Your own definition seems to undermine your arguement. You can say that copyright infringement involves "taking", but the rightful owner is not being deprived of anything.
No, what I am saying is that "theft" is not the right word. Theft entails depriving the rightful owner of the property. Stealing is unlawful taking of property, with no provisions for depriving the actual property.
The difference (from the dictionary) between theft and stealing is that theft deprives the owner of the property. Stealing doesn't.
Did you find those in a dictionary, or just make them up for your own convenience?
I bet your mother is proud of you, son. From m-w.com: 1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.
So, do you just like pasting parts of a definition while ignoring the rest of it? Definitions of stealing do not entail deprivation of property, just the unlawful taking. If you look up "take" it's easy to see it covers IP as well.
Re:Culture maven
on
All The Rave
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
2) I used Napster only a handful of times because I regard illegal filesharing as theft
It's not theft, but it is stealing. Theft is removing property, so that every part of the property is removed from it's former position. Steal is to take without right or leave the property of another.
My grassroots campaign to try to get people to acknowledge they are, in fact, stealing when they download music without license to that media. Join my campaign:)
3) I don't consider myself a culture "maven" but I am into music
I consider myself a culture muppet, and I love music.
4) Dancing with wolves? What on earth are you talking about?
Well, if we assume that the value of your car is its fair market value according to Kelley's Blue Book, and if I crash into your car, one of two things (or both) could follow:
I would prefer to keep the conversation relevant, without using analogies but I'll go with this.
1) You could sue me in a civil action for damages to your car. (Let's leave insurance out of the equation for the sake of this example.)
Damages to the car are very easy to get in court. You take the value of the car before the accident, based on mileage and condition (subjective, but the difference is slight in prices of used vehicles) and get awarded that much.
2) The criminal authorities could prosecute me for attempted vehicular manslaughter or any number of other criminal moving violations.
Only if, through negligence, did the accident happen. Also, attempted vehicular manslaughter means that you attempted to cause me bodily harm. It would probably be better covered on vehicular assault. Unless it was intentional and you were not negligent, you are legally in the clear. If you were negligent, you are more likely to be nailed with an Involuntary count. They are usually covered by other statutes anyway.
If I was being a total fool, driving recklessly and endangering the roadways, the criminal authorities are going to press charges against me.
Yes, but chances are it will be independant of the actual accident. Wreckless driving, etc. are not involved with the accident. AFAIK, The only way you can have criminal action against you is if you hurt somebody, not property (Assuming you don't try to run.)
On the other hand, if I am intentionally robbing you of the value of your IP, and you (or someone else) brings it to the attention of the criminal authorities, and the criminal authorities decide that my theft of the value of your IP is threat to the public's interest in innovation and development of IP for the benefit of the general public (i.e., robbing the IP system of its essential purpose, even if on a relatively small scale), then the authorities will press criminal charges.
What you are doing is rehashing my question that I am asking. I am asking what is that decision to prosecute an IP theft/infringement case. How is it decided, because I haven't found anything clearly stating what it takes exactly.
Remember, though, that the authorities need to demonstrate a much higher standard of "knowingly" (or whatever the statutory standard is) infringing your stuff, than you would have to prove in your civil trial.
This is why I think something else would cover the damages that would be criminally prosecuted. B&E or felonious trespassing would cover these, which seems to be a prerequisite for intentional IP theft.
You need to understand that the starting point of the entire IP legal regime (a starting point that derives from Constitutional principles) is that the IP laws should stimulate innovation in order to ultimately benefit the general public.
I do understand that, and I am thinking about IP laws in the interest of the public. I believe the government shouldn't meddle in civil affairs. I'm just trying to gain more insight as to why in this case, they are.
Now, please be aware that I am not arguing that the current IP legal regime in the USA is doing a good job of balancing the public's interests with those of the IP authors.
I understand that, but I'm really confused as to your response to my original comment (and this one, although it's becoming more clear.) You seemed to have misunderstood what my original question was.
The key variables are how long the author gets exclusive rights and which rights are exclusive. I suspect that getting the right balance is an ever-evolving process, and one that requires the public's participation to maintain properly, as with any other public policy issue.
I think that this is largely a well-tuned system at the moment.
But, in the meantime, since there is a public policy in keeping the value of IP innovation, the consequences of depriving that value is criminal--at least where the deprivation is intentional.
But that would be the same as vandalism. Because the value of IP is not actually a set price. You can't say that it's worth $1 million dollars, because it isn't. It's an idea, and that $1 million dollars depends upon a lot of factors. That's why it's civil, because it's very ambigious. The criminal aspect of it comes from them harming your market value, which would be encompassed in how they intentionally deprived your IP from you. If they just stole your idea, that's easily settled in a civil lawsuit. However, if they stole all your work (Lets say for a software program) than they did something else that was illegal, that is already covered in other laws. This is what my stance is. Is it really necessary to pursue criminal prosecution for intentional IP theft when there are already criminal laws established for the illegal appropriation of the IP? If someone breaks into my network, and copies my repository and releases some of my software, they are already neck-deep in felonies. Adding IP infringment doesn't seem impactful, to say the least. I would choose to sue them for the expected market value had I been able to release it myself.
1. Intellectual property is property because it has a commercial value in the marketplace.
I disagree. Intellectual property is property that has value to the owner. The only reason why it would be persecuted is if it has value in the marketplace, however.
2. Infringement deprives the IP-owner of that value.
Of the value, but not of the actual property. Thus, they have reduced the value of the property but not deprivation of the actual property.
4. If infringers are permitted to deprive IP of its value, the incentives to create new IP will be diminished.
Yes.
5. Intentional infringement (or whatever the standard is for criminal infringement) is a particularly egregious deprivation of the value of the IP.
This is my question, what makes it criminal as opposed to civil? It seems like it is purely a civil matter to me, but I understand that individuals and companies don't always have the resources to seek damages (and get them.)
7. Criminal punishment should apply where the wrongdoing adversely affects the general public's interests. Criminal authorities represent the public's interests. By dilluting the value of the IP at hand, it allows the public generaly easier access to that IP (at the cost of future development, but that is a short trip down a fallacy filled road) so why is it persecuted on a criminal level and not civil?
I'm not saying so much that I disagree with criminalizing it, but I think it is better suited for civil cases. That's why I asked the question, I'm just unclear on what it takes for it to actually be criminal and is it actually effective to do so?
I honestly didn't realize it was that much of an argument. As far as I knew, everyone had come to the realization that the ends generally do not justify the means, with few and infrequent exceptions.
It's a personal ethics/moral question, that is different for everybody. If you have to kill one child to save a hundred, does it make it ok? Just one example of the plethora of counters and agreeances in the debate.
That's assuming someone has a conscience... and unfortunately, I know quite a few people in positions of power that don't.
They just have a set of values that differ from yours. It doesn't mean they don't have one. That is why there is no right or wrong, because those are subjective terms dependant upon a single person. What's worse? Theft or Rape? Rape or Murder? Murder or Theft? Not everybody will have the same answers as you will.
In the scenario I described, my boss told me to do several things that were blatantly unethical, and eventually, I refused. I was fired, but I was better off after I got a job at a better place earning more money with better benefits, etc. He's still doing his version of business, and from what I hear, he's the subject of many, many lawsuits.
See, in my view what you did was wrong. You are not in a position to tell your boss no. He is your boss, in other words, your leader. You follow your leader or you have no loyalty. You should have quit instead. These are just my values, and you have seperate ones.
Now do you understand why there is no right or wrong?
I'm curious about the criminal definition of IP Theft and Infringement. It has always been my stance that such items, within reason, should be a matter settled in a civil suit. It is extremely difficult to deprive a party of intellectual property, unlike tangible property. With this in mind, I don't feel there is truly a need for an IP Theft/Infringmenet branch in the Department of Justice.
On to the actual question: Wouldn't the vast majority of cases be handled with the correlated "hacking" or other forms of breaking and entering to steal the property in question, without actually devoting the resources for what is largely a civil matter between individuals or companies? I'm guessing my stance on this comes from a misunderstanding as to what it takes for the government to actually get involved in IP theft/infringement.
Also, I understand that while some companies and individuals do not have the resources to fight IP theft/infringment in court, it seems programs could be setup to assist them. It still seems a large pool of legal resources for what should be a civil matter.
Two things, first, I think you meant "I took it to heart", meaning that the statement is "near and dear" to you.
Yeah, one of those weird typos I always make. Heart => hard, had => hate. I wonder what that says about me..
Second, saying that there is no right and wrong in life is a cop-out. It helps you justify your actions or inactions based solely on their outcome.
Life only knows consequences, not ethics. It's the ultimate sense of responsibility, not a cop-out.
A right decision made for the wrong reasons can be a wrong decision... just like a wrong decision made for right reasons can be a right decision (although unlikely).
The ends-justify-the-means argument, which can go on forever.
Wrong decisions are much easier to make than right ones, simply because the number of wrong decisions is so much higher than the number of right ones.
But sitting alone with your conscience is a consequence of all actions you choose, isn't it?
If your boss tells you that you'll be fired unless you agree to prematurally ship a piece of software, that could result in hundreds of computers nation-wide to be vulnerable to security breakins by script-kiddies, what do you do? Ship the software (no direct consequences for you), or hold to your "quality software" stance?
I would write a statement with my stance, to protect myself, and do what my boss tells me. He is the one who controls my actions while at work. It's wrong to put my personal opinions above those who are in charge of me.
So, proving you wrong repeatedly makes one stupid? Making you run off with your tail between your legs does, too, I guess.
You do realize you are just delusional, right?
Time to read up on programming, crypto, and especially logic. Then you might be able to get a decent job again. The boom is over, boy...
Right, I guess my Lexus is imaginary. So are all my flat panels (for 3 computers), 2 laptops, and everything else.. I guess it's all just made up, because I don't have a good job. Oh wait, I do have a good job.
Don't worry, someday when you graduate highschool and get a college degree I may give you a job in QA or customer support.
I had a caustic reply all written -- obviously, we're not philisophically compatible -- but let's stick to the facts: when public awareness of the disease rose, new infections dropped, sometimes dramatically.
You just described herd mentality. Because we (as Humanity) cannot actually think independantly, nor responsibly, we need an organized structure of individuals whose entire job is to tell us what to think.
had the government made an effort to bring up public awareness, countless lives could have been saved at minimal cost.
Yes, but this is the same government which battles to make sure safety labels on knives are there. They're bogged down with the idiocy of the masses.
(In fact, the costs that were incurred by people actually getting sick were almost undoubtedly higher than the cost of an effective public awareness campaign; this fact alone makes the Reagan policy seem idiotic.)
"Were almost undoubtedly" -- Never understimate the cost of a government program, nor the time it takes to get it started. Bad idea to play the What-if game in debate, because I can easily say "Well, What if Carter launched a campaign?" Then it's Carters fault.
Welcome to my friends list. You see, humans are the only ones that want to buck the darwinian system and make everyone equal. They want protection without personal sacrifice. They want it all and they want it now. The first thing I teach my kids about right and wrong is that no matter what anyone else does or says, they are personally responsible for their own actions. Nobody else is going to cover for them once they are adults, including me.
As my mother taught me, and I really took it to hard (and have scars to prove it) -- "There is no right or wrong in life, only consequences."
My point is that we might have reached this point several years earlier -- thus preventing hundreds of thousants of HIV infections -- had the Reagan administration seen fit to push the issue.
I knew about AIDS in the 80s. I knew about AIDS in the 90s. I didn't learn about it from the government. If you honestly need the government to tell you that you shouldn't have sex with strangers because you may get diseases, you are asking for the disease.
This lack of personal responsibility is the cause of most of the problems in America. I personally wish the government would just stand back and let the crowd thin itself.
It's not video games, it's not movies, it's stupid people with bad role models. It's not the governments problem, it's a personal problem.
This is one reason why we as a society need to find ways to get rid of this need for greed and wealth and money in general. Otherwise things just keep running into the ground.
Yeah, but in a world where trade is the dominant form of currency, professional programmers are useless.
I've worked on a farm, I'd prefer not to go back. Besides, we gave you people Berkeley, can't you just stay there?
Yes, but you can easily assume that the only person that sees you is the person you're doing the transaction with who is "trusted". I certainly expect governments to track bills of "suspects" which quickly becomes everyone when technology allows.
Never trust anybody that didn't give birth to you or gives birth to your children. It would be next to impossible to track bills, as people would setup laundering services instantaneously to get "clean" bills. It's ridiculous to think it's even remotely feasible to track people on cash.
We already have a unique identifier in each bill that could be easily fed into a computer: The serial number. Easy to scan using optical technology and track it.
It's just ridiculous that people think that RFIDs in freaking money is an attack on freedom. But if you do, send me all your money and for a low price of 10% I will send you guaranteed clean money not linked to you, with no records.
Regardless, suddenly it makes it very easy for government or stalkers or anyone else with an interest in you (healthy or not) to track your every move - and there's not a whole lot you can do about it!!!
And tell me, how the in the hell is tracking money supposed to make this different? You think it's easier to setup RFID trackers (or break into the imaginary boogie-man database) than to just follow someone around?
The problem with the privacy nuts is they don't think past the "Ah, they get my information!" stage.
In other RFID news today, Wired is reporting that the EU may implant RFID tags into the Euro, basically eliminating the anonymous cash transaction.
To stop counterfeit bills, not to stop anonymous cash transactions. You honestly think someone is going to setup a database and link all of the bills against your CITIZEN.USER_PK1 unique ID number just to make sure you can't be anonymous?
Sometimes I just get utterly confused as to what you people expect. Why do you guys even leave the house? I got a news flash for you -- you still don't have anonymous cash transactions because people still see you! Yeah, you better go saw your face off as it's a way of identifying you.
Spoken like someone with 5 years of experience. Spoken by an Anonymous coward.
What would you write something big in? C? ha ha. C++ ha ha ha ha. COBOL. ha ha ha ha. Oh wait. Fortran. H ah ha ha hah.
Yes, I have written large programs in C. Thanks. Never coded in COBOL outside of school.
Or Java. Hmm. Ha. Hmmm. Hey... it... makes.... sense.
Yes! Lets use Java for EVERYTHING! Any large system obviously needs Java to run smoothly. Nevermind that every VM has issues, or perhaps every server also has issues (Tomcat, WebObjects, etc.) -- lets just keep using it and pretend it's the only good solution for their problems.
Why, yes. Yes, I *do* build large system. And I have for many decades.
And this is why all of the major eCommerce sites are written in Java. Including Google.
While that is meant as a joke, it's entirely inaccurate. The reasoning behind the misused R's and L's in the Japanese language is the lack of distinct difference in the sounds. The Japanese language is comprised of syllables, like "Ra, Ri, Ru, Re, Ro" (Written in romaji, as that's the closest English/Roman pronunciation.)
When writing foreign words in Japanese, you use a character set called "katakana" which is the same syllables but a different glyph. To translate a word, you just do the approximate sounds. For example, "lunch" would become "ra-n-chi"
When translating, you are more likely to see L's become R's than visa versa. Also, some words are very easy to understand with a Japanese accent because of the native pronunciation of ra-ri-ru-re-ro.
Enough education... I'll stop ruining the fun now.
I'm always wondering why doesn't people use Java for such large developments... If tomorrow Linux is declared illegal because of the SCO suit (very unlikely though), you just reinstall FreeBSD and keep on going.
And this is why students and people without professional experience don't make large scale business solutions.
I can't properly read blocks unless they are encapsulated in { }, thus I have a really hard time in Python. I'm sure if I spent enough time with it I would be able to figure it out though.
Perl code can be extremely readable though, it just takes a whole lot of work to do it.
We don't ban cars because one or two idiots a year decide to deliberately crash into another person. And we don't ban movies that make speeding look cool, even though it kills far more people every day than even the most paranoid would claim videogames have in the past 31 years.
I seriously think we should have more stringent driving tests though. I think you should have to complete an obstacle course with aggressive driving techniques to get your drivers license.
US drivers, especially the Pacific Northwest, suffer from some strange illness that impairs their ability to drive on the freeways. I would say that this is definitely more of a concern than any video game every is.
Slashdot Mirror
Your own definition seems to undermine your arguement. You can say that copyright infringement involves "taking", but the rightful owner is not being deprived of anything.
No, what I am saying is that "theft" is not the right word. Theft entails depriving the rightful owner of the property. Stealing is unlawful taking of property, with no provisions for depriving the actual property.
The difference (from the dictionary) between theft and stealing is that theft deprives the owner of the property. Stealing doesn't.
Did you find those in a dictionary, or just make them up for your own convenience?
I bet your mother is proud of you, son. From m-w.com: 1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.
So, do you just like pasting parts of a definition while ignoring the rest of it? Definitions of stealing do not entail deprivation of property, just the unlawful taking. If you look up "take" it's easy to see it covers IP as well.
2) I used Napster only a handful of times because I regard illegal filesharing as theft
:)
It's not theft, but it is stealing. Theft is removing property, so that every part of the property is removed from it's former position. Steal is to take without right or leave the property of another.
My grassroots campaign to try to get people to acknowledge they are, in fact, stealing when they download music without license to that media. Join my campaign
3) I don't consider myself a culture "maven" but I am into music
I consider myself a culture muppet, and I love music.
4) Dancing with wolves? What on earth are you talking about?
Jon Katz, describing hippies.
Well, if we assume that the value of your car is its fair market value according to Kelley's Blue Book, and if I crash into your car, one of two things (or both) could follow:
I would prefer to keep the conversation relevant, without using analogies but I'll go with this.
1) You could sue me in a civil action for damages to your car. (Let's leave insurance out of the equation for the sake of this example.)
Damages to the car are very easy to get in court. You take the value of the car before the accident, based on mileage and condition (subjective, but the difference is slight in prices of used vehicles) and get awarded that much.
2) The criminal authorities could prosecute me for attempted vehicular manslaughter or any number of other criminal moving violations.
Only if, through negligence, did the accident happen. Also, attempted vehicular manslaughter means that you attempted to cause me bodily harm. It would probably be better covered on vehicular assault. Unless it was intentional and you were not negligent, you are legally in the clear. If you were negligent, you are more likely to be nailed with an Involuntary count. They are usually covered by other statutes anyway.
If I was being a total fool, driving recklessly and endangering the roadways, the criminal authorities are going to press charges against me.
Yes, but chances are it will be independant of the actual accident. Wreckless driving, etc. are not involved with the accident. AFAIK, The only way you can have criminal action against you is if you hurt somebody, not property (Assuming you don't try to run.)
On the other hand, if I am intentionally robbing you of the value of your IP, and you (or someone else) brings it to the attention of the criminal authorities, and the criminal authorities decide that my theft of the value of your IP is threat to the public's interest in innovation and development of IP for the benefit of the general public (i.e., robbing the IP system of its essential purpose, even if on a relatively small scale), then the authorities will press criminal charges.
What you are doing is rehashing my question that I am asking. I am asking what is that decision to prosecute an IP theft/infringement case. How is it decided, because I haven't found anything clearly stating what it takes exactly.
Remember, though, that the authorities need to demonstrate a much higher standard of "knowingly" (or whatever the statutory standard is) infringing your stuff, than you would have to prove in your civil trial.
This is why I think something else would cover the damages that would be criminally prosecuted. B&E or felonious trespassing would cover these, which seems to be a prerequisite for intentional IP theft.
You need to understand that the starting point of the entire IP legal regime (a starting point that derives from Constitutional principles) is that the IP laws should stimulate innovation in order to ultimately benefit the general public.
I do understand that, and I am thinking about IP laws in the interest of the public. I believe the government shouldn't meddle in civil affairs. I'm just trying to gain more insight as to why in this case, they are.
Now, please be aware that I am not arguing that the current IP legal regime in the USA is doing a good job of balancing the public's interests with those of the IP authors.
I understand that, but I'm really confused as to your response to my original comment (and this one, although it's becoming more clear.) You seemed to have misunderstood what my original question was.
The key variables are how long the author gets exclusive rights and which rights are exclusive. I suspect that getting the right balance is an ever-evolving process, and one that requires the public's participation to maintain properly, as with any other public policy issue.
I think that this is largely a well-tuned system at the moment.
But, in the meantime, since there is a public policy in keeping the value of IP innovation, the consequences of depriving that value is criminal--at least where the deprivation is intentional.
But that would be the same as vandalism. Because the value of IP is not actually a set price. You can't say that it's worth $1 million dollars, because it isn't. It's an idea, and that $1 million dollars depends upon a lot of factors. That's why it's civil, because it's very ambigious. The criminal aspect of it comes from them harming your market value, which would be encompassed in how they intentionally deprived your IP from you. If they just stole your idea, that's easily settled in a civil lawsuit. However, if they stole all your work (Lets say for a software program) than they did something else that was illegal, that is already covered in other laws. This is what my stance is. Is it really necessary to pursue criminal prosecution for intentional IP theft when there are already criminal laws established for the illegal appropriation of the IP? If someone breaks into my network, and copies my repository and releases some of my software, they are already neck-deep in felonies. Adding IP infringment doesn't seem impactful, to say the least. I would choose to sue them for the expected market value had I been able to release it myself.
I hope that makes my stance a bit more clear.
1. Intellectual property is property because it has a commercial value in the marketplace.
I disagree. Intellectual property is property that has value to the owner. The only reason why it would be persecuted is if it has value in the marketplace, however.
2. Infringement deprives the IP-owner of that value.
Of the value, but not of the actual property. Thus, they have reduced the value of the property but not deprivation of the actual property.
4. If infringers are permitted to deprive IP of its value, the incentives to create new IP will be diminished.
Yes.
5. Intentional infringement (or whatever the standard is for criminal infringement) is a particularly egregious deprivation of the value of the IP.
This is my question, what makes it criminal as opposed to civil? It seems like it is purely a civil matter to me, but I understand that individuals and companies don't always have the resources to seek damages (and get them.)
7. Criminal punishment should apply where the wrongdoing adversely affects the general public's interests. Criminal authorities represent the public's interests.
By dilluting the value of the IP at hand, it allows the public generaly easier access to that IP (at the cost of future development, but that is a short trip down a fallacy filled road) so why is it persecuted on a criminal level and not civil?
I'm not saying so much that I disagree with criminalizing it, but I think it is better suited for civil cases. That's why I asked the question, I'm just unclear on what it takes for it to actually be criminal and is it actually effective to do so?
I honestly didn't realize it was that much of an argument. As far as I knew, everyone had come to the realization that the ends generally do not justify the means, with few and infrequent exceptions.
It's a personal ethics/moral question, that is different for everybody. If you have to kill one child to save a hundred, does it make it ok? Just one example of the plethora of counters and agreeances in the debate.
That's assuming someone has a conscience... and unfortunately, I know quite a few people in positions of power that don't.
They just have a set of values that differ from yours. It doesn't mean they don't have one. That is why there is no right or wrong, because those are subjective terms dependant upon a single person. What's worse? Theft or Rape? Rape or Murder? Murder or Theft? Not everybody will have the same answers as you will.
In the scenario I described, my boss told me to do several things that were blatantly unethical, and eventually, I refused. I was fired, but I was better off after I got a job at a better place earning more money with better benefits, etc. He's still doing his version of business, and from what I hear, he's the subject of many, many lawsuits.
See, in my view what you did was wrong. You are not in a position to tell your boss no. He is your boss, in other words, your leader. You follow your leader or you have no loyalty. You should have quit instead. These are just my values, and you have seperate ones.
Now do you understand why there is no right or wrong?
I'm curious about the criminal definition of IP Theft and Infringement. It has always been my stance that such items, within reason, should be a matter settled in a civil suit. It is extremely difficult to deprive a party of intellectual property, unlike tangible property. With this in mind, I don't feel there is truly a need for an IP Theft/Infringmenet branch in the Department of Justice.
On to the actual question: Wouldn't the vast majority of cases be handled with the correlated "hacking" or other forms of breaking and entering to steal the property in question, without actually devoting the resources for what is largely a civil matter between individuals or companies? I'm guessing my stance on this comes from a misunderstanding as to what it takes for the government to actually get involved in IP theft/infringement.
Also, I understand that while some companies and individuals do not have the resources to fight IP theft/infringment in court, it seems programs could be setup to assist them. It still seems a large pool of legal resources for what should be a civil matter.
Two things, first, I think you meant "I took it to heart", meaning that the statement is "near and dear" to you.
Yeah, one of those weird typos I always make. Heart => hard, had => hate. I wonder what that says about me..
Second, saying that there is no right and wrong in life is a cop-out. It helps you justify your actions or inactions based solely on their outcome.
Life only knows consequences, not ethics. It's the ultimate sense of responsibility, not a cop-out.
A right decision made for the wrong reasons can be a wrong decision... just like a wrong decision made for right reasons can be a right decision (although unlikely).
The ends-justify-the-means argument, which can go on forever.
Wrong decisions are much easier to make than right ones, simply because the number of wrong decisions is so much higher than the number of right ones.
But sitting alone with your conscience is a consequence of all actions you choose, isn't it?
If your boss tells you that you'll be fired unless you agree to prematurally ship a piece of software, that could result in hundreds of computers nation-wide to be vulnerable to security breakins by script-kiddies, what do you do? Ship the software (no direct consequences for you), or hold to your "quality software" stance?
I would write a statement with my stance, to protect myself, and do what my boss tells me. He is the one who controls my actions while at work. It's wrong to put my personal opinions above those who are in charge of me.
So, proving you wrong repeatedly makes one stupid? Making you run off with your tail between your legs does, too, I guess.
...
You do realize you are just delusional, right?
Time to read up on programming, crypto, and especially logic. Then you might be able to get a decent job again. The boom is over, boy
Right, I guess my Lexus is imaginary. So are all my flat panels (for 3 computers), 2 laptops, and everything else.. I guess it's all just made up, because I don't have a good job. Oh wait, I do have a good job.
Don't worry, someday when you graduate highschool and get a college degree I may give you a job in QA or customer support.
I had a caustic reply all written -- obviously, we're not philisophically compatible -- but let's stick to the facts: when public awareness of the disease rose, new infections dropped, sometimes dramatically.
You just described herd mentality. Because we (as Humanity) cannot actually think independantly, nor responsibly, we need an organized structure of individuals whose entire job is to tell us what to think.
had the government made an effort to bring up public awareness, countless lives could have been saved at minimal cost.
Yes, but this is the same government which battles to make sure safety labels on knives are there. They're bogged down with the idiocy of the masses.
(In fact, the costs that were incurred by people actually getting sick were almost undoubtedly higher than the cost of an effective public awareness campaign; this fact alone makes the Reagan policy seem idiotic.)
"Were almost undoubtedly" -- Never understimate the cost of a government program, nor the time it takes to get it started. Bad idea to play the What-if game in debate, because I can easily say "Well, What if Carter launched a campaign?" Then it's Carters fault.
None of us are as dumb as all of us together.
When you do all those things and shower.
If intellectualism were a draw for women, there wouldn't be all these stereotypes about geeks not getting laid.
The reason why geeks don't get laid are simple to understand:
Just because someone is intellectual, does not make them a geek. Many of the stupidest people I know call themselves geeks.
Welcome to my friends list. You see, humans are the only ones that want to buck the darwinian system and make everyone equal. They want protection without personal sacrifice. They want it all and they want it now. The first thing I teach my kids about right and wrong is that no matter what anyone else does or says, they are personally responsible for their own actions. Nobody else is going to cover for them once they are adults, including me.
As my mother taught me, and I really took it to hard (and have scars to prove it) -- "There is no right or wrong in life, only consequences."
My point is that we might have reached this point several years earlier -- thus preventing hundreds of thousants of HIV infections -- had the Reagan administration seen fit to push the issue.
I knew about AIDS in the 80s. I knew about AIDS in the 90s. I didn't learn about it from the government. If you honestly need the government to tell you that you shouldn't have sex with strangers because you may get diseases, you are asking for the disease.
This lack of personal responsibility is the cause of most of the problems in America. I personally wish the government would just stand back and let the crowd thin itself.
It's not video games, it's not movies, it's stupid people with bad role models. It's not the governments problem, it's a personal problem.
This is one reason why we as a society need to find ways to get rid of this need for greed and wealth and money in general. Otherwise things just keep running into the ground.
Yeah, but in a world where trade is the dominant form of currency, professional programmers are useless.
I've worked on a farm, I'd prefer not to go back. Besides, we gave you people Berkeley, can't you just stay there?
I'm not so much interested in the book, but could you give me some information on your wireless bookshelf?
That other 1 company is a Microsoft/SCO/Evil company of the week Puppet!
Slashdot really does get around!
Yes, but you can easily assume that the only person that sees you is the person you're doing the transaction with who is "trusted". I certainly expect governments to track bills of "suspects" which quickly becomes everyone when technology allows.
Never trust anybody that didn't give birth to you or gives birth to your children. It would be next to impossible to track bills, as people would setup laundering services instantaneously to get "clean" bills. It's ridiculous to think it's even remotely feasible to track people on cash.
We already have a unique identifier in each bill that could be easily fed into a computer: The serial number. Easy to scan using optical technology and track it.
It's just ridiculous that people think that RFIDs in freaking money is an attack on freedom. But if you do, send me all your money and for a low price of 10% I will send you guaranteed clean money not linked to you, with no records.
Regardless, suddenly it makes it very easy for government or stalkers or anyone else with an interest in you (healthy or not) to track your every move - and there's not a whole lot you can do about it!!!
And tell me, how the in the hell is tracking money supposed to make this different? You think it's easier to setup RFID trackers (or break into the imaginary boogie-man database) than to just follow someone around?
The problem with the privacy nuts is they don't think past the "Ah, they get my information!" stage.
@$$hole
You fucking idiot.
In other RFID news today, Wired is reporting that the EU may implant RFID tags into the Euro, basically eliminating the anonymous cash transaction.
To stop counterfeit bills, not to stop anonymous cash transactions. You honestly think someone is going to setup a database and link all of the bills against your CITIZEN.USER_PK1 unique ID number just to make sure you can't be anonymous?
Sometimes I just get utterly confused as to what you people expect. Why do you guys even leave the house? I got a news flash for you -- you still don't have anonymous cash transactions because people still see you! Yeah, you better go saw your face off as it's a way of identifying you.
Spoken like someone with 5 years of experience.
Spoken by an Anonymous coward.
What would you write something big in? C? ha ha. C++ ha ha ha ha. COBOL. ha ha ha ha. Oh wait. Fortran. H ah ha ha hah.
Yes, I have written large programs in C. Thanks. Never coded in COBOL outside of school.
Or Java. Hmm. Ha. Hmmm.
Hey... it... makes.... sense.
Yes! Lets use Java for EVERYTHING! Any large system obviously needs Java to run smoothly. Nevermind that every VM has issues, or perhaps every server also has issues (Tomcat, WebObjects, etc.) -- lets just keep using it and pretend it's the only good solution for their problems.
Why, yes. Yes, I *do* build large system. And I have for many decades.
And this is why all of the major eCommerce sites are written in Java. Including Google.
Oh wait, they're not.
Poor transcript, here's the original:
While that is meant as a joke, it's entirely inaccurate. The reasoning behind the misused R's and L's in the Japanese language is the lack of distinct difference in the sounds. The Japanese language is comprised of syllables, like "Ra, Ri, Ru, Re, Ro" (Written in romaji, as that's the closest English/Roman pronunciation.)
When writing foreign words in Japanese, you use a character set called "katakana" which is the same syllables but a different glyph. To translate a word, you just do the approximate sounds. For example, "lunch" would become "ra-n-chi"
When translating, you are more likely to see L's become R's than visa versa. Also, some words are very easy to understand with a Japanese accent because of the native pronunciation of ra-ri-ru-re-ro.
Enough education... I'll stop ruining the fun now.
I'm always wondering why doesn't people use Java for such large developments... If tomorrow Linux is declared illegal because of the SCO suit (very unlikely though), you just reinstall FreeBSD and keep on going.
And this is why students and people without professional experience don't make large scale business solutions.
Python is *SO* much easier to read than perl.
I can't properly read blocks unless they are encapsulated in { }, thus I have a really hard time in Python. I'm sure if I spent enough time with it I would be able to figure it out though.
Perl code can be extremely readable though, it just takes a whole lot of work to do it.
We don't ban cars because one or two idiots a year decide to deliberately crash into another person. And we don't ban movies that make speeding look cool, even though it kills far more people every day than even the most paranoid would claim videogames have in the past 31 years.
I seriously think we should have more stringent driving tests though. I think you should have to complete an obstacle course with aggressive driving techniques to get your drivers license.
US drivers, especially the Pacific Northwest, suffer from some strange illness that impairs their ability to drive on the freeways. I would say that this is definitely more of a concern than any video game every is.
It must be stopped! Think of the children!