you have no "right" to tell me not to. Just because you represent a guy who represents a guy who is acting "in the interests" of the creator of the song, you expect me to think you are special? I don't. If you don't want your music heard, don't make it. Artists know the reality of the world, that people want something for nothing. If there's an easy way to get it, they will.
Now, as for the quote above... If I don't agree with a law, I will not follow that law. You may say I don't have a "right" to do something, but all you are doing is moving your mouth (and vocal cords). Saying it does not make it true, as I can just as easily say "you don't have the right to mix batter," and in some circumstances you may be correct, but rights are only "rights" if everyone involved agrees that they are. If I think your assertion of my lack of rights is bunk, all you can do is wave your arms, screaming "listen to me!"
Okay, since I say that you (or "my" government) can't define my rights, does that mean everything I do is moral? Does that mean I can do anything I want? Of course it does. Does that mean I'll do it without retribution? I don't live in the clouds, yeah, someone might believe that their rights trump mine & act on it. Will I recognize the validity of it (from jail)? No. My morals are probably different from your morals, and for anyone to limit me is unnatural. I'm all for anarchy, in theory, although in practice (if implemented in the current world climate) it would be hell.
Does any of this make sense? Probably not, as I am the only one who thinks the way I do. You're the only one who thinks the way you do. I like it that way.
> They want the mom and pops and kids to think that downloading is a federal offense, when in reality your perfectly safe unless you upload.
You may be legally right, but I remember another/.er's sig. Paraphrasing, "anyone who tells you there is a difference between uploading and downloading is trying to sue you" or something like that.
> I think the major conflict in our points of view is this: > I believe that a person should be able to profit from their own work. Even if that work is "intellectual property." > Some people believe that such property is actually owned by everyone - not just the creator of that work. That means that others can profit from someone else's work.
It's easy to look correct when you only offer extreme options. The vast majority of us are between these two visions. We believe that yes, someone should be ABLE (not guaranteed) to profit from his work. FOR A LIMITED TIME. You present the other side as saying "abolish copyright, all work is immediately public domain," which is obviously untrue. You are being quite dishonest in stating the "two sides."
> If the author doesn't want the work released, he should have the right to keep it that way
If he's dead, his wishes are not at issue. It can only be abandonware after the creator's death. If the family of the deceased copyright holder has an interest in restricting humankind's progress, they can try to extend it after his death.
Slashdot Mirror
> It's hard to report numbers on something that could very well be going undetected due to lower beef production standards.
It's usually pretty obvious when a cow is infected by Mad Cow. So unless everyone involved near those cases are covering it up (which is a possibility, I admit, although slim) the stats are pretty accurate.
> The US passed a law to sue Canadian companies that did business with Cuba.
A bit dishonest be leaving the obvious raesoning out. A US law only affects people & businesses in the U.S., so those "canadian companies" do business in the U.S. and while doing business in the U.S. must follow U.S. laws. Add into that that we have a trade embargo (right word? It's childishly stupid, but that's not the point) on Cuba.
The idea is that since we do not trade with Cuba, Canadians are not allowed to act as middlemen in trading cuban goods to the U.S. The U.S. cannot stop a Canadian company from selling Cuban goods in Canada, and has not tried.
> Sounds like imposing your values.
No, it sounds like enforcing laws.
> So you differentiate on the basis of what you feel people need rather than what they want.
Of course, I would hope you do as well. If the government starts getting into what people want, as opposed to "need," they might as well give you all your clothes as well.
> I think you'd agree that people definitely need food.
No, actually, I don't agree that people "definitely" need food. Of course, I am being very specific, as I am currently fasting.
> On the basis of your argument shouldn't the government supply food
No, because food is already free. You'll say "what? I pay for my food, asshole!" Sure, most people do. But you don't have to. If you must (and know how, of course) you can live just fine without buying anything at all. May not be fun or easy, but you can. You can go to a lake & get a fish to eat (ignoring fishing license laws of course) at no cost except time. I can't just go to a transformer and "catch" me a few amps of electricity. I can't just snap my fingers and have waste disappear. Unless I live near a spring or well, I can't just go & grab some clean (as opposed to lake water) water.
> Show me a sentient raccoon and I'll show you someone who deserves the same consideration I do.
They wash their food. There are humans that don't even do that... They are definitely smarter than many humans. Humans are too damn arrogant and assume that something is stupid just because it can't speak.
> The wood ends up scorched black and smoking from the ten minutes of fierce drilling that it takes to get through it.
> And this is a good thing..?
My thoughts exactly! I mean, who WOULDN'T want their house made of soft wood that will rot through %50 faster and can hold about 3/4 as much weight safely. Pssh, screw that, I say MAKE MY HOUSE SUPPORT BEAMS OUT OF SILLY PUTTY!
> I hope this is a troll
Sometimes a little honest thinking sounds like a troll to those who don't.
> You don't think phone service is a necessary utility?
Of course I don't think it's a necessary utility.
> how can you dial 9-11 if you don't have phone service?
That's a stretch of an argument. How can you dial 911 if you don't have a phone now? You do realize that there are still (large) communities that don't participate in 9-1-1 now, don't you? If you want to make it a utility, how about making a network of emergency buttons that are installed in everyone's house. It's simpler and cheaper than a phone and can go over preexisting lines.
> It doesn't make sense to have 5 lines going into your house, from 5 different companies.
That's why there are laws that require these companies to sell a certain amount of access to their lines. So that they DON'T have a stranglehold on access.
If you are going to say that phone service is necessary just because of 911, then you should first argue that 911 be accessible to everyone for free.
> You seem to be saying that local government shouldn't provide municipal electricity, water, or sewage services either? Or is there something special about telephone service?
Actually, my reasoning is that there ISN'T anything special about the telephone, opposed to water, sewage, or electricity. Without sewage service, people would be getting sick more often, since sewage will just sit on their property (unless they can afford to pay someone to haul it off). Without electricity some people would freeze in their homes, or maybe they won't be able to maek food -- they certainly wouldn't be able to keep any perishable food at home (no fridge), so electricity is a major convenience, verging on necessity. Water service is a necessity as well, since most people do nat have a well or spring on their property.
As for telephones, you don't need to chat to your friends over the phone. It is not a necessity. Sure, 911 is important in emergencies, but you don't call 911 anywhere near as often as you use the toilet, or eat. At least you shouldn't.
> The law clearly states that the state can not forbid "Any Enity." What about a local goverment is not an enity.
Because that local area is a subdivision of the state, which has the ability to regulate itself. The idea is that when you say "You cannot regulate anyone," you do not also mean "that means you can't regulate yourself."
> Who avoided being raped by Enron, et al? LA County, since they generated their own power.
Electricity is (for a local area) a necessity. Phone service is not. Electricity is needed to run hospitals, keep people alive.
> what the hell is wrong with people, coming together as a community and providing cheap telephone service?
That's fine, and there is nothing wrong with that, since people can choose to create a company to offer whatever the hell they want. GOVERNMENTS DO NOT AND SHOULD NOT HAVE THIS ABILITY. As for your "parenthetical remark:"
> (perhaps in the form of the local government)
As soon as the government gets into things they get an unfair advantage over private companies because they can subsidize things with taxpayer money, thereby ruining the other business's chances. Also, when the government controls things, they have more opportunity to demand other things. They can then demand that EVERYONE pay a certain tax, part of which goes to upgrading their telecom infrastructure.
Well, if I don't use that phone service, I should not have to pay, but that is the way things work in the U.S. You always pay for things you'll never use.
> isn't the government of the people and for the people?
Yes, that statement is true. This one is not: "The government is of the people who want cheap phone service, for the people who want cheap phone service, at the expense of local phone companies."
Would you say it was perfectly fine for local governments to get into some other business, such as web hosting? What if, since they can support it, they decided that they would offer web hosting for their community at $1 per month. You own an ISP/host in that community. Wouldn't you be pissed off that the local government effectively put you out of business? Sure, you can argue about quality of service, but that is not part of this question, since we cannot guess what the quality of service would be for a nonexistant entity.
> they're probably the ones pricipally motivated by the perceived economic advantage of it anyway
Not only that, but they are the ones who were only good at Quake and figured "computers are easy, and with all my l33t gaming skills, I'll get hired as a game developer in NO time!" Had two of those in a class of 20 CS (SE, really) majors.
> I'd like to see that happen...
Well, open your eyes, son! Err... Sun! You are obviously not a System administrator, and reverse DNS is becoming pretty standard (at least for mail servers) internet-wide. Now obviously, many workstations (behind NAT guaranteed, behind DHCP usually) will not respond to reverse-lookup.
Oh, here's another sign to point out a stupid user:
> by Anonymous Coward
> One true religion... Is that the one based on Monty Python or The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy?
Yes, exactly. The Hitchhiker's Python to the Monty Galaxy Guide... and the quest for the holy grail. Or something. Wait, I wasn't allowed to...
> Let's say I became a fake priest in a fake religion based on my fake doctorate
Sounds like L. Ron Hubbard. Actually, if you leave out the doctorate, you have every religion. Except the ONE TRUE religion, of which I am not allowed to tell you.
> shell:~$ host www.opennic.glue
> www.opennic.glue has address 131.161.247.68
Funny, my PC says it does not exist.
> you also assume everyone would use the duplicator rather than buy an original
I'm not arguing either way here, but if the second is of exactly the same quality as the original, then yes, everyone would use a duplicator. Well, a few extremely rich people might buy hand-built ones just to say they did...
> Piracy is piracy whether or not P2P leads to million or billion CD sales.
True, because piracy is theft on the high seas, while we are talking about copyright infringement, which is 100% different..
But that is completely unrelated to the topic at hand.
> If you don't like the copyright laws, try to have the laws changed. However, until the laws do change, you STILL don't have the right to [illegally infringe] copyrighted works.
My attitude in this is likely to be seen as a cop-out, but it really is not. It is simply my view of reality. I hold the belief that all copyrights -- and laws, for that matter -- are made-up bullshit, completely man-made, and of no concern to me. If something is available to me and I want it, I will use it, as long as it does not adversely affect someone else. If I were to use it to make money, that would be immoral, since I am using others' hard work for easy profit.
I, OTOH, just sit in my apartment listening to songs -- this doesn't affect anyone. I own quite a few CDs, but certainly not for all the MP3s I have collected. You can bring up the argument that "I'm stealing potential revenue," but to say such a thing is a lie. I would not have bought them anyway, each song is worth little over a few pennies each to me.
To say I have no "right" to listen to the music is as correct as saying that you have no "right" to tell me not to. Just because you represent a guy who represents a guy who is acting "in the interests" of the creator of the song, you expect me to think you are special? I don't. If you don't want your music heard, don't make it. Artists know the reality of the world, that people want something for nothing. If there's an easy way to get it, they will.
Now, as for the quote above... If I don't agree with a law, I will not follow that law. You may say I don't have a "right" to do something, but all you are doing is moving your mouth (and vocal cords). Saying it does not make it true, as I can just as easily say "you don't have the right to mix batter," and in some circumstances you may be correct, but rights are only "rights" if everyone involved agrees that they are. If I think your assertion of my lack of rights is bunk, all you can do is wave your arms, screaming "listen to me!"
Okay, since I say that you (or "my" government) can't define my rights, does that mean everything I do is moral? Does that mean I can do anything I want? Of course it does. Does that mean I'll do it without retribution? I don't live in the clouds, yeah, someone might believe that their rights trump mine & act on it. Will I recognize the validity of it (from jail)? No. My morals are probably different from your morals, and for anyone to limit me is unnatural. I'm all for anarchy, in theory, although in practice (if implemented in the current world climate) it would be hell.
Does any of this make sense? Probably not, as I am the only one who thinks the way I do. You're the only one who thinks the way you do. I like it that way.
> They want the mom and pops and kids to think that downloading is a federal offense, when in reality your perfectly safe unless you upload.
/.er's sig. Paraphrasing, "anyone who tells you there is a difference between uploading and downloading is trying to sue you" or something like that.
You may be legally right, but I remember another
> I suggest you go throw some tea in the harbor.
I don't think it would have quite the same impact -- you'd be thrown in jail for terrorism today, probably.
> we drag everyone down to the lowest level rather than lift everyone up to the highest
Chicken & Egg. Do dumb TV viewers want bad TV, or does bad TV make us dumb?
> But would you really want just anybody making Scooby Doo 2?
Quite the opposite. I really want NOBODY making that.
> I think the major conflict in our points of view is this:
> I believe that a person should be able to profit from their own work. Even if that work is "intellectual property."
> Some people believe that such property is actually owned by everyone - not just the creator of that work. That means that others can profit from someone else's work.
It's easy to look correct when you only offer extreme options. The vast majority of us are between these two visions. We believe that yes, someone should be ABLE (not guaranteed) to profit from his work. FOR A LIMITED TIME. You present the other side as saying "abolish copyright, all work is immediately public domain," which is obviously untrue. You are being quite dishonest in stating the "two sides."
> If the author doesn't want the work released, he should have the right to keep it that way
If he's dead, his wishes are not at issue. It can only be abandonware after the creator's death. If the family of the deceased copyright holder has an interest in restricting humankind's progress, they can try to extend it after his death.
> They declared war on germany the instant germany attack poland
I DECLARE WAR ON YOU! I'm not going to actually do anything about it, however. Move along, nothing to see here.