I am more than willing to give you file sharing, gay marriage, drugs, and Bosnian snipers. I have to object to abortion. While little to no change happens on the abortion front, it is, without a doubt, the biggest domestic moral issue of our time.
It is considered either as unjust as genocide or as fundamental a human right as freedom itself, and that is no distraction, but a question at the core of out morality.
I think you are right on the money. Republicans are concerned about protecting social values and punishing crime. If this was a Republican proposal, I'd say it was about protecting the children from immoral, illegal smut.
Democrats are interested in supporting the entertainment industry, and preventing "piracy" over the internet. They believe that the big business that is best for America is the entertainment/media industry, so I'd be shocked if a system such as this isn't expanded to include other clearly illegal activities.
If the government (Democrat or Republican) has the ability to monitor an illegal activity, they will use that power to stop it.
How is 12% a sizable percentage? Consider if 12% of the population admitted to committing a kidnapping at least once in their life. For some things 12% can be very significant, for "stealing" Wi-Fi, I don't think anyone's going to get too worried.
[Y]ou would not be able to find a cop that was willing to make an arrest. I think you underestimate the wide variety and diversity of intelligence we have in our police forces.
My first 0 mod. This is a proud moment for me. Didn't really figure I was trolling by calling out a comparison between imaginary laws that have not and will not ever exist to laws just as real as Sharia, Vichy, or American laws.
Sure, they aren't natural law, but they sure as hell aren't fiction.
Unfortunately for us all, it seems that much of the rest of the world will remain content to simultaneously revile and rely on America, as people have been doing since before this defense of America was published.
Of course Asimov's 3 laws are fiction. They never really existed and there is no reason to expect them to exist any time in the forseeable future. But to label the laws of the old testament as a prominent literary work of fiction serves no purpose other than to flame religion. The laws in the old testament were clearly observed and still are observed to this day by jews throughout the world. Questioning the validity of the laws does not equate to questioning their existence. The laws of the old testament are, and will continue to be relevant to millions of people throughout the world.
Imagine that. There are tradeoffs involved when making things safer.
The fact is, right now, instead of letting people choose if they want efficiency, or maximum acceleration, or a steel cage that can crush a Hummer, everyone is forced into the steel cage of safety. If I could save 4000 dollars off the price of a new car and 6 MPG for the life of it, I might just choose to risk death if a truck were to hit me, and it should be my choice to make.
They will learn that they either do or do not have the right to determine what the recipient of a work can do with the original work. They are not really claiming a copyright violation here if ownership is determined to have transferred, but that sending an unsolicited mailing with a disclaimer can remove the transfer of ownership that is assumed.
The EFF's position is that the mailing of the disc to a party constitutes a sale for the purposes of the "First Sale Doctrine", and it will be up to a judge to decide whether or not the recipients of the promo CDs ever actually owned them. If the judge determines ownership belongs to the recipient, then first sale will apply. The attack is not on first sale per se, but on the assumption that anything sent to you through the mail absent a contract stating otherwise becomes your property.
I know this is just eBay and collectors can always go to stores/swap meets/etc
That's just the thing. This is not just eBay, it's an argument that a copyright holder has the power to send any item through the mail, then dictate a recipient's use of that item, and all further recipients' use down the line. This case would, if decided in UMG's favor, set a precedent that would also apply to stores/swap meets/etc.
I understand where you're coming from, but it is, was, and always will be about who can do the best work. It sounds to me like a liberal meritocracy when you allow performance enhancers. In sports, there is an interest in a level playing field because the focus is on competition, but in the workplace the goal is not competition it's results.
It's already about who can get the best education, or know the most important people, or have access to the best technology. A level playing field isn't the goal, or you'd think it unfair that one guy has a computer he can fit in his pocket, or his glasses, or an implant in his ear. You can have a reasonable expectation that those who value results more than their peers with take steps with a higher cost to achieve those results, regardless of whether it is reasonable to expect all people to take those steps.
It's true that different people have different reactions to drugs. This is also true of every other thing out there. The reason you are giving for opposing this "Those of us competing with the drug users are being harmed" because the drug users gain an advantage which is worth more to them than the costs, is unconvincing.
Are you harmed by having to compete against the people who study hard at the expense of their social life? Are you harmed by the people who make sure to serve on the board of local charities for the purpose of networking with the local business leaders, helping to steer contracts their way? The truth is that everyone is competing, and you can make the same tradeoff as they do, but you have a different cost and, quite possibly, a higher value on your own health.
I'm fond of pointing out a clear contemporary example of a law waiting to be broken, and the moral reasoning behind it. These are laws that do not serve justice, and a summary of the history behind the principled opposition to them.
Marting Luther King Junior's letter from a Birmingham jail.
Health care is expensive, and will remain so no matter what system is in place. The cool thing is, advanced societies have already come up with a way to share the burden equally across a large group of people, without taking away anyone's opportunity to opt out of the system. This system is called private insurance. For those who elect not to participate in the system, the rational choice is to provide only the care they can afford. At some point, even life-saving care becomes prohibitively expensive.
Is it right to charge 10 people 1k a year to ensure that 1 more person each year will receive emergency medical care? Isn't it a better choice to spend that same 10k annually educating 300 high risk parents on the importance of proper nutrition and immunizations, reducing the infant mortality rate? Not only are there better uses for money than guaranteeing emergency health care, there are fairer uses. The sad fact of a functioning system that afford liberty is that there must be failures. The test of the morality of a free system is how bad the "failures" end up.
Damn! We should just charge each person for the care they receive and provide only the minimal morally required care for those that cannot pay for their own, while allowing those of means to purchase additional or higher quality care, using funds they have acquired though whatever contribution they have made to society, trading their own skills and products to those who value them more highly than the cost of production of said skills and values.
Slashdot Mirror
I am more than willing to give you file sharing, gay marriage, drugs, and Bosnian snipers. I have to object to abortion. While little to no change happens on the abortion front, it is, without a doubt, the biggest domestic moral issue of our time.
It is considered either as unjust as genocide or as fundamental a human right as freedom itself, and that is no distraction, but a question at the core of out morality.Slightly disturbing.
I think you are right on the money. Republicans are concerned about protecting social values and punishing crime. If this was a Republican proposal, I'd say it was about protecting the children from immoral, illegal smut.
Democrats are interested in supporting the entertainment industry, and preventing "piracy" over the internet. They believe that the big business that is best for America is the entertainment/media industry, so I'd be shocked if a system such as this isn't expanded to include other clearly illegal activities.
If the government (Democrat or Republican) has the ability to monitor an illegal activity, they will use that power to stop it.How is 12% a sizable percentage? Consider if 12% of the population admitted to committing a kidnapping at least once in their life. For some things 12% can be very significant, for "stealing" Wi-Fi, I don't think anyone's going to get too worried.
And, not to be redundant, but the law hasn't really said much about whether using an unsecured Wi-Fi access point represents a theft of services, though the groupthink (or consensus, if you prefer) on Slashdot has determined that it is the equivalent of visiting an unsecured web site.
My first 0 mod. This is a proud moment for me. Didn't really figure I was trolling by calling out a comparison between imaginary laws that have not and will not ever exist to laws just as real as Sharia, Vichy, or American laws.
Sure, they aren't natural law, but they sure as hell aren't fiction.
Unfortunately for us all, it seems that much of the rest of the world will remain content to simultaneously revile and rely on America, as people have been doing since before this defense of America was published.
The problem is that we are calculating in kibi and mibi tons.
I think it's even more likely the fault of terrorists.
Mod parent troll.
Of course Asimov's 3 laws are fiction. They never really existed and there is no reason to expect them to exist any time in the forseeable future. But to label the laws of the old testament as a prominent literary work of fiction serves no purpose other than to flame religion. The laws in the old testament were clearly observed and still are observed to this day by jews throughout the world. Questioning the validity of the laws does not equate to questioning their existence. The laws of the old testament are, and will continue to be relevant to millions of people throughout the world.
His name is Sgt. Black.
Somehow I don't expect this difference engine to start baking people cakes.
Aikon-
The last one didn't bake any cakes either.I think Austin Powers' dad has heard just about enough from your ilk already.
Remember me whenever you need a proxy to stand in for you during said fistfight.
Imagine that. There are tradeoffs involved when making things safer.
The fact is, right now, instead of letting people choose if they want efficiency, or maximum acceleration, or a steel cage that can crush a Hummer, everyone is forced into the steel cage of safety. If I could save 4000 dollars off the price of a new car and 6 MPG for the life of it, I might just choose to risk death if a truck were to hit me, and it should be my choice to make.They will learn that they either do or do not have the right to determine what the recipient of a work can do with the original work. They are not really claiming a copyright violation here if ownership is determined to have transferred, but that sending an unsolicited mailing with a disclaimer can remove the transfer of ownership that is assumed.
The EFF's position is that the mailing of the disc to a party constitutes a sale for the purposes of the "First Sale Doctrine", and it will be up to a judge to decide whether or not the recipients of the promo CDs ever actually owned them. If the judge determines ownership belongs to the recipient, then first sale will apply. The attack is not on first sale per se, but on the assumption that anything sent to you through the mail absent a contract stating otherwise becomes your property.That's just the thing. This is not just eBay, it's an argument that a copyright holder has the power to send any item through the mail, then dictate a recipient's use of that item, and all further recipients' use down the line. This case would, if decided in UMG's favor, set a precedent that would also apply to stores/swap meets/etc.
Yeah, I must be new here.
I understand where you're coming from, but it is, was, and always will be about who can do the best work. It sounds to me like a liberal meritocracy when you allow performance enhancers. In sports, there is an interest in a level playing field because the focus is on competition, but in the workplace the goal is not competition it's results.
It's already about who can get the best education, or know the most important people, or have access to the best technology. A level playing field isn't the goal, or you'd think it unfair that one guy has a computer he can fit in his pocket, or his glasses, or an implant in his ear. You can have a reasonable expectation that those who value results more than their peers with take steps with a higher cost to achieve those results, regardless of whether it is reasonable to expect all people to take those steps.It's true that different people have different reactions to drugs. This is also true of every other thing out there. The reason you are giving for opposing this "Those of us competing with the drug users are being harmed" because the drug users gain an advantage which is worth more to them than the costs, is unconvincing.
Are you harmed by having to compete against the people who study hard at the expense of their social life? Are you harmed by the people who make sure to serve on the board of local charities for the purpose of networking with the local business leaders, helping to steer contracts their way? The truth is that everyone is competing, and you can make the same tradeoff as they do, but you have a different cost and, quite possibly, a higher value on your own health.I'm fond of pointing out a clear contemporary example of a law waiting to be broken, and the moral reasoning behind it. These are laws that do not serve justice, and a summary of the history behind the principled opposition to them. Marting Luther King Junior's letter from a Birmingham jail.
Health care is expensive, and will remain so no matter what system is in place. The cool thing is, advanced societies have already come up with a way to share the burden equally across a large group of people, without taking away anyone's opportunity to opt out of the system. This system is called private insurance. For those who elect not to participate in the system, the rational choice is to provide only the care they can afford. At some point, even life-saving care becomes prohibitively expensive.
Is it right to charge 10 people 1k a year to ensure that 1 more person each year will receive emergency medical care? Isn't it a better choice to spend that same 10k annually educating 300 high risk parents on the importance of proper nutrition and immunizations, reducing the infant mortality rate? Not only are there better uses for money than guaranteeing emergency health care, there are fairer uses. The sad fact of a functioning system that afford liberty is that there must be failures. The test of the morality of a free system is how bad the "failures" end up.
Damn! We should just charge each person for the care they receive and provide only the minimal morally required care for those that cannot pay for their own, while allowing those of means to purchase additional or higher quality care, using funds they have acquired though whatever contribution they have made to society, trading their own skills and products to those who value them more highly than the cost of production of said skills and values.
/Adam Smith + Ayn Rand