This seems reasonable but it's not up to an ISP or a law-enforcement agency(LEA) to decide legality.
That's what courts are for.
If someone posts something I don't like can I tell the hosting company that it's illegal - or get the police to do it for me?
If the matter of legality is decided by the LEAs we have a police state.
I disagree. LEAs must, by definition, make certain judgement calls on illegal activity in order to do their job. Do you want a judge to have to make a ruling on whether whats happening is domestic violence before the cops can even come into the house and remove the spouse who is attacking you? LEOs have to make arrests, issue warnings and begin preliminary (non warrent requiring) investigations without first proving the case in a court of law.
I see no problem with an LEA saying "we have a report of what appears to be a legal violation on your servers, if you don't take it down, we will begin an official investigation of it and have a judge decide if you should be punished." This is far more lenient than they would be with most crimes! Can you imagine if you were being mugged and a cop walked up and said "hey, this looks like a mugging, and if you don't stop now, I'm gonna have to think about arresting you."?
Now there are obvious reasons for being lenient, as this is more like a health or fire code violation than an assualt. But in those cases, the situation is handled exactly the same as what you are claiming is a police state. "There seems to be a violation here, but its the sort of thing that could be an aberation rather than on purpose, so I'm going to give you a chance to fix it before I begin official proceedings that would definitivly establish it as a violation and get you in major trouble."
Now if you really WANT it to go the other possible way, where the first hint of violation is carried all the way to a judge who then hands out an official judgement that they are criminals, we could do it that way. But I suspect we'd be hearing screams of "thought police" and "overzealous prosecution" then.;->
no see here's the legal precedent, because the government is stupid and does not understand technology: the ISP is responsible for all content a user acesses -- not just the content it PROVIDES. ie if a user accesses a child porn WEBSITE, the ISP is responsible and must block it. tech people know that this is a cnsiderably different scenario, but government types dont, and soon ISPs will be forced to use blocking software, much like schools.
*snort* oh I get it. What they're doing is ok, but because you assume that they are stupid, it has to be opposed anyway on the assumption that it was just an accident that it was a good thing?
Its funny how there's such a fine line between paranoia and egomania, isn't it? You aren't that complicated. The net isn't that complicated. Anyone can understand the difference between opening a feed to the entire WWW that you have to make consious efforts to block, and a system (USENET) where in most cases the provider has to make a consious effort to add content to its own servers. Its not that difficult, even people with a significantly longer and more complex education than yours can understand it.
If you REALLY think that those dumb judges that only had to go to school for eight years and clerk for a few more and prove themselves as a lawyer to get where they are can't understand that, why don't you make a big contribution to the EFF with a request that they prepare a "friend of the court brief" (cue lawyers saying 'how could those stupid techies be expected to understand what that is?') to be submitted on similar cases that try to inapropriately use this as precident?
He is right in that you don't understand the situation: what's the effective difference between eternal and indefinitely extensible?
no, he's the worst kind of debater and so are you. I read and participate in arguments every day on a huge range of suspects, and if there is one thing I can't stand, its that old "you don't understand (because you haven't agreed with me yet)" BS. I don't like it when people use it on me, I don't even like it when they use it on someone I don't agree with.
So far your "inifinitly extensible" assertion strikes me as little more than a slippery slope argument. They've done this, so we must act as if they have already done everything we fear for the future. While you may have a legitamate fear, it is an issue for the future, a call for better organizing and awareness of possible proposals and pro active organizing to head them off. It is not (IMHO) a rational argument against the current law that it may or may not be part of a trend. Either it is too long on its own, and should be opposed without reference to theoretical future additions, or it is just under the line and we should organize for that future. This is my understanding, and while my conclusions may not agree with yours, it is not because you have access to some higher knowlege or insight that I lack. We just don't agree. Deal with it.
I'm afraid you've fallen for the same trap you accuse your oppenent of: demonizing the opposition. He never said he wants to destroy all forms of IP and ownership, just that he wants reasonable limits to the rights of the individual or corporation, respecting instead the rights of the greater society in general.
actually, I was demonizing him for being a hypocrit, by bashing on me for making a (incidental to the point of my post) personal comment and then going on to whine about how the poor little boy scouts were being hurt by IP. (in what I suspect to be a sensationalzed version of the real issue, I have a taste for those.) If he made a real intelectual point or proposal in there I was to disgusted to notice it.
In terms of limits, I have several limits that I would love to see placed on IP, mostly relating to corporate ownership but the typical/. IP discussion is usually too absolutist libertarian to be worth talking about them.
Being vegetarian does not preclude wearing animal products.
yes, thats why I said "ethical vegetarian" that is (roughly) one who does not eat meat because they think it is wrong to kill an animal for food. WHile this also does not by definition preclude wearing leather, most people find it somewhat inconsistant to refuse to eat meat "because of the cruelty" but buy a leather coat.
Different strokes for different folks, though. I find waste more ethically disturbing than factory farming (which I try not to support) so if they're going to die I'd rather see the skin used than thrown away. Anyway, the orriginal post seemed to be talking about using a leather jacket to send an anti animal slaughter message, so I was going with that.
Nothing personal, but that is roughly the worst reasoning I have ever heard. Just because one person decides to use the money he has gained through constitutionally shady means for a good purpose, does not make it right that he got that money in the first place.
read the post again. I said that it was a personal note, and that my intellectual reasons for supporting IP were different. And frankly, I see nothing whatsoever "constitutionally shady" about current copyright law. The constant extensions are a bit annoying, but what is 20 or 50 years after a person's death?
And as for the rest of your post, talk about bad reasoning! "oh, they pick on the BOY SCOUTS! dear god, the humanity, we better destroy IP!" (insert random obnoxious comment about the BSA here)
oh, and don't give me that "well meaning but don't understand" shit. Just because I don't AGREE WITH YOU doesn't mean there is anything wrong with my understanding of the situation. copyright should not be eternal, nor is it. But I believe it should exist, and understand just fine the ramifications of that.
Don't you think it's a bit ironic that this guy was ordering a pair of supposedly sweatshop manufactured shoes, for the purpose of calling attention to the fact that they were manufactured in a sweatshop?
You are assuming he actually EXPECTED his order to be filled. A foolish assumption, IMHO. The article called it a culture jam, and thats just what it was. A way to get Nike to do just what it did and expose their hypocrisy for the (internet) world.
And if one went out and got a leather jacket at a second hand store and did just what you mention, it would be kinda funny and ethically legitamate. (or if someone wasn't an ethical vegitarian and just wanted to make irony points.)
Any more info on this? Google searches are turning up dry for me.
Sorry, I heard the report on my local NPR station one day at work, but I have a terrible memory for certain details (like dates or if they were quoting another news source).
This is the entire Achilles' Heel of the indefinite-copyright advocates; the grant of copyright exists for a specific purpose, and may not be legitimately used for any other (including and especially to allow wealthy people to extract monopoly rents from the populace).
While this is a legitamate argument, I find it ironic in this setting. How well would it fly if we were talking about gun law and someone brought up the phrasing and "specific purpose" given in the 2nd amendment (USC)? From my expereince here, I suspect not well.
Additionally, don't forget the 9th amendment (my personal favorite) which protects even those rights not spelled out in the document. The high court could easily find that even without the explicit language in the constitution that the right to control the fruits of your intellectual and creative labor should be "retained by the people".
Finally, on a personal note, my favorite artist was and is Harry Chapin. During his life, he set up a foundation called World Hunger Year to fight poverty in ameica and abroad (without the silly posing, he really did "fight hunger before it was cool".) AFAIK, royalies from the sales of his records, including those collections edited and published after his death continue to fund that foundation. That a man who cared deeply about something could have his the work of his life keep working years after his death is a good and beautiful thing (tm) and its hard for me to say "no, he should have lost rights to his work ten years or less after he did it and definitly terminate any control with his death" or whatever limited copyright means to this group. I also have intelectual reasons for supporting IP, but the emotional helps make it more relevant at times.
Think this sort of thing would have been allowed to happen in the magazine publishing world? "Oh, gee, sorry, you can't publish any magazine with 'Referee' in the title in any form, we own that word."
yes. Sometime (?late last year?) there was a suit filed by the publishers of Entrepenuer magazine to shut down new magazines with names like Black Entrepenuer and Women Entrepenuers. Big companies step on little companies all the time, but/. only notices it with web addresses.
Saving space in the material for glue capsules takes away from the soundness of the material. Why not just put something stronger in the glue's place from the beginning so that the material doesn't break at all?
I hope you aren't a structural engineer. It seems obvious to me that lattices are going be be stronger against some kinds of stress than solid blocks. A material that needs to be able to tolerate some amount of tourque (sp?) or provide flexibility (like the joints of a space suit) or that by design you would rather have develope small cracks that heal rather than hold inflexible until it shattered (rails, perhaps?) is going to have the potential for improvement by this process.
rigidity and strength are not always synonymous. Nor, for that matter are absolute strength and suitablity for a job.
No, not the camera's everywhere part that some people seem to think is all the book was about*. I mean this.
Schools may be next, since textbooks are so expensive anyway. Once college kids start using them (trade in my 100 pound textbooks for one cool-looking textpad? Sure), they will slowly make their way into the workplace, then into homes.
And what happens when those textbooks, including sociology and history can be "updated" as seamlessly as the tech manuals? What about when all periodicals are online and you can only look up back issues in the publisher's central archive? I'll tell you what - we will be a hell of a lot closer to "1984" than a few automatic cameras at stoplights will ever get us.
It is important to be able to get perspective on how different parts of history have been played up or down. It is useful to be able to remind publishers of what their words were orriginally on an issue that they have now changed their minds on. Its even nice to read the first edition of the Stand and compare it to the "uncut". Paper books going away may save a little space, but I'd hardly call it a good thing.
*[rant] why the hell do/.ers seem to think that 1984 was all about cameras and farenhiet 451 was all about book burning? Those may be the most gripping and dramatic parts, but each book contained an entire world where the human changes and accomadations was at least as significant as the teasers. Smith's job as a rewriter of history was far more prophetic IMHO than the worry of universal cameras, but no one cares when that comes true. The four wall televisions and creeping impersonality that surrounded the fireman mean more in our world than the crazy idea that all books could be banned, but people read it like a one note screed against censorship instead of a comentary on PEOPLE.[end rant]
OK, anyway, the reason that there is no paperless office is the very "criticisms" some have made of paper. Its isn't rewritable, you have a long term record of the original mistake as well as the correction. (last nights Law and Order springs to mind)
[what]is the best/most effective argument to get non-techie types to understand that the computer/internet is just another form of media and should be treated just like we would books/video/magazines?
To start, you might try not talking like your opinion is the fundemental revealed truth and those who disagree with you just don't "understand". That seems to turn a lot of people off. You might be better off asking
"What is the best/most effective argument to win over non-techie or other disagreeing types to my point of view that the computer/internet is just another form of media and should be treated just like we would books/video/magazines?"
If the additude in your question spills over to your conversations with those you don't agree with (techie or non) you are unlikely to win converts no matter what arguments you use.
the definition of adultery is to be discussed and determined by those that are in the relationship. Thats the way real people work.
Your first sentance is a lovely idea, but the second is just plain wrong, unless you meant to say "perfect people" or "really intelligent, totally emotionaly mature people." Real people write letters to Ann Landers saying things like "I had assumed this would stop after the wedding, but then it didn't" or "how could she not know I would be upset by...". Real people have unspoken agreements that they find out later were agreeing to two different things. Real people make assumptions that their definitions are accepted by the other person.
Very few people sit down at the start of a relationship and go over the multitude of grey areas to see where thier partner stands. Those that do may find they change their mind over time but don't realize it until a situation presents itself. In the real world, complications happen.
Thus, these kinds of discussions are useful, not only to build up a societal "baseline assumption" for the majority who do not have these conversations, but to provide a starting point for the discussions of those that would be willing to negotiate their own dynamic.
Did you miss the point intentionally or trying to confuse the issue???
Nobody has the RIGHT to a profit...
If the publishing houses produce a product which is not economically viable - they whould be forced out of business to prevent them from producing crap we don't need.
I'm afraid you're the one confusing the issue. The publishers are producing a product that people want, and that all other things being equal, they are willing to pay for. Therefore, if they are going to produce that product, they do in fact have the right to make money off of it, instead of being forced to give it away for free. If they produce a product and you want it so much that you steal it instead of paying for it, this is not a problem with their product, its with your morals. Similarly, if they produce a service (such as an on line subscription based journal) and you want it, you either pay what they want, or your don't get it. You and twenty other people don't pay once and then all get the same amount of access as if eachone had paid the full price, unless they have allowed for this through an organization rate. An organization (such as a library) doesn't pay one organizational rate, then give equal access to 10 other libraries. (what the article was actually talking about before the/. lying started.)
These things are not about you being forced to pay for a product that you don't want or your strawman about them "deserving a profit for nothing". This is about you not stealing the things you want and them in fact deserving a profit if people like what they produce.
Its so funny when a slashdotter gets hung barely between libertarianism and socialism "Everything I want for free, but no one has a right to make a living." this thread is pure/. propaganda at its best. (and worst)
So you agree that Napster has at the very least had little effect on record sales and therefore does not prose a threat to the RIAA? Because with your logic it appears to me that Napster is not having a definitive effect, either positively or negatively, on the RIAA and therefore you should be argueing for Napster. Here's the logic presented in a different format:
1. Record sales cannot be linked either negatively or positively to Napster use.
2. Therefore, there is neither a negative or positive reason for banning Napster use.
Nope, not even close to what I said, but thanks for playing. I personally cannot link napster positively or negitively to record sales because I don't have a masters in accounting statisitics and 10 years worth of accounting records. This does not mean the napster cannot be linked to harm to the record industry, and its certainly no reason to give them a free ride on violating copyright.
I suspect that if it came down to it, the RIAA could quite easily prove harm by showing trends in increasing sales and increasing costs then showing that with the advent of napster they lost none of their costs but had loses in those demographics most linked to napster use (college kids already shown) and no gains in other areas that aren't explained by non napster related long term trends.
And when you break the law, it isn't on the other side to show that you were really hurting them. You sound like the obnoxious brats on the subway who would give me a hard time for pointing out that that they weren't allowed to smoke "oh I'm so sure it was bothering you" You don't have to wait until someone is actualy harmed by it to tell someone to stop breaking the law. You actually follow the rules because thats how adult society works.
Seriously tho, From what i've read, album sales have actually gone *up* since Napster has been around.
I never understand why people keep using this false peice of logic. Yeah, maybe record sales have gone up. Coincidentally, so has the number of performers, the raw number of consumers and the economy. When was the last time record sales weren't going up? A numerical increase in record sales doesn't mean that napster is helping record sales. It doesn't mean that napster isn't reducing what the sales would be without it. You just can't say that.
In comparison, I recal a/. thread about some failed software company that had filed suit against microsoft and won, but only gotten a token damages payment, because they had never been sucessfull in the first place. After all, they had been making no money before MS interfered and still making no money afterwards, how can there have been damages. Most/.ers objected to this logic and said that their projected revenue should have made them qualified for damages. But in the case of record companies that actually have decades of trends and research to back up projected revenue streams, we get this silly "their sales went up so there's no damge" stuff.
Kahuna Burger
Why is "unhappy ending" described as "realistic"?
on
The Pledge
·
· Score: 4
Now, before everyone jumps on the title and says "because the real world doesn't have a happy ending", let me be a little meta. Most stories in the real world do have a happy (or content) ending. And they have an unhappy ending. It depends on who's telling the story.
A college football team faces a new coach and interpersonal conficts, as well as personal problems for individual team members. They fight their way through close games with larger schools all the way to the BIG Game... which they lose because this movie is about the other team and their personal challenges and triumphs.
A fucked up and misogynistic teenager manipulates and occasionally date rapes teen girls until he either 1) gets the shit kicked out of him by one's older brother, 2) gets send to JV and sexually assaulted by an older boy, 3) gets aids and dies a nasty death because he doesn't get tested and find out the truth until its too late, 4) we don't know because this is a "gritty realistic" movie that ends after only one day during which he didn't suffer any consequences.
Every story is a little slice. There are very few movies where you couldn't play the "well, if this was THEIR movie" game and see it completely differently. The thing is that a couple of centuries (if not millenia) of writers have had the intelligence to know who they are writing for and pick the slice and the endpoint that their readers/viewers are looking for and will enjoy the most. The greek tragedies were just what they said. They were no more "realistic" in their morbidity than the comedies were in their expansive happy endings. They were just written for different audiences and expectations.
So if I as a reader/veiwer enjoy one kind of ending point, and find another to be unneccassarily depressing or for that matter find that that particular slice isn't one I will spend my recreational time on, I no more deserve to be told that I "can't handle the realism" or "want a holywood ending" than the guy who hates romantic films and wants the "holywood ending" of lots of violence and gore.
I doubt The Pledge is any more unflinchingly realistic than When Harry Met Sally. Its just picking a side of a story that most people don't find enjoyable. If it can pull it off, great, but if it fails thats its fault as a movie, not ours as veiwers.
about doing something you know everyone will call brave? Its like praising people for "not being politically correct" when un PC is the real PC these days.
Seriously. I haven't seen this film, but when I look back at the films that I have recently seen described as "brave" or "an unflinching portrayal of the real world" they were mostly nasty pulp fiction getting off on showing violent nasty people get away with it. And they have that "if you can handle it" arrogence that forces people to treat it as though its art instead of (non sexual) porn. Theres nothing particluarly deep, or IMHO really talented about having a story where everything sucks at the beginning and everything sucks at the end. A film like that CAN be good or deep or whatever, but it can also be badly written, badly portrayed and in its own way just as cliched as the so called "holywood ending".
If this film is good, it will be because it was a well made and acted film, just like dozens of other well made and acted films that happened to have more or less upbeat endings. But when reviewers use terms like "brave" and "unflinching" it all translates with me as "pretensious".
Only if you keep score; most of the times I've played these types of games, we haven't bothered. Trivial pursuit is another example - I've played with friends, many times, without ever having finished the game. Just because the rules tell you how you can keep score, doesn't mean that you have to do so.
I want to play with your friends! Why do people have to play pictionary as a competition? The fun part is drawing and guessing, why risk ruining it with stress or blaming someone for "losing us the game"?
Competitive games have their place and sure they can be fun, but sometimes the process is a lot more enjoyable if you just do it moment to moment than having to be the "winner" at the end.
Think about kids playing "tag". Unless you have a bunch of jerks who hate one or two kids, you have brief moments of competition all strung together but no need for an end winner or loser.
The original game is more of a winner-take-all as the player with more credits is let off the hook (the "credits" are in and of themselves not valuable). As well, the players are not allowed to communicate and therefore cannot strategize, coerce, or otherwise influence eachother. I will assume that players are aware of their own running score, and therefore aware of the other player's last move. I will assume that if the prisoners tie in score, that neither will be let off (why would the prison be so generous?) Gaining more credits puts you in a better position to be let off than your opponent - therefore the original game is zero-sum.
As I understood the orriginal game, you are close, but no cigar. Two prisoners were given the chance to inform on each other. If one informed and the other didn't, he would be set free in exchange for helping get a very high sentance for the cooperator. If both defected, they screwed each other - both got long sentances, because the gaurds had enough evidence to keep both. But if neither informed (dual cooperation) there was not enough evidence to convict either of the serious crime and they both got short sentances for lesser crimes.
The points then, indicated the overall effect of their behaviour, not, as you indicated a long term attempt to screw the other. If you rat on your buddy, this time you might go free, but next time, he'll remember and rat you too and you're both screwed. Cooperate, and you may serve a little time, but next time you will again only take the small fall instead of getting screwed.
Prisoner's dilemma is all about non zero sum, thats what it was developed to explore. Your method would be pointless as a learning tool for economics and psychology.
Your analogy to poker is perfect, and yet you still missed the point. When you play poker are you a) trying to win the most hands?, or b) trying to win the most money? Hint: $$$.
I'm afraid it is you that missed the point. Prisoners dilemma is nothing like poker, because in poker, everyone brings money to the table, and the same amount of money leaves in different people's pockets. In order to leave with more money, someone else has to leave with less. This is the very definition of a zero sum game. In the above example, the kids were NOT competeing for the skittles. A skittle for you does not come out of the mouth of another student, it comes from the "banker" of the game. You can both leave with more than you came in with. This is a non zero sum game.
Its really sad/funny that you can't see that with the terms already there in the discussion.
PS, you might have been close if you talked about blackjack, where several players play against the house. If you pay attention to other people's cards, you can sometimes cooperate to force the house into busting, rather than everyone trying to optimise their individual hands.
Maybe this is why I had (and have!) so few friends. When I was younger I always preferred working together with my friend against an imaginary enemy over fighting against each other. I always preferred the cooperation over competition.
I always liked role playing games best for this reason. While I enjoy watching others play "strategy" (read : war, or continuation by other means) games, I've never liked them myself. I was watching my friends play Settlers of Catan the other day and I realized that I would never be able to enjoy the game, because it takes a situation that cries out for cooperation, and artificially forces a zero sum outcome on it. (for the players of the game, I realized that the way I think, every time I got a chance to move the thief, I'd put him on the desert hex where he wouldn't hurt anyone.)
I've always liked long term card games when the people I'm playing with don't need to obsessively keep score. wist or gin rummy and just saying "oh, I lost that hand, lets play again" instead of cribbage looking at the score peg where one person is 200 points ahead, but INSISTS on keeping on playing and will not accept a graceful surrender.
And yet his point is that innocent people were subjected to the scan. If someone had a warrant on them, then a strip search is no big deal. But to strip search 100,000 people looking for a possible terrorist is a big deal. Being scanned is less intrusive. This makes it better or more vile?
You must be kidding. Being scanned is not just "less intrusive than a strip search". It is completely non-intrusive. There is no comparison between being stripped or even frisked and having you image recorded in a public place. In fact, stadiums routinely film spectators at sporting events, so anyone with a phobia of cameras has no business being there in the first place.
No one has given a convincing argument that having your image observed, analysed or watched remotely in a public place where you have no reasonable expectation of privacy is a violation of any of your rights. Most of the paranoids on/. depend on either the assumption that this tech will automatically be used in other, worse ways (funny, when the government tries to oppose tech on its worst case usage, we mock them here, now don't we?) or that a computer positive will result in brainless autonomons hurling you to the ground and beating you right there, without any human cross check, or they simply make baseless comparisons to truely violating expereinces and hope the rest of us are dumb enough to buy it.
Stay at home and order all your food from the internet if you want to be that paranoid, but this ain't Big Brother by a long shot.
Slashdot Mirror
If someone posts something I don't like can I tell the hosting company that it's illegal - or get the police to do it for me? If the matter of legality is decided by the LEAs we have a police state.
I disagree. LEAs must, by definition, make certain judgement calls on illegal activity in order to do their job. Do you want a judge to have to make a ruling on whether whats happening is domestic violence before the cops can even come into the house and remove the spouse who is attacking you? LEOs have to make arrests, issue warnings and begin preliminary (non warrent requiring) investigations without first proving the case in a court of law.
I see no problem with an LEA saying "we have a report of what appears to be a legal violation on your servers, if you don't take it down, we will begin an official investigation of it and have a judge decide if you should be punished." This is far more lenient than they would be with most crimes! Can you imagine if you were being mugged and a cop walked up and said "hey, this looks like a mugging, and if you don't stop now, I'm gonna have to think about arresting you."?
Now there are obvious reasons for being lenient, as this is more like a health or fire code violation than an assualt. But in those cases, the situation is handled exactly the same as what you are claiming is a police state. "There seems to be a violation here, but its the sort of thing that could be an aberation rather than on purpose, so I'm going to give you a chance to fix it before I begin official proceedings that would definitivly establish it as a violation and get you in major trouble."
Now if you really WANT it to go the other possible way, where the first hint of violation is carried all the way to a judge who then hands out an official judgement that they are criminals, we could do it that way. But I suspect we'd be hearing screams of "thought police" and "overzealous prosecution" then. ;->
Kahuna Burger
*snort* oh I get it. What they're doing is ok, but because you assume that they are stupid, it has to be opposed anyway on the assumption that it was just an accident that it was a good thing?
Its funny how there's such a fine line between paranoia and egomania, isn't it? You aren't that complicated. The net isn't that complicated. Anyone can understand the difference between opening a feed to the entire WWW that you have to make consious efforts to block, and a system (USENET) where in most cases the provider has to make a consious effort to add content to its own servers. Its not that difficult, even people with a significantly longer and more complex education than yours can understand it.
If you REALLY think that those dumb judges that only had to go to school for eight years and clerk for a few more and prove themselves as a lawyer to get where they are can't understand that, why don't you make a big contribution to the EFF with a request that they prepare a "friend of the court brief" (cue lawyers saying 'how could those stupid techies be expected to understand what that is?') to be submitted on similar cases that try to inapropriately use this as precident?
But that could actually accomplish something.
Kahuna Burger
no, he's the worst kind of debater and so are you. I read and participate in arguments every day on a huge range of suspects, and if there is one thing I can't stand, its that old "you don't understand (because you haven't agreed with me yet)" BS. I don't like it when people use it on me, I don't even like it when they use it on someone I don't agree with.
So far your "inifinitly extensible" assertion strikes me as little more than a slippery slope argument. They've done this, so we must act as if they have already done everything we fear for the future. While you may have a legitamate fear, it is an issue for the future, a call for better organizing and awareness of possible proposals and pro active organizing to head them off. It is not (IMHO) a rational argument against the current law that it may or may not be part of a trend. Either it is too long on its own, and should be opposed without reference to theoretical future additions, or it is just under the line and we should organize for that future. This is my understanding, and while my conclusions may not agree with yours, it is not because you have access to some higher knowlege or insight that I lack. We just don't agree. Deal with it.
I'm afraid you've fallen for the same trap you accuse your oppenent of: demonizing the opposition. He never said he wants to destroy all forms of IP and ownership, just that he wants reasonable limits to the rights of the individual or corporation, respecting instead the rights of the greater society in general.
actually, I was demonizing him for being a hypocrit, by bashing on me for making a (incidental to the point of my post) personal comment and then going on to whine about how the poor little boy scouts were being hurt by IP. (in what I suspect to be a sensationalzed version of the real issue, I have a taste for those.) If he made a real intelectual point or proposal in there I was to disgusted to notice it.
In terms of limits, I have several limits that I would love to see placed on IP, mostly relating to corporate ownership but the typical /. IP discussion is usually too absolutist libertarian to be worth talking about them.
anyway, dead topic, have a nice day.
kahuna burger
Being vegetarian does not preclude wearing animal products.
yes, thats why I said "ethical vegetarian" that is (roughly) one who does not eat meat because they think it is wrong to kill an animal for food. WHile this also does not by definition preclude wearing leather, most people find it somewhat inconsistant to refuse to eat meat "because of the cruelty" but buy a leather coat.
Different strokes for different folks, though. I find waste more ethically disturbing than factory farming (which I try not to support) so if they're going to die I'd rather see the skin used than thrown away. Anyway, the orriginal post seemed to be talking about using a leather jacket to send an anti animal slaughter message, so I was going with that.
Kahuna Burger
read the post again. I said that it was a personal note, and that my intellectual reasons for supporting IP were different. And frankly, I see nothing whatsoever "constitutionally shady" about current copyright law. The constant extensions are a bit annoying, but what is 20 or 50 years after a person's death?
And as for the rest of your post, talk about bad reasoning! "oh, they pick on the BOY SCOUTS! dear god, the humanity, we better destroy IP!" (insert random obnoxious comment about the BSA here)
oh, and don't give me that "well meaning but don't understand" shit. Just because I don't AGREE WITH YOU doesn't mean there is anything wrong with my understanding of the situation. copyright should not be eternal, nor is it. But I believe it should exist, and understand just fine the ramifications of that.
Kahuna Burger
hey, I knew there must be some point to ACs! My own private spell checker! Still mostly reading at +1 and above...
Kahuna Burger
You are assuming he actually EXPECTED his order to be filled. A foolish assumption, IMHO. The article called it a culture jam, and thats just what it was. A way to get Nike to do just what it did and expose their hypocrisy for the (internet) world.
And if one went out and got a leather jacket at a second hand store and did just what you mention, it would be kinda funny and ethically legitamate. (or if someone wasn't an ethical vegitarian and just wanted to make irony points.)
Kahuna Burger
Sorry, I heard the report on my local NPR station one day at work, but I have a terrible memory for certain details (like dates or if they were quoting another news source).
Kahuna Burger
While this is a legitamate argument, I find it ironic in this setting. How well would it fly if we were talking about gun law and someone brought up the phrasing and "specific purpose" given in the 2nd amendment (USC)? From my expereince here, I suspect not well.
Additionally, don't forget the 9th amendment (my personal favorite) which protects even those rights not spelled out in the document. The high court could easily find that even without the explicit language in the constitution that the right to control the fruits of your intellectual and creative labor should be "retained by the people".
Finally, on a personal note, my favorite artist was and is Harry Chapin. During his life, he set up a foundation called World Hunger Year to fight poverty in ameica and abroad (without the silly posing, he really did "fight hunger before it was cool".) AFAIK, royalies from the sales of his records, including those collections edited and published after his death continue to fund that foundation. That a man who cared deeply about something could have his the work of his life keep working years after his death is a good and beautiful thing (tm) and its hard for me to say "no, he should have lost rights to his work ten years or less after he did it and definitly terminate any control with his death" or whatever limited copyright means to this group. I also have intelectual reasons for supporting IP, but the emotional helps make it more relevant at times.
Kahuna Burger
yes. Sometime (?late last year?) there was a suit filed by the publishers of Entrepenuer magazine to shut down new magazines with names like Black Entrepenuer and Women Entrepenuers. Big companies step on little companies all the time, but /. only notices it with web addresses.
Kahuna Burger
I hope you aren't a structural engineer. It seems obvious to me that lattices are going be be stronger against some kinds of stress than solid blocks. A material that needs to be able to tolerate some amount of tourque (sp?) or provide flexibility (like the joints of a space suit) or that by design you would rather have develope small cracks that heal rather than hold inflexible until it shattered (rails, perhaps?) is going to have the potential for improvement by this process.
rigidity and strength are not always synonymous. Nor, for that matter are absolute strength and suitablity for a job.
Kahuna Burger
Schools may be next, since textbooks are so expensive anyway. Once college kids start using them (trade in my 100 pound textbooks for one cool-looking textpad? Sure), they will slowly make their way into the workplace, then into homes.
And what happens when those textbooks, including sociology and history can be "updated" as seamlessly as the tech manuals? What about when all periodicals are online and you can only look up back issues in the publisher's central archive? I'll tell you what - we will be a hell of a lot closer to "1984" than a few automatic cameras at stoplights will ever get us.
It is important to be able to get perspective on how different parts of history have been played up or down. It is useful to be able to remind publishers of what their words were orriginally on an issue that they have now changed their minds on. Its even nice to read the first edition of the Stand and compare it to the "uncut". Paper books going away may save a little space, but I'd hardly call it a good thing.
*[rant] why the hell do /.ers seem to think that 1984 was all about cameras and farenhiet 451 was all about book burning? Those may be the most gripping and dramatic parts, but each book contained an entire world where the human changes and accomadations was at least as significant as the teasers. Smith's job as a rewriter of history was far more prophetic IMHO than the worry of universal cameras, but no one cares when that comes true. The four wall televisions and creeping impersonality that surrounded the fireman mean more in our world than the crazy idea that all books could be banned, but people read it like a one note screed against censorship instead of a comentary on PEOPLE.[end rant]
OK, anyway, the reason that there is no paperless office is the very "criticisms" some have made of paper. Its isn't rewritable, you have a long term record of the original mistake as well as the correction. (last nights Law and Order springs to mind)
Kahuna Burger
To start, you might try not talking like your opinion is the fundemental revealed truth and those who disagree with you just don't "understand". That seems to turn a lot of people off. You might be better off asking
"What is the best/most effective argument to win over non-techie or other disagreeing types to my point of view that the computer/internet is just another form of media and should be treated just like we would books/video/magazines?"
If the additude in your question spills over to your conversations with those you don't agree with (techie or non) you are unlikely to win converts no matter what arguments you use.
Kahuna Burger
Your first sentance is a lovely idea, but the second is just plain wrong, unless you meant to say "perfect people" or "really intelligent, totally emotionaly mature people." Real people write letters to Ann Landers saying things like "I had assumed this would stop after the wedding, but then it didn't" or "how could she not know I would be upset by...". Real people have unspoken agreements that they find out later were agreeing to two different things. Real people make assumptions that their definitions are accepted by the other person.
Very few people sit down at the start of a relationship and go over the multitude of grey areas to see where thier partner stands. Those that do may find they change their mind over time but don't realize it until a situation presents itself. In the real world, complications happen.
Thus, these kinds of discussions are useful, not only to build up a societal "baseline assumption" for the majority who do not have these conversations, but to provide a starting point for the discussions of those that would be willing to negotiate their own dynamic.
Kahuna Burger
Nobody has the RIGHT to a profit...
If the publishing houses produce a product which is not economically viable - they whould be forced out of business to prevent them from producing crap we don't need.
I'm afraid you're the one confusing the issue. The publishers are producing a product that people want, and that all other things being equal, they are willing to pay for. Therefore, if they are going to produce that product, they do in fact have the right to make money off of it, instead of being forced to give it away for free. If they produce a product and you want it so much that you steal it instead of paying for it, this is not a problem with their product, its with your morals. Similarly, if they produce a service (such as an on line subscription based journal) and you want it, you either pay what they want, or your don't get it. You and twenty other people don't pay once and then all get the same amount of access as if eachone had paid the full price, unless they have allowed for this through an organization rate. An organization (such as a library) doesn't pay one organizational rate, then give equal access to 10 other libraries. (what the article was actually talking about before the /. lying started.)
These things are not about you being forced to pay for a product that you don't want or your strawman about them "deserving a profit for nothing". This is about you not stealing the things you want and them in fact deserving a profit if people like what they produce.
Its so funny when a slashdotter gets hung barely between libertarianism and socialism "Everything I want for free, but no one has a right to make a living." this thread is pure /. propaganda at its best. (and worst)
Kahuna Burger
1. Record sales cannot be linked either negatively or positively to Napster use.
2. Therefore, there is neither a negative or positive reason for banning Napster use.
Nope, not even close to what I said, but thanks for playing. I personally cannot link napster positively or negitively to record sales because I don't have a masters in accounting statisitics and 10 years worth of accounting records. This does not mean the napster cannot be linked to harm to the record industry, and its certainly no reason to give them a free ride on violating copyright.
I suspect that if it came down to it, the RIAA could quite easily prove harm by showing trends in increasing sales and increasing costs then showing that with the advent of napster they lost none of their costs but had loses in those demographics most linked to napster use (college kids already shown) and no gains in other areas that aren't explained by non napster related long term trends.
And when you break the law, it isn't on the other side to show that you were really hurting them. You sound like the obnoxious brats on the subway who would give me a hard time for pointing out that that they weren't allowed to smoke "oh I'm so sure it was bothering you" You don't have to wait until someone is actualy harmed by it to tell someone to stop breaking the law. You actually follow the rules because thats how adult society works.
Kahuna Burger
I never understand why people keep using this false peice of logic. Yeah, maybe record sales have gone up. Coincidentally, so has the number of performers, the raw number of consumers and the economy. When was the last time record sales weren't going up? A numerical increase in record sales doesn't mean that napster is helping record sales. It doesn't mean that napster isn't reducing what the sales would be without it. You just can't say that.
In comparison, I recal a /. thread about some failed software company that had filed suit against microsoft and won, but only gotten a token damages payment, because they had never been sucessfull in the first place. After all, they had been making no money before MS interfered and still making no money afterwards, how can there have been damages. Most /.ers objected to this logic and said that their projected revenue should have made them qualified for damages. But in the case of record companies that actually have decades of trends and research to back up projected revenue streams, we get this silly "their sales went up so there's no damge" stuff.
Kahuna Burger
A college football team faces a new coach and interpersonal conficts, as well as personal problems for individual team members. They fight their way through close games with larger schools all the way to the BIG Game... which they lose because this movie is about the other team and their personal challenges and triumphs.
A fucked up and misogynistic teenager manipulates and occasionally date rapes teen girls until he either 1) gets the shit kicked out of him by one's older brother, 2) gets send to JV and sexually assaulted by an older boy, 3) gets aids and dies a nasty death because he doesn't get tested and find out the truth until its too late, 4) we don't know because this is a "gritty realistic" movie that ends after only one day during which he didn't suffer any consequences.
Every story is a little slice. There are very few movies where you couldn't play the "well, if this was THEIR movie" game and see it completely differently. The thing is that a couple of centuries (if not millenia) of writers have had the intelligence to know who they are writing for and pick the slice and the endpoint that their readers/viewers are looking for and will enjoy the most. The greek tragedies were just what they said. They were no more "realistic" in their morbidity than the comedies were in their expansive happy endings. They were just written for different audiences and expectations.
So if I as a reader/veiwer enjoy one kind of ending point, and find another to be unneccassarily depressing or for that matter find that that particular slice isn't one I will spend my recreational time on, I no more deserve to be told that I "can't handle the realism" or "want a holywood ending" than the guy who hates romantic films and wants the "holywood ending" of lots of violence and gore.
I doubt The Pledge is any more unflinchingly realistic than When Harry Met Sally. Its just picking a side of a story that most people don't find enjoyable. If it can pull it off, great, but if it fails thats its fault as a movie, not ours as veiwers.
Kahuna Burger
Seriously. I haven't seen this film, but when I look back at the films that I have recently seen described as "brave" or "an unflinching portrayal of the real world" they were mostly nasty pulp fiction getting off on showing violent nasty people get away with it. And they have that "if you can handle it" arrogence that forces people to treat it as though its art instead of (non sexual) porn. Theres nothing particluarly deep, or IMHO really talented about having a story where everything sucks at the beginning and everything sucks at the end. A film like that CAN be good or deep or whatever, but it can also be badly written, badly portrayed and in its own way just as cliched as the so called "holywood ending".
If this film is good, it will be because it was a well made and acted film, just like dozens of other well made and acted films that happened to have more or less upbeat endings. But when reviewers use terms like "brave" and "unflinching" it all translates with me as "pretensious".
Kahuna Burger
Yeah, its all zeroes. :-)
Kahuna Burger
I want to play with your friends! Why do people have to play pictionary as a competition? The fun part is drawing and guessing, why risk ruining it with stress or blaming someone for "losing us the game"?
Competitive games have their place and sure they can be fun, but sometimes the process is a lot more enjoyable if you just do it moment to moment than having to be the "winner" at the end.
Think about kids playing "tag". Unless you have a bunch of jerks who hate one or two kids, you have brief moments of competition all strung together but no need for an end winner or loser.
Kahuna Burger
As I understood the orriginal game, you are close, but no cigar. Two prisoners were given the chance to inform on each other. If one informed and the other didn't, he would be set free in exchange for helping get a very high sentance for the cooperator. If both defected, they screwed each other - both got long sentances, because the gaurds had enough evidence to keep both. But if neither informed (dual cooperation) there was not enough evidence to convict either of the serious crime and they both got short sentances for lesser crimes.
The points then, indicated the overall effect of their behaviour, not, as you indicated a long term attempt to screw the other. If you rat on your buddy, this time you might go free, but next time, he'll remember and rat you too and you're both screwed. Cooperate, and you may serve a little time, but next time you will again only take the small fall instead of getting screwed.
Prisoner's dilemma is all about non zero sum, thats what it was developed to explore. Your method would be pointless as a learning tool for economics and psychology.
Kahuna Burger
I'm afraid it is you that missed the point. Prisoners dilemma is nothing like poker, because in poker, everyone brings money to the table, and the same amount of money leaves in different people's pockets. In order to leave with more money, someone else has to leave with less. This is the very definition of a zero sum game. In the above example, the kids were NOT competeing for the skittles. A skittle for you does not come out of the mouth of another student, it comes from the "banker" of the game. You can both leave with more than you came in with. This is a non zero sum game.
Its really sad/funny that you can't see that with the terms already there in the discussion.
PS, you might have been close if you talked about blackjack, where several players play against the house. If you pay attention to other people's cards, you can sometimes cooperate to force the house into busting, rather than everyone trying to optimise their individual hands.
Kahuna Burger
I always liked role playing games best for this reason. While I enjoy watching others play "strategy" (read : war, or continuation by other means) games, I've never liked them myself. I was watching my friends play Settlers of Catan the other day and I realized that I would never be able to enjoy the game, because it takes a situation that cries out for cooperation, and artificially forces a zero sum outcome on it. (for the players of the game, I realized that the way I think, every time I got a chance to move the thief, I'd put him on the desert hex where he wouldn't hurt anyone.)
I've always liked long term card games when the people I'm playing with don't need to obsessively keep score. wist or gin rummy and just saying "oh, I lost that hand, lets play again" instead of cribbage looking at the score peg where one person is 200 points ahead, but INSISTS on keeping on playing and will not accept a graceful surrender.
kahuna Burger
You must be kidding. Being scanned is not just "less intrusive than a strip search". It is completely non-intrusive. There is no comparison between being stripped or even frisked and having you image recorded in a public place. In fact, stadiums routinely film spectators at sporting events, so anyone with a phobia of cameras has no business being there in the first place.
No one has given a convincing argument that having your image observed, analysed or watched remotely in a public place where you have no reasonable expectation of privacy is a violation of any of your rights. Most of the paranoids on /. depend on either the assumption that this tech will automatically be used in other, worse ways (funny, when the government tries to oppose tech on its worst case usage, we mock them here, now don't we?) or that a computer positive will result in brainless autonomons hurling you to the ground and beating you right there, without any human cross check, or they simply make baseless comparisons to truely violating expereinces and hope the rest of us are dumb enough to buy it.
Stay at home and order all your food from the internet if you want to be that paranoid, but this ain't Big Brother by a long shot.
Kahuna Burger