My car is my property. No one has a right to stick anything to it without my consent. License plates? No, but they have a system in place to coerce me into accepting that and paying them for it.
I monitor it and haven't seen anything other than casual web browsing. And in a small town, where everyone knows everyone else, it's even less likely someone will use their AP for evil.
I don't care about the bandwidth, but I have my computers behind a NAT for a reason (not just because I only have one internet IP). Having an open WiFi network kinda defeats that. Most of the neighbors do their banking etc. online. My point was it won't just be your neighbors that you know and trust getting in to your network, and not everyone who gets in wants internet bandwidth.
I live in a very small farming town. I can pick up 3 networks from my house, there are 5 in town. Mine is the only secure one (WPA2). Try to explain it to anyone else and they'll say "Why shouldn't my neighbors get on my network?"
I know, feeding troll, but there is a common myth which really needs to get thrashed.
Pathetic slashdotters don't have nice jobs, houses or cars... They live on their moms' basements and download pr0n the whole day, because they are not able to create.
Way to use a stereotype as an argument. -fail #1
So, that is why they are so upset when someone try to put a bill in place to protect the rights of real people, that create real things.
No, we just recognize better than most that "intellectual property" is not property at all. Property exists because of limited resources. I can't magically create a new house/car/yard for my friend just because I have one. Therefore, it can only belong to one party. Knowledge or "intellectual property" can be copied at will. So, trying to restrict it is putting a monopoly where there is none.
...less than total inefficient transmission shouldn't be too bothersome.
My first impulse was to be a grammer nazi, but I refrained;-).
What "immense power?" You would need immense arrays to create "immense power." So big, in fact, that they would greatly interfere with the orbits of other satellites, including communications and spy satellites. No government is going to give up its spying capabilities to provide electrical power for the rest of the world. Besides, think about any poor bird/plane/helicopter/space shuttle that got in the way of any power beam worth sending back down to earth.
I would, actually. I hate having the government telling me and other people what the value of certain work is, how many days I can work, and how much I have to contribute to other people's retirement. I could do a great deal better than the government at managing my retirement. By the time I get around to retiring, social security will be bankrupt anyway...
He wasn't whining. He stated a problem and then proposed a solution. That is the critical difference between problem solving and whining. BTW, the solution is a good one.
Imagine, you break up with your girlfriend and she decides to do something stupid, and suddenly you're to blame...Imagine you do nothing, but this girl has a crush on you and kills herself because she thinks she can't even talk to you.
Hypothetical situations most/.ers cannot even conceive of.
Also, I found it quite ironic that Weird Al Yankovic's "Straight Outta Lynwood" was certified platinum by the RIAA, though one of the songs ("Don't Download This Song") directly mocks the RIAA's anti-copying stance.
You obviously fit "Humor impaired"...
I was making a joke about pot/kettle references. Again, you take things way out of context.
I'm going to ignore your entire argument because you cannot contemplate that my ideas exist without unconscious reference to a supreme being.
No, I am arguing that morality implies a supreme being. This by definition means I have considered your side. I have contemplated your ideas existing without a supreme being, and rejected that as illogical. I am trying to explain why. Perhaps you could explain how your ideas or "feelings" exist within a chance evolutionary framework. Perhaps you could also explain by what standard you call murder wrong.
I knew already that I was arguing with someone who ignores the context of statements and resorts to ad hominem attacks and false logic. Thank you for playing. Next?
At the core of it, you are equating the life of an unborn fetus to that of a grown adult. That is why you believe what you do - that abortion is wrong.
I challenge you to show me that a fetus is not human. Consider this: At what point does a fetus become human? When it passes through the vagina or the incision for a c-section? That seems rather arbitrary.
- Murder denies an adult of the right to make choices in their life.
Why should I care about your rights or anyone elses?
- Murderers are likely to be caught and severely punished, reducing the likelihood that rest of your life will be pleasant.
Why does society feel a need to do this? (Here's an easy one, I'll give you that)
- Murder just feels wrong. No reliance on morals, ethics or metaphysics. It's just something that a functional member of society would not contemplate. Not because there's no reason not to do it, but because there's no compelling argument to do it.
I can think of several reasons. A certain person I know would be much better off without someone else in their life. I could earn money for killing people. I could advance in the world by killing people. I could rule (by fear) by killing people. So there is plenty of reason for me to murder. Yet I don't, and I am not alone in this. So there must be a counter-reason. It isn't a feeling, and if it is, where did that feeling come from? Why is it there?
veiled threats
What threat? I took an argument to its logical conclusion. That is the essence of debate. Just because it isn't a particularly pleasant conclusion shouldn't bar it from the debate?
So, try to grow up, accept that the majority of us do not need to call upon old books and sayings to guide our lives or dictate our spectrum of values, and that ad hominem attacks... do not often go down well.
Pot, meet Kettle. And stop being racist.
(For the humor impaired, think about what a human would be called who said to another human what the pot says to the kettle.)
Slashdot Mirror
My car is my property. No one has a right to stick anything to it without my consent. License plates? No, but they have a system in place to coerce me into accepting that and paying them for it.
LOL ok, got me there. I was talking about in language. Of course, the English language could use failover many times...
I don't care about the bandwidth, but I have my computers behind a NAT for a reason (not just because I only have one internet IP). Having an open WiFi network kinda defeats that. Most of the neighbors do their banking etc. online. My point was it won't just be your neighbors that you know and trust getting in to your network, and not everyone who gets in wants internet bandwidth.
I live in a very small farming town. I can pick up 3 networks from my house, there are 5 in town. Mine is the only secure one (WPA2). Try to explain it to anyone else and they'll say "Why shouldn't my neighbors get on my network?"
No, it's needlessly redundant.
Necessarily redundant is an oxymoron.
(And so are many people when burnt.)/jokealert
No one reads that anymore. It used to be the prime textbook for law school. Not anymore :-(
That says a lot.
Wait... flying sharks with lasers?
*runs and hides*
Ah, thank you. That actually makes more sense.
Now, how are we going to enforce intellectual property rights? (The current systems suck.)
Way to use a stereotype as an argument. -fail #1
No, we just recognize better than most that "intellectual property" is not property at all. Property exists because of limited resources. I can't magically create a new house/car/yard for my friend just because I have one. Therefore, it can only belong to one party. Knowledge or "intellectual property" can be copied at will. So, trying to restrict it is putting a monopoly where there is none.
Like you...
Because then only 15 people would opt in...
Trolling a troll. LOL! So, which sockpuppet will show up to berate you? Bets anyone?
It's ok, that's what makes it hard to be a historian and a programmer ;-)
My first impulse was to be a grammer nazi, but I refrained ;-).
What "immense power?" You would need immense arrays to create "immense power." So big, in fact, that they would greatly interfere with the orbits of other satellites, including communications and spy satellites. No government is going to give up its spying capabilities to provide electrical power for the rest of the world. Besides, think about any poor bird/plane/helicopter/space shuttle that got in the way of any power beam worth sending back down to earth.
I would, actually. I hate having the government telling me and other people what the value of certain work is, how many days I can work, and how much I have to contribute to other people's retirement. I could do a great deal better than the government at managing my retirement. By the time I get around to retiring, social security will be bankrupt anyway...
Love to let go of those perks, but they are forced on me by a socialist big government, thus denying me my rights to the "pursuit of happiness."
He wasn't whining. He stated a problem and then proposed a solution. That is the critical difference between problem solving and whining. BTW, the solution is a good one.
Hypothetical situations most /.ers cannot even conceive of.
64 bit desktops running linux can use nswrapper, and flash runs perfectly...
Also, I found it quite ironic that Weird Al Yankovic's "Straight Outta Lynwood" was certified platinum by the RIAA, though one of the songs ("Don't Download This Song") directly mocks the RIAA's anti-copying stance.
I was making a joke about pot/kettle references. Again, you take things way out of context.
No, I am arguing that morality implies a supreme being. This by definition means I have considered your side. I have contemplated your ideas existing without a supreme being, and rejected that as illogical. I am trying to explain why. Perhaps you could explain how your ideas or "feelings" exist within a chance evolutionary framework. Perhaps you could also explain by what standard you call murder wrong.
I knew already that I was arguing with someone who ignores the context of statements and resorts to ad hominem attacks and false logic. Thank you for playing. Next?
Proof: sqrt(-1)
ARGGGGGG! Twice I type a reply and preview it, and twice it is erased. I will try again...