Of course we - Slashdotters - do. We could finally get girlfriends (that is, when they program these artificial consciousnesses to like tech-savvy, Star Wars/Trek/whatever-loving, DnD-playing computer geeks, which might be a quite difficult task).
Not only is it the Air Force which is in charge of nukes, they also aren't using Vista for their high-security systems (which, I believe, usually run some *NIX OS). They are planning to use Vista for their desktops, the PCs the logistics/office guys handling low security stuff use. If it isn't for some moron plugging in his pr0n- and virii/trojan-laden USB stick, the US military usually does a quite nice job at keeping their systems safe (at least, the high security ones).
You know, "-1 Flamebait" is no substitute for "-1 Disagree and wish to censor". I don't agree with bonch either, but his post is certainly no flamebait.
I can't answer your question regarding why Slashdot sides with TPB, but I can tell you why *I* side with TPB. I believe that when copyright is no longer primarily used to protect the artist but to protect the publisher, something's really, really wrong with it. And when publishers use this to their advantage and charge people prices they cannot afford, it's just reasonable for them to illegally download stuff. I do not think it is ok to rip off the devs of software or musicians, but I also disagree with it being ok to rip off customers. I download music which is either not available in my country or not available without paying craploads of money for it (sorry, but I refuse to pay ~30â for a CD, especially when the artist which I want to support only gets, say, a third of that cash anyways). I download games because I do not want to support a publisher which uses extremely restrictive DRM and installs rootkits on your PCs (and also because these games are not available in my preferred language in my country and importing is extremely expensive thanks to taxes).
Also, re:GPL...while stealing both GPL code and stealing closed source code is wrong, there is a significant difference. People who release their code under a GPL license want that other people learn from it, evolve it, etc, but also wants that other people can learn from the evolved code as well. Using code from the GPL is fine, but other people should be able to learn from *your* code as well.
Of course it tracks you - it has to (at least temporarily) save one of the two positions it takes from you to compare it with the second one to get your speed. The question is just whether said position is deleted after the check, or, more likely, kept in a database somewhere (of course, all under the guise of "having proof for speeding offenses" and "know what the speed limit on that certain road was").
Thus, it doesn't really serve any purpose - except tracking the user, be this a good or a bad thing...(and since this is Slashdot, I better get my tinfoil hat and scream "BAD BAD BAD!" now)
Interestingly, Longcat got a perfect score of 100. It seems that while Acquine may not have a good sense for aesthetics, it certainly has a great sense of humor.
If Austria needs money, there are a lot of things which they could fund less instead of science. The Bundesheer (our military doctrine - hold them off serving as cannon fodder until our "friends" from the EU arrive to help us), state-owned transport systems (which do not really work anyways), or our politicians (which receive a lot of cash without doing much for it) - just to name three examples. It's not like the state isn't earning a lot of money with their atrociously high taxes, they just don't know where to spend it.[/rantaboutacountrywhichI'llsoonleaveanyways]
For some in England, I'm sure the Boston Tea Party (the original, not a bunch of working class crackers having a racist picnic) was seen as an act of Terrorism, but for Americans it was considered a blow for freedom.
I think that for most people in England, it was simply a barbaric demonstration of the lack of good taste of the Americans, who didn't even bother to add sugar.
"Copyright laws where intended to promote creativity from artists, but by extending the years they can suck money out of one job they demonstrate they just want more money for less work."
And thus, they prevent competition. Just look at the OS market, to name an easy example: Microsoft can easily release one crappy OS after another (Vista, Win7), and they still make craploads of money - because they don't have to compete with Windows XP. If copyright for intellectual property lasted a reasonably long time, like, 5 years, corporations would have to compete with both each other and themselves, and since they'd need to be better than before to make money, everybody would benefit from it...well, except for the big monopolies, but big monopolies aren't exactly good for a free market economy anyways.
Sure, you could have gone through multiple trials, each conducted by a different, unbiased jury. Yes, it might have been a good thing - but would it really have changed the outcome? Saddam *was* a criminal and mass murderer, and people have been sentenced to death for lesser crimes than wiping out whole villages (to just cite one example)...
As I've already stated (see above), I do not agree with the law stated in the article, but that does not change that there is no reason why pictures which aren't meant as jokes (like Simpson pr0n or South Park) but clearly depicting something only made to please pedophiles should not be allowed.
I think I can agree with that. Sounds fair enough indeed.
I don't know, but I think it's more likely they look for photos, if we've just banned them from drawing any images.
As for that, I guess it's a matter of going with the lesser evil. I stated my opinion, but it's just that, an opinion (in this case one of a probably rather uninformed person, as I cannot speak out of experience on this issue).
I've never been talking about South Park or joke Simpsons porn - neither has the intention of satisfacting somebody's pedophilia, and isn't child porn either.
Also, I never said that there wasn't a problem with this law. I'm not defending it. All I condemned is the view that drawings which clearly put young children in a image that is intended to be used to satisfact one's pedophilia. Sorry that I didn't make that clear beforehand.
That's not freedom, that's simply anarchism. Yes, freedom ends where your begins" - and that includes showing respect towards each other even while disagreeing with them.
You know, there's a difference between a action comic and one that involves raping children. I think many people can enjoy an action movie/comic/whatever without thinking about blowing up innocents, but I yet have to meet a person that likes looking at child pornography without being at least somehow sexually drawn to children.
Also, I like how people like you always preach tolerance, but have even less tolerance than these people you condemn. I'm very glad that not everybody is as childish as you, needing to degrade people to sub-beings just because they have a different opinion...
But a drawing still allows people living out their sexual fantasies regarding children - and even though you may scream "thoughtcrime!!11" now, who guarantees that a person who looks at drawn image of underage girls today won't look for photos tomorrow?
Slashdot Mirror
Of course we - Slashdotters - do. We could finally get girlfriends (that is, when they program these artificial consciousnesses to like tech-savvy, Star Wars/Trek/whatever-loving, DnD-playing computer geeks, which might be a quite difficult task).
Not only is it the Air Force which is in charge of nukes, they also aren't using Vista for their high-security systems (which, I believe, usually run some *NIX OS). They are planning to use Vista for their desktops, the PCs the logistics/office guys handling low security stuff use. If it isn't for some moron plugging in his pr0n- and virii/trojan-laden USB stick, the US military usually does a quite nice job at keeping their systems safe (at least, the high security ones).
You know, "-1 Flamebait" is no substitute for "-1 Disagree and wish to censor". I don't agree with bonch either, but his post is certainly no flamebait.
I can't answer your question regarding why Slashdot sides with TPB, but I can tell you why *I* side with TPB. I believe that when copyright is no longer primarily used to protect the artist but to protect the publisher, something's really, really wrong with it. And when publishers use this to their advantage and charge people prices they cannot afford, it's just reasonable for them to illegally download stuff. I do not think it is ok to rip off the devs of software or musicians, but I also disagree with it being ok to rip off customers. I download music which is either not available in my country or not available without paying craploads of money for it (sorry, but I refuse to pay ~30â for a CD, especially when the artist which I want to support only gets, say, a third of that cash anyways). I download games because I do not want to support a publisher which uses extremely restrictive DRM and installs rootkits on your PCs (and also because these games are not available in my preferred language in my country and importing is extremely expensive thanks to taxes).
Also, re:GPL...while stealing both GPL code and stealing closed source code is wrong, there is a significant difference. People who release their code under a GPL license want that other people learn from it, evolve it, etc, but also wants that other people can learn from the evolved code as well. Using code from the GPL is fine, but other people should be able to learn from *your* code as well.
Nope. 10 is profit. 9 is ???.
Of course it tracks you - it has to (at least temporarily) save one of the two positions it takes from you to compare it with the second one to get your speed. The question is just whether said position is deleted after the check, or, more likely, kept in a database somewhere (of course, all under the guise of "having proof for speeding offenses" and "know what the speed limit on that certain road was").
Thus, it doesn't really serve any purpose - except tracking the user, be this a good or a bad thing...(and since this is Slashdot, I better get my tinfoil hat and scream "BAD BAD BAD!" now)
Hey, sounds cool. You should start a religion...eh, cult about that. Worked for Scientology, might work for you as well.
A handheld e-mail server, maybe?
Interestingly, Longcat got a perfect score of 100. It seems that while Acquine may not have a good sense for aesthetics, it certainly has a great sense of humor.
Is it just me, or is this yet another happening that will generate votes for the Pirate Party at the upcoming EU elections...?
If Austria needs money, there are a lot of things which they could fund less instead of science. The Bundesheer (our military doctrine - hold them off serving as cannon fodder until our "friends" from the EU arrive to help us), state-owned transport systems (which do not really work anyways), or our politicians (which receive a lot of cash without doing much for it) - just to name three examples. It's not like the state isn't earning a lot of money with their atrociously high taxes, they just don't know where to spend it.[/rantaboutacountrywhichI'llsoonleaveanyways]
Fire is best and most useful but other methods are possible.
Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
We blow up foreign infrastructure only to rebuild it.
To be fair, that *did* work quite good for Japan. I just wish it would have worked as well for Germany as well...
For some in England, I'm sure the Boston Tea Party (the original, not a bunch of working class crackers having a racist picnic) was seen as an act of Terrorism, but for Americans it was considered a blow for freedom.
I think that for most people in England, it was simply a barbaric demonstration of the lack of good taste of the Americans, who didn't even bother to add sugar.
"Copyright laws where intended to promote creativity from artists, but by extending the years they can suck money out of one job they demonstrate they just want more money for less work."
And thus, they prevent competition. Just look at the OS market, to name an easy example: Microsoft can easily release one crappy OS after another (Vista, Win7), and they still make craploads of money - because they don't have to compete with Windows XP. If copyright for intellectual property lasted a reasonably long time, like, 5 years, corporations would have to compete with both each other and themselves, and since they'd need to be better than before to make money, everybody would benefit from it...well, except for the big monopolies, but big monopolies aren't exactly good for a free market economy anyways.
Not in Europe, sadly.
Well, as for AIDS and homosexuality, World of Warcraft, keeping your sons or daughters virginity for such a small price per month, surely does...
Something Saddam also denied to thousands, and in a far worse way than making them watch videos which portrays them as Satan's boyfriends.
Sure, you could have gone through multiple trials, each conducted by a different, unbiased jury. Yes, it might have been a good thing - but would it really have changed the outcome? Saddam *was* a criminal and mass murderer, and people have been sentenced to death for lesser crimes than wiping out whole villages (to just cite one example)...
As I've already stated (see above), I do not agree with the law stated in the article, but that does not change that there is no reason why pictures which aren't meant as jokes (like Simpson pr0n or South Park) but clearly depicting something only made to please pedophiles should not be allowed.
I don't know, but I think it's more likely they look for photos, if we've just banned them from drawing any images.
As for that, I guess it's a matter of going with the lesser evil. I stated my opinion, but it's just that, an opinion (in this case one of a probably rather uninformed person, as I cannot speak out of experience on this issue).
I've never been talking about South Park or joke Simpsons porn - neither has the intention of satisfacting somebody's pedophilia, and isn't child porn either.
Also, I never said that there wasn't a problem with this law. I'm not defending it. All I condemned is the view that drawings which clearly put young children in a image that is intended to be used to satisfact one's pedophilia. Sorry that I didn't make that clear beforehand.
That's not freedom, that's simply anarchism. Yes, freedom ends where your begins" - and that includes showing respect towards each other even while disagreeing with them.
You know, there's a difference between a action comic and one that involves raping children. I think many people can enjoy an action movie/comic/whatever without thinking about blowing up innocents, but I yet have to meet a person that likes looking at child pornography without being at least somehow sexually drawn to children.
Also, I like how people like you always preach tolerance, but have even less tolerance than these people you condemn. I'm very glad that not everybody is as childish as you, needing to degrade people to sub-beings just because they have a different opinion...
But a drawing still allows people living out their sexual fantasies regarding children - and even though you may scream "thoughtcrime!!11" now, who guarantees that a person who looks at drawn image of underage girls today won't look for photos tomorrow?