I suppose some people will accept a lot of money to surrender their freedoms. It must be nice to live in a little world where the only thing that matters is the size of a paycheck.
Everything costs something, I guess.
My compliance opened-up new opportunities and is certainly better than living off Welfare or doing the Walmart shuffle.
Yes... those are the only two options available. Surrender your privacy or go on welfare. Service guarantees citizenship!
If even 1% of the population of the US did the same...
So where does the notion of doing it for Justice come in if all we fixate on is Greed? I'm glad a brilliant lawyer is bringing sanity to the equation, but dumping a pot of gold on him insults the verdict.
I don't think there is any reality in which Mr Tenenbaum took this on as a money-making scheme. He has been under great duress for a long time, and has stood up to the worst kind of corporate thuggery (well, I guess the second worst, after health insurance companies).
If he gets stuck with the bill, even if you feel no ethical obligation to help him, it will be a major disincentive for others to fight when their time comes. I wouldn't mind tossing a couple bucks into the hat. Not that I don't think the labels shouldn't have to foot the bill, but I don't know how likely that is in reality. "Not very" is my guess.
I mean, I take your point that giving him a jackpot wouldn't be respectful, but the additional money could always be donated to the EFF or something.
Never attribute to laziness what might better be attributable to avarice, greed, and malice.
I think you're referring the adage "Never attribute to malice what might as easily be ascribed to ignorance". I've always found a useful corollary to be "In sufficient quantities, ignorance is indistinguishable from malice".
I find this type of monopolistic behavior (and the tacit political endorsement) to be founded on ignorance in the form of short-term thinking, rather than greed or malice per se.
The law is a system of morality. It generally focuses on the more egregious offenses and the ones that it’s more or less universally agreed that are wrong.
As you said, you don’t want just anyone’s system of morality. But the law is a system of morality that everyone is supposed to be able to agree upon, to some degree.
I would argue that the law is a system of ethical, not moral, behavior. A previous poster suggested that judgments about good and evil were equivalent to judgments about right and wrong. I would suggest that these are the differences between morality and ethics.
Another way to consider it might be that morals are a persons internal sense of what is right or wrong, but ethical behavior is action based on an internal system of morality. We do not make laws to prevent thoughts, we make them to prevent actions.
I'm on a schedule here. I don't have time to read the summary AND post comments!
So which sort is this thing, another Australian contraction of freedoms or a NYCL recap of RIAA legal manouvers?
You could try letting your kids be part of the scouts and then talk to them about what they are learning in it instead of treating them like temporary parents that take your kid out of your life for a few hours a week.
Well I didn't know it, but the other fine replies that I got gave me information I didn't have before. Why would I subject my kids to religious indoctrination in the name of America? I wouldn't. So the whole point is moot!
Your implication seems like a straw man troll. I wouldn't force my children to join a white power group either. Sure I could talk to them about it after, but why subject them to more ignorance and hatred than they face every day?
It isn't as though they've missed the chance to see those things firsthand. We aren't talking about Haley's Comet, this is Humanity. Hard to miss those guys.
Scouting has been under attack for decades, a true shame since it encourages young men and women to go out and be active in their community and grow into thoughtful citizens, as well as teaching life skills such as planning schedules, reacting to emergencies and maintaining a budget.
That's quite a screed you've got there. I agree with some of it, and find a lot of it a little shrill. This bit I quoted kinda stuck in my craw though. I agree that programs *like* boy & girl scouts of america are a good idea. The problem for me is when the scouts shot themselves in the foot by trying to defend anti-gay policies.
I know that isn't an attitude I want drilled into my kids. No thanks. We have enough of that from our fathers. The molesters you have to look out for are almost never the out gays. It's just more gay-bashing clothed in the appearance of thinking of the children.
Maybe you should get involved with the scout leadership and get the thing on track again. It sounds like a paramilitary christian training camp to most people, I think.
Well, only since you're interested in grammar, I think you should say "I try to write as if I'm having a conversation..." not "like I'm having a conversation..."
Personally I'd use "I try to write as though I were having a conversation"
but that may be editorialism not grammar. Sometimes I think today's editorialism is simply yesterday's grammar Take for example the word "empathetic (*shudder*) which is now a real word after a generation of people couldn't wrap their heads around the word "empathic".
If that's true, "lol" will simply enter the lexicon and in 20 years it will be in doctoral theses. If there's any justice at all, though, people that use smileys in papers will be dragged into the street and beaten.
So now I work for Microsoft, Opera Software, Steam, Google, Infinity Ward, Logitech and (interestingly) Red Hat. That makes my work days 56 hours long, which leaves me -32 hours per day to dick around.
It's not the government that found a new pair, but Google!
When the Secretary of State (Hillary Clinton) calls out the Chinese about the hack attacks, I'd say that's the US Gov't finding a pair. I look forward to someone in the Government calling out PayPal/E-Bay for their shitty business practices.
I watched parts of that speech. Was I the only one yelling at my TV, saying "WHAT ABOUT AUSTRALIA'S CENSORSHIP".
But of course, despite naming an assortment of "bad" countries (you know. where they nais pas parle englais) that are filtering the internet, she didn't mention our friends in the AU.
if what you desire to do with the book is make a copy and give it to someone else, whoever you've given the book to does not own the book. They have not purchased the book from you and they have not purchased the book from the author. They do not, legally or morally "own" the book.
To own something, one must buy it, yes? Making paper from wood pulp I take from a tree in the woods is morally wrong, because I should purchase my paper in a store? Or to use your example, if my friend had paid me for his copy, he would then legally own it? Interesting, proceed.
In fact, if you had a shred of morality, you would feel cheated because the person who now has your book has taken something from you with absolutely no remuneration.
So you have given this copy to your friend. But he has not paid you for the gift! So he cannot truly own it. Go on.
So to eliminate the sting that you feel for cheating yourself, you in turn cheat the publisher and author by making and retaining a copy.
He has cheated you, because in response to your gift, he did not give you a gift of equal value. That is how I feel every Christmas. You return the book to its original owner (we're still talking about the library, yes?) after cheating the author and publisher by making a copy of an already-purchased book. I think I'm having a little trouble following you here. I thought that if they had gotten paid for their book then the library owned it?
If you got past the first grade and didn't learn this lesson, many, many people have failed you in life. Either that or let me know where you live so I can come and take your stuff while you try to figure out how to copy it.
Yes, someone with this kind of thought process is clearly the product of some significant failures. I support your suggestion that the GP should have his home invaded and robbed. You have given him such insight, and has he repaid you? Not a dime.
Of course if all possessions were as easy to perfectly duplicate as a digital book, maybe the GP wouldn't actually object to you having a copy of everything he owns.
You have certainly given me a lot to think about, thank you.
Your facts have been checked, and found wanting. The real story is now there for all to see: [...] assholes moved into an area that didn't want them and started griefing the locals. The locals complained, and Linden did the right thing. Once again, when asshole[...]s aren't allowed to be bullies, they will whine about their 'freedom' being taken away.
Your sad attempt at propaganda fails.
Although I wholeheartedly agree with most of your remark, I have edited it to reflect a more objective view of reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Inept sharing is different from unauthorized access. Inept sharing means that other do have authorization to access the documents.
Yes, and with this law, we would finally make it illegal to be inept! Problem solved.
It's interesting
Yes...
it's neighbours
No! Remember, only terrorists can't remember rules of grammar.
And we kill terrorists.
The only sure thing is that somewhere, a village is missing its idiot.
Nothing a hammer couldn't fix.
When all you have is a hammer, all the idiots start to look like nails.
trust your local law enforcement. I generally do
Tolerate, but watch with a critical eye. This method has served me well and I strongly recommend it.
Those in positions of power worked long and hard to be there. Case by case, ask yourself, "Why?"
I consider this news item completely closed after reading your post. What more is there to say?
Thanks.
I have nothing to hide
I suppose some people will accept a lot of money to surrender their freedoms. It must be nice to live in a little world where the only thing that matters is the size of a paycheck.
Everything costs something, I guess.
My compliance opened-up new opportunities and is certainly better than living off Welfare or doing the Walmart shuffle.
Yes... those are the only two options available. Surrender your privacy or go on welfare. Service guarantees citizenship!
If even 1% of the population of the US did the same...
So where does the notion of doing it for Justice come in if all we fixate on is Greed? I'm glad a brilliant lawyer is bringing sanity to the equation, but dumping a pot of gold on him insults the verdict.
I don't think there is any reality in which Mr Tenenbaum took this on as a money-making scheme. He has been under great duress for a long time, and has stood up to the worst kind of corporate thuggery (well, I guess the second worst, after health insurance companies).
If he gets stuck with the bill, even if you feel no ethical obligation to help him, it will be a major disincentive for others to fight when their time comes. I wouldn't mind tossing a couple bucks into the hat. Not that I don't think the labels shouldn't have to foot the bill, but I don't know how likely that is in reality. "Not very" is my guess.
I mean, I take your point that giving him a jackpot wouldn't be respectful, but the additional money could always be donated to the EFF or something.
One of the greatest things of twitter is precisely that; it forces you to go
That's one of the greatest things about laxatives too, with much the same result as using twitter.
Never attribute to laziness what might better be attributable to avarice, greed, and malice.
I think you're referring the adage "Never attribute to malice what might as easily be ascribed to ignorance". I've always found a useful corollary to be "In sufficient quantities, ignorance is indistinguishable from malice".
I find this type of monopolistic behavior (and the tacit political endorsement) to be founded on ignorance in the form of short-term thinking, rather than greed or malice per se.
The law is a system of morality. It generally focuses on the more egregious offenses and the ones that it’s more or less universally agreed that are wrong.
As you said, you don’t want just anyone’s system of morality. But the law is a system of morality that everyone is supposed to be able to agree upon, to some degree.
I would argue that the law is a system of ethical, not moral, behavior. A previous poster suggested that judgments about good and evil were equivalent to judgments about right and wrong. I would suggest that these are the differences between morality and ethics.
Another way to consider it might be that morals are a persons internal sense of what is right or wrong, but ethical behavior is action based on an internal system of morality. We do not make laws to prevent thoughts, we make them to prevent actions.
Free speech is only free if the speech you hate is free.
I can't comprehend why so many people in this thread (not to mention mods) don't understand this statement of fact. It's math, people.
If all speech is free,
and speech you hate is speech,
then speech you hate is free.
Does it need a color-coded spreadsheet or something?
Is it too much to ask to read the summary?
I'm on a schedule here. I don't have time to read the summary AND post comments! So which sort is this thing, another Australian contraction of freedoms or a NYCL recap of RIAA legal manouvers?
Good news, everyone! I've discovered how to keep a head alive in a glass jar for centuries after the body dies.
What do you mean Dr Wernstrom already discovered it?
Wernstrom..!
Actually, I think it was Binkley that said that, not Milo.
To remember Bloom County is one thing, but there are a shockingly large number of replies to the GP that recognized that particular quote.
In this crazy, mixed up universe, I'm not alone...
Ack, thhbpt.
You could try letting your kids be part of the scouts and then talk to them about what they are learning in it instead of treating them like temporary parents that take your kid out of your life for a few hours a week.
Well I didn't know it, but the other fine replies that I got gave me information I didn't have before. Why would I subject my kids to religious indoctrination in the name of America? I wouldn't. So the whole point is moot!
Your implication seems like a straw man troll. I wouldn't force my children to join a white power group either. Sure I could talk to them about it after, but why subject them to more ignorance and hatred than they face every day?
It isn't as though they've missed the chance to see those things firsthand. We aren't talking about Haley's Comet, this is Humanity. Hard to miss those guys.
I believe this is the link you're looking for? I just googled it up, so it may not be the right site.
Scouting has been under attack for decades, a true shame since it encourages young men and women to go out and be active in their community and grow into thoughtful citizens, as well as teaching life skills such as planning schedules, reacting to emergencies and maintaining a budget.
That's quite a screed you've got there. I agree with some of it, and find a lot of it a little shrill. This bit I quoted kinda stuck in my craw though. I agree that programs *like* boy & girl scouts of america are a good idea. The problem for me is when the scouts shot themselves in the foot by trying to defend anti-gay policies.
I know that isn't an attitude I want drilled into my kids. No thanks. We have enough of that from our fathers. The molesters you have to look out for are almost never the out gays. It's just more gay-bashing clothed in the appearance of thinking of the children.
Maybe you should get involved with the scout leadership and get the thing on track again. It sounds like a paramilitary christian training camp to most people, I think.
Well, only since you're interested in grammar, I think you should say "I try to write as if I'm having a conversation..." not "like I'm having a conversation..."
Personally I'd use "I try to write as though I were having a conversation"
but that may be editorialism not grammar. Sometimes I think today's editorialism is simply yesterday's grammar Take for example the word "empathetic (*shudder*) which is now a real word after a generation of people couldn't wrap their heads around the word "empathic".
If that's true, "lol" will simply enter the lexicon and in 20 years it will be in doctoral theses. If there's any justice at all, though, people that use smileys in papers will be dragged into the street and beaten.
They won't, of course.
I quoted this for emphasis, but since it cannot be overstated,
They won't, of course.
Sometimes I wonder if the manufactured consumerist haze is the only thing stopping people from revolting.
So now I work for Microsoft, Opera Software, Steam, Google, Infinity Ward, Logitech and (interestingly) Red Hat. That makes my work days 56 hours long, which leaves me -32 hours per day to dick around.
Ah, so you're an H1-B!
Not me, I got vaccinated.
you forgot bags of weed, ass grass or cash is my moto
Hows that working on your website?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't those three things basically responsible for the proliferation of the internet? Some more than others, I suppose.
It's not the government that found a new pair, but Google!
When the Secretary of State (Hillary Clinton) calls out the Chinese about the hack attacks, I'd say that's the US Gov't finding a pair.
I look forward to someone in the Government calling out PayPal/E-Bay for their shitty business practices.
I watched parts of that speech. Was I the only one yelling at my TV, saying "WHAT ABOUT AUSTRALIA'S CENSORSHIP".
But of course, despite naming an assortment of "bad" countries (you know. where they nais pas parle englais) that are filtering the internet, she didn't mention our friends in the AU.
restoration.
This is the only thing I could see over the heaping piles of mangled straw-man bodies.
I believe you meant "restitution".
HTH
if what you desire to do with the book is make a copy and give it to someone else, whoever you've given the book to does not own the book. They have not purchased the book from you and they have not purchased the book from the author. They do not, legally or morally "own" the book.
To own something, one must buy it, yes? Making paper from wood pulp I take from a tree in the woods is morally wrong, because I should purchase my paper in a store? Or to use your example, if my friend had paid me for his copy, he would then legally own it? Interesting, proceed.
In fact, if you had a shred of morality, you would feel cheated because the person who now has your book has taken something from you with absolutely no remuneration.
So you have given this copy to your friend. But he has not paid you for the gift! So he cannot truly own it. Go on.
So to eliminate the sting that you feel for cheating yourself, you in turn cheat the publisher and author by making and retaining a copy.
He has cheated you, because in response to your gift, he did not give you a gift of equal value. That is how I feel every Christmas. You return the book to its original owner (we're still talking about the library, yes?) after cheating the author and publisher by making a copy of an already-purchased book. I think I'm having a little trouble following you here. I thought that if they had gotten paid for their book then the library owned it?
If you got past the first grade and didn't learn this lesson, many, many people have failed you in life. Either that or let me know where you live so I can come and take your stuff while you try to figure out how to copy it.
Yes, someone with this kind of thought process is clearly the product of some significant failures. I support your suggestion that the GP should have his home invaded and robbed. You have given him such insight, and has he repaid you? Not a dime.
Of course if all possessions were as easy to perfectly duplicate as a digital book, maybe the GP wouldn't actually object to you having a copy of everything he owns.
You have certainly given me a lot to think about, thank you.
Your facts have been checked, and found wanting. The real story is now there for all to see: [...] assholes moved into an area that didn't want them and started griefing the locals. The locals complained, and Linden did the right thing. Once again, when asshole[...]s aren't allowed to be bullies, they will whine about their 'freedom' being taken away.
Your sad attempt at propaganda fails.
Although I wholeheartedly agree with most of your remark, I have edited it to reflect a more objective view of reality.
HTH