Defense killing and murder(defense killing IS murd
on
GPL Violation - NVIDIA
·
· Score: 1
While I applaud the handling of this on both sides, this sort of thing shows a blindspot among a lot of people here.
A lot of people here seem comfortable, simultaneously, with two very contradictory ideas. On the one hand, there's the idea that someone who kills someone to get their wallet, has no real right to demand people's wallets, or to shoot people who refuse. On the other hand, there's the idea that someone who is being forced to surrender his wallet has every right to both demand ownership of his own wallet, and to shoot people who try to take it by shooting him.
There's a deep conflict between those ideas, and Slashdotters who adore non-violence and ignore violent self-defense need to recognize that and somehow resolve it.
In other words, how can non-violence be so holy if supposedly non-violent people must kill in self-defense? I'm curious as to thoughts.
Epilogue: Like a gun, a copyright is a tool -- it can be used for good or bad; for defense or invasion. Also like guns (in fact even more so), copyrights are in the vast majority of cases used for bad, and that is the reason that many hold they should be abolished. (Whether this holds true for guns, of course, is another issue.) Using a copyright to force people to respect the rights of a person, while at the same time opposing copyrights because they are usually used to deny the rights of a person, whether or not it is in the end sound, is not a contradiction. Like killing in self-defense, it merely requires a slightly deeper level of thought.
Yes, ">" "<" (and "&" to do the ampersand, FYI). See www.w3.org.
However, if you preview, it replaces the &HTML escapes -- bug in slashdot. So after preview, instead of hitting submit, use your browsers back function, and then hit submit. This bug has been known for more than six months.
Isn't in a copyright owner's privalige to not allow their copyrighted work to be used to disparage them? IANAL, but they should have SOME right to prevent the distribution of copyrighted images and terms, and trademarked names.
I'm going to assume you meant "isn't it" where you said "isn't in". If you didn't, disregard this post.
And the answer is, OF COURSE NOT!! Is it in a copyright holder's privilege to CENSOR OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS? ARG!! The primary purpose of fair use is to PREVENT copyright holders from using copyright to prevent criticism -- clearly a valid principle. Scientology has, interestingly enough, repeatedly used "intellectual property" laws, particularly trade secret law, and others to prevent criticism. The EFF has a whole section on that matter.
The entire purpose of copyright is, in fact, to encourage the creation of new works. Allowing authors to use copyright to *prevent* the creation of new works on the basis that they are critical is, frankly, absurd. Copyright law recognizes that it is absurd, but copyright law doesn't work how it is written -- the threat of a suit, no matter how little merit it actually has, is enough for a large company or organization to get its way most of the time. Both against the little guys, because they can't fight it, and against the big guys, because they don't want to.
(Yet another example of the countless annoyances and pitfalls of "intellectual property" restrictions in general.)
Uhm? That data doesn't contradict my post at all. Was it supposed to? What do age trends have to do with this? This more clearly shows the relevant data -- and again, it does not contradict my earlier post.
Were you disagreeing with me? I have to assume not, given your linked data.
Unfortunately, it is happening less often that it used to (road rage is an example.)
Ugh, please don't repeat the myth that violence is increasing. Violence in the US hasn't increased for ten years (and has actually decreased a bit). And while one has to stretch to corrolate violence with video games, it's plainly obvious and undeniable that violence overall is directly related to the "war on drugs". Crime dropped in half starting the day that alcohol prohibition ended and didn't significantly increase until the modern "war on drugs" began, after which it steadily increased to prohibition levels. Pfft!
Re:yes, rights are important
on
Pay Lars
·
· Score: 1
> Sez you.
Yes, I say it. It's also clearly the truth, as you admit.
> Free market competition requires rules of the game.
No it doesn't. It requires rule. The rule is that you aren't forceful.
> I am postulating that some form of intellectual property is required to ensure the game runs smoothly.
Fine. But that's an entirely different concept than the one you previously defended, i.e. that there is some "right" of Metallica to restrict other peoples use of specific information that they claim to have been the first to discover. A totally free market has disadvantages that can be curbed by violating free trade, and in theory this is what copyright does. But you can't then say that there is a "right" to those violations of free trade on the part of the beneficiary. And you can't complain when the charity given to you by said violations are not sufficient to meet your desires. Well you can, but you won't be making sense.
> WHAT IS an author but a member of society?
Jesus christ, you want to be pedantic about this? Copyright in the US isn't meant to protect authors IN THEIR CAPACITY AS AUTHORS. Happy? You obviously knew what I meant. Just trying this bullshit so you don't have to answer the actual point?
> First of all, I said "ideas are free". I think your retort ignored this. If a green man from mars thought of an idea first, he can't legally stop us from using it.
You said that "the most logical position" is that an author has a "right" to forcibly prevent others from using specific ideas s/he has thought of. Vague ideas, apparently, are fine by you -- so I won't address them.
> What I do say is that there needs to be some level of IP law in existence to properly facilitate a high level of innovation in intellectual works.
That's what you say now. What you said BEFORE was that there is a "right" to prevent people from using information. It is your original statement with which I take issue.
Re:yes, rights are important
on
Pay Lars
·
· Score: 1
> Who gets to decide "what metallica needs" to pay for its work and life? Certainly not you, nor should the government.
So, what do you suggest? That Metallica should have to survive on its own on the free market? Lemme give you a clue; free market and copyright are incompatible. Copyright is a restriction of the free market, MEANT TO ENHANCE THE LIVES, NOT OF THE AUTHOR, BUT OF SOCIETY. The government decides to give Metallica copyright monopoly AS A CHARITY, in order for them not to have to survive through free market competition and thus have more time to help society. And you ask "who is to decide" what Metallica really needs? Well, the government is granting the charity, so why shouldn't the government be the one? And who else do you propose?
> Furthermore, it is extremely presumptuous to say that the rights that congress grant U.S. residents aren't really rights. What "really" is a right? Is it something self-evident? Is it the U.N. declaration of rights? Who decides?
Please, go learn some US IP law before you start to talk about "rights that Congress grant[s]". The right granted by Congress is TO SOCIETY, not to any author.
> Currently the most logical perspective is the current one by the U.N. World Intellectual Property Organization: Ideas are free (gratis and libre). A particular manifestation of them are under the control of the creator.
That's absurd. For all we know, all the ideas -- even specific ones ("particular manifestation[s]"), have been invented in the past by some previous society of aliens from some other galaxy. Do they have a "right" to prevent us to use those ideas, because they thought of them first (and because they are specific)? I'd really like to hear the logic behind that.
I'm not sure if this is the same sh-script http server (I can't get in to the site), but muLinux has an http server with directory listing built in ash-script (in fact, most of muLinux's apps are in ash-script) the point being that they can be edited without another machine. IMHO it's not at all pointless as many of you are saying. If you look at what muLinux has done with ash, it's really incredible and very useful. I always keep a disk with mu on hand.:)
(I've plugged it so much, I feel compelled to say I have no vested interest in muLinux, except as a fan.)
The actions of the publishers et al in this case are blatantly illegal, and I commend them. Fuck the law; clearly it would do nobody any good here to obey it.
An oasis of sanity... But just watch some asshole sue.
Rights have nothing to do with it
on
Pay Lars
·
· Score: 1
It's absurd to think that anybody has a "right" to prevent someone else from using information just because the anybody was the first person known to create it. Copyright is unjustifiable except as an expedient, i.e. to promote the creation of new information. And in light of that fact, it most definitely *IS* relevant whether Metallica is making more than it needs to pay for its work and life -- giving our copyright tax dollars to Metallica for amenities rather than some smaller artist food for musical equipment (or even back to us) is not expedient, and that being the entire point of copyright, not good policy. Copyright would be much better at promoting the arts if it worked on a sliding scale.
In any case, let's not forget whose rights to peaceful existence are being violated here in the name of the greater good of new works.
That's not what he's talking about. He's talking about free software having *a monopoly* on the patent, as proprietary software has monopolies on its patents.
Like the GPL, except if a proprietor doesn't like the licensing terms, there's no legal way for it to implement a solution, even if it's written from scratch.
I don't think he spends all that much TIME insisting. But of course, the reason he spends any time is that open source is getting a lot of publicity through its corporate backing, and free software has taken a back seat (sad but true).
It's not small stuff to promote free software, and the terminology is a way to do that. Unfortunately, it's not really catching on in the mainstream. Every introduction I've read to GNU/Linux in the non- or semi-technical media has suggested that the entire OS, as opposed to its kernel, was created by Linus and his project. The history (or even existence) of GNU is never mentioned.
I don't know what you're talking about. I pity anybody who does all their reading on a computer screen. Unless there's some underground book-pirating scene of which I am unaware, that's a pretty limited amount of information (if there is, though, please email me!).
I've only actually read one book online cover-to-cover (metaphorically speaking, of course), but I've used a few more than that. Having a searchable text, or being able to look up a quote you remember in a book without running down to the library, or being able to copy a few pages or a chapter verbatim (for whatever reason) without typing them out are, regardless of the current quality of computer displays, very valuable tools, available far less frequently than I would like. Not to mention the expense of books -- which by any standard of human decency should be sold at most at cost, considering their value to society. Making information available to more people, even if it means printing on pulp or shitty CRTs, can be nothing but noble and beneficial. You don't have to enjoy either (pulp or CRTs) to realize that. So I guess I just can't understand Billington's position.
microtransactions are here now, aren't they? A paypal account is simple and free to set up, and now it seems everyone is using them for ebay sales or selling iopener cables or etc.
That's why all car doors (and ignitions) should accept the same universal key. If you lock your keys in your car, you can get right back in by calling the manufacturer.
Tell me, if telnetd (or however you get into Windows boxen normally) is down, why would backdoor.dll be up?? And why not let user set his own password for backdoor.dll? You didn't really think this out, did you? Neither did the moderators, I guess...
What new things does ext3 have? It's ext2 with journaling, ACL's and half-assed capabilities. Reiserfs does seem to have some different aims (though I don't know that they're worth dividing developer time over) but ext3 looks like XFS with half as many features planned, and backwards compatibility. But the point is, it's not time to worry about getting an fs with the right mindset when such an important feature is missing altogether. Just slap anything on that's stable, and worry about the rest later (that's what ext3/should/ have been). You try to add every imaginable feature at once like XFS is, and you'll just deliever all of them late. Especially if you're tearing developers away from the project that might actually deliver on time. But I guess 2.4 is out of the question now anyway. *grumble*
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of people here seem comfortable, simultaneously, with two very contradictory ideas. On the one hand, there's the idea that someone who kills someone to get their wallet, has no real right to demand people's wallets, or to shoot people who refuse. On the other hand, there's the idea that someone who is being forced to surrender his wallet has every right to both demand ownership of his own wallet, and to shoot people who try to take it by shooting him.
There's a deep conflict between those ideas, and Slashdotters who adore non-violence and ignore violent self-defense need to recognize that and somehow resolve it.
In other words, how can non-violence be so holy if supposedly non-violent people must kill in self-defense? I'm curious as to thoughts.
Epilogue: Like a gun, a copyright is a tool -- it can be used for good or bad; for defense or invasion. Also like guns (in fact even more so), copyrights are in the vast majority of cases used for bad, and that is the reason that many hold they should be abolished. (Whether this holds true for guns, of course, is another issue.) Using a copyright to force people to respect the rights of a person, while at the same time opposing copyrights because they are usually used to deny the rights of a person, whether or not it is in the end sound, is not a contradiction. Like killing in self-defense, it merely requires a slightly deeper level of thought.
However, if you preview, it replaces the &HTML escapes -- bug in slashdot. So after preview, instead of hitting submit, use your browsers back function, and then hit submit. This bug has been known for more than six months.
And the answer is, OF COURSE NOT!! Is it in a copyright holder's privilege to CENSOR OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS? ARG!! The primary purpose of fair use is to PREVENT copyright holders from using copyright to prevent criticism -- clearly a valid principle. Scientology has, interestingly enough, repeatedly used "intellectual property" laws, particularly trade secret law, and others to prevent criticism. The EFF has a whole section on that matter.
The entire purpose of copyright is, in fact, to encourage the creation of new works. Allowing authors to use copyright to *prevent* the creation of new works on the basis that they are critical is, frankly, absurd. Copyright law recognizes that it is absurd, but copyright law doesn't work how it is written -- the threat of a suit, no matter how little merit it actually has, is enough for a large company or organization to get its way most of the time. Both against the little guys, because they can't fight it, and against the big guys, because they don't want to.
(Yet another example of the countless annoyances and pitfalls of "intellectual property" restrictions in general.)
I stuck it on my server after the geocities mirror went down, just in case.
elian.swf
WHAASAAAAAAP
True.
True.
Gee, CmdrTaco, thanks for deciding the issue for us.
Were you disagreeing with me? I have to assume not, given your linked data.
Paint it beige and it's just another monitor. Ugh. What a world.
Ugh, please don't repeat the myth that violence is increasing. Violence in the US hasn't increased for ten years (and has actually decreased a bit). And while one has to stretch to corrolate violence with video games, it's plainly obvious and undeniable that violence overall is directly related to the "war on drugs". Crime dropped in half starting the day that alcohol prohibition ended and didn't significantly increase until the modern "war on drugs" began, after which it steadily increased to prohibition levels. Pfft!
> Sez you.
Yes, I say it. It's also clearly the truth, as you admit.
> Free market competition requires rules of the game.
No it doesn't. It requires rule. The rule is that you aren't forceful.
> I am postulating that some form of intellectual property is required to ensure the game runs smoothly.
Fine. But that's an entirely different concept than the one you previously defended, i.e. that there is some "right" of Metallica to restrict other peoples use of specific information that they claim to have been the first to discover. A totally free market has disadvantages that can be curbed by violating free trade, and in theory this is what copyright does. But you can't then say that there is a "right" to those violations of free trade on the part of the beneficiary. And you can't complain when the charity given to you by said violations are not sufficient to meet your desires. Well you can, but you won't be making sense.
> WHAT IS an author but a member of society?
Jesus christ, you want to be pedantic about this? Copyright in the US isn't meant to protect authors IN THEIR CAPACITY AS AUTHORS. Happy? You obviously knew what I meant. Just trying this bullshit so you don't have to answer the actual point?
> First of all, I said "ideas are free". I think your retort ignored this. If a green man from mars thought of an idea first, he can't legally stop us from using it.
You said that "the most logical position" is that an author has a "right" to forcibly prevent others from using specific ideas s/he has thought of. Vague ideas, apparently, are fine by you -- so I won't address them.
> What I do say is that there needs to be some level of IP law in existence to properly facilitate a high level of innovation in intellectual works.
That's what you say now. What you said BEFORE was that there is a "right" to prevent people from using information. It is your original statement with which I take issue.
> Who gets to decide "what metallica needs" to pay for its work and life? Certainly not you, nor should the government.
So, what do you suggest? That Metallica should have to survive on its own on the free market? Lemme give you a clue; free market and copyright are incompatible. Copyright is a restriction of the free market, MEANT TO ENHANCE THE LIVES, NOT OF THE AUTHOR, BUT OF SOCIETY. The government decides to give Metallica copyright monopoly AS A CHARITY, in order for them not to have to survive through free market competition and thus have more time to help society. And you ask "who is to decide" what Metallica really needs? Well, the government is granting the charity, so why shouldn't the government be the one? And who else do you propose?
> Furthermore, it is extremely presumptuous to say that the rights that congress grant U.S. residents aren't really rights. What "really" is a right? Is it something self-evident? Is it the U.N. declaration of rights? Who decides?
Please, go learn some US IP law before you start to talk about "rights that Congress grant[s]". The right granted by Congress is TO SOCIETY, not to any author.
> Currently the most logical perspective is the current one by the U.N. World Intellectual Property Organization: Ideas are free (gratis and libre). A particular manifestation of them are under the control of the creator.
That's absurd. For all we know, all the ideas -- even specific ones ("particular manifestation[s]"), have been invented in the past by some previous society of aliens from some other galaxy. Do they have a "right" to prevent us to use those ideas, because they thought of them first (and because they are specific)? I'd really like to hear the logic behind that.
(I've plugged it so much, I feel compelled to say I have no vested interest in muLinux, except as a fan.)
An oasis of sanity... But just watch some asshole sue.
In any case, let's not forget whose rights to peaceful existence are being violated here in the name of the greater good of new works.
ghostview, xpdf, gnome-gv, kgv -- take your pick.
Like the GPL, except if a proprietor doesn't like the licensing terms, there's no legal way for it to implement a solution, even if it's written from scratch.
It's not small stuff to promote free software, and the terminology is a way to do that. Unfortunately, it's not really catching on in the mainstream. Every introduction I've read to GNU/Linux in the non- or semi-technical media has suggested that the entire OS, as opposed to its kernel, was created by Linus and his project. The history (or even existence) of GNU is never mentioned.
A lot more expensive than a free library card, though :(
You can find most online books that exist at upenn, though obviously they aren't on CD.
I've only actually read one book online cover-to-cover (metaphorically speaking, of course), but I've used a few more than that. Having a searchable text, or being able to look up a quote you remember in a book without running down to the library, or being able to copy a few pages or a chapter verbatim (for whatever reason) without typing them out are, regardless of the current quality of computer displays, very valuable tools, available far less frequently than I would like. Not to mention the expense of books -- which by any standard of human decency should be sold at most at cost, considering their value to society. Making information available to more people, even if it means printing on pulp or shitty CRTs, can be nothing but noble and beneficial. You don't have to enjoy either (pulp or CRTs) to realize that. So I guess I just can't understand Billington's position.
(I'm in no way affiliated btw)
Tell me, if telnetd (or however you get into Windows boxen normally) is down, why would backdoor.dll be up?? And why not let user set his own password for backdoor.dll? You didn't really think this out, did you? Neither did the moderators, I guess...
The URL is http://www.calcaria.net/. They've got the kernel working and basic apps, and touchscreen support, but it's still pretty worthless. No apps.
Anybody know what's up with IBM's JFS?