Reading comprehension FAIL. I'm not questioning anything. I'm saying that newspapers should, before printing something as fact. I asked, "How do they know?" Well, if they DID check those facts, then that's how they know. It wasn't clear from the summary.
I never said I wanted you to have a web footed duck baby. I asked if you wanted one, and stated that if there were justice in the world, people who opposed testing would be the ones to suffer when dangers that could have been discovered by such testing surface.
And you are wrong about Thalidomide. It was sold in the US from 1957-1962. You may be thinking of it's 1998 approval by the FDA for use treating erythema nodosum leprosum.
Most distros do not include the dev packages in an install unless you ask them to. There is no reason for most users to have dev packages on a desktop, and there is no reason for dev packages to be on a production server. If you want them, they are easy enough to install.
And they aren't excluded for 'user friendliness.' Most users would have no idea if a dev package was installed or not. If anything, since they are invisible to people who don't need them, the user friendly thing would be to include them by default.
Backtrack all you like. Lets look over your post, shall we, and see what we can see?
"Show me research, that nanomaterials are safe. Otherwise we shouldn't allow them based on speculation that they are safe. " I can show you research that Oxygen, water, cars, airplanes, ships, trains, and fire are not safe. I am all for doing research to see what the dangers are but if you require any technology to be be proven safe then nothing will ever pass. You can not prove anything is "safe".
You were trying to refute someone who simply asked that research be done to show a product is safe. You say that products can not be proven safe. You recommend researching for dangers, now what would it show if there were no dangers? It would show that the product is safe.
It really sounds like you are advocating for a very low standard of proof, the very same low standard that allowed horrible calamities like thalidomide to happen.
But I don't seriously hope you or anyone has a web footed duck baby. And maybe if we require that new products be shown not to cause harm, i.e. that they are SAFE, then no one will have to have another.
Name me a modern distro that doesn't do all those things. Seriously, have you used Linux recently? OH, sorry, sorry, you were being sarcastic, weren't you? Damn, I need my humor sensors adjusted.
Why should they have money for work they do? I do a lot of things that I don't get paid for. They should get paid when someone wants to pay them for something.
They should NOT get paid for work that I do. If they make their creation public, and I can perceive it, those are my sense impressions, not theirs. I did not agree to let them limit what I can perceive. And if I then copy what they did, that is MY work, not theirs. They did the initial work, but so what? They based their work on sense impressions they got of work that others before them did.
There IS a reason why I shouldn't copy things others do, but you don't even understand what it is.
Who wants to kill off anything? I just want them to bear the full costs of what they do, instead of, by default, expecting the public to pay for externalities.
You speak of capitalism as if it is some sort of sacrosanct theocracy that no one should question. Industries that cause harm should be regulated. Capitalism is a tool that we use to fulfill our needs. When it does not do so, another tool must be used.
How about not being a pedant and realizing that although you can't prove anything absolutely safe, you can do some basic due diligence to show that it's not horribly toxic.
Do you want to be the guy that gets the first new thalidomide baby? If there were any justice in the world, people like you, who claim we don't need to test new technology to determine what damage it might cause, should be the ones to suffer.
I gave you a chance to reread what I wrote. You obviously didn't. What, exactly, do we disagree on, hmmmm?
Here's a little quiz to test your reading comprehension.
1.) Do I claim copyright infringement is moral or in any way acceptable?
2.) Do I say I want a world without copyrights?
3.) Do you and I disagree over copyrights?
Even giving you a chance to go back and correct your misinterpretations, you refused, obviously believing there was no way you could have misread what I said. No, obviously "I need to learn" that when you completely miss the point of something, it doesn't mean you missed the point of something.
The paper has a duty to check facts that it publishes. How do they know that the 'daughter' publishing this information is really this woman's daughter at all, and not a jealous friend who wasn't invited?
Journalism has undergone a frightening shift in the last thirty years. Don't get me wrong: it has always been about selling eyes to the advertisers. But there used to be professional standards. People could take pride in saying they were a journalist. Journalists like Woodward and Bernstein were heroes protecting the public interest.
Now journalism is just another branch of the entertainment industry. Any sense of professional pride seems to be gone. Truth and accuracy don't matter.
It's not just stories like this, either. Journalists routinely slap their names on unedited press releases and call them stories without fact checking a damn thing. Politicians and businesses know that journalists are too lazy to do their jobs.
It can be hard to face the sex directly. We're all friends, and like to hang out, but it's not a group sex scene and at the end of a night of hanging out, it can get momentarily awkward.
Another difficulty is what I like to call 'new relationship energy.' You've just met, you're totally infatuated with this new person, and all you want to do is hang out with them. It's a different kind of feeling than the safe, secure, deep trust you find with a partner of many years.
Your partner seems to care more about the other person. It's really just infatuation, but infatuation can be pretty intense in the initial phases. And their infatuation with someone else is almost never going to correspond with yours, so you get to feel jealous and envious.
But you don't have to worry about lies and cheating. And you get to share in the good times. And you have them there to help pick up the pieces if your outside relationship goes south. To me that's worth it.
I am continually amazed at the poor reading comprehension skills of most Slashdot readers. Being geeks, and used to skimming quickly through written material, said readers come to something they don't agree with, and their comprehension shuts off as they formulate a reply in their heads.
They think they are still reading, but experience demonstrates otherwise. They are thinking about the lovely rant they are formulating, which unbeknown to them, doesn't even address the issues raised in the post they are responding to. It makes me sad, and frustrated.
I'm not for taking away all guns from everyone. Just sensible restrictions. After all, we don't permit individuals to own fully automatic machine guns, right? And there aren't many cases of people being mowed down with machine guns, so it seems to be working. The debate is obviously not about guns/no guns, rather, where to draw the line.
You know who convinced me gun control wasn't an issue worth fighting over? Micheal Moore, in Bowling for Columbine. Canadians have far more guns than we do, yet less gun violence. So ownership of guns isn't the problem. Its the culture of fear and machismo that pervades the US.
Not all fraud is theft. And if you look, you will see that, although fraud where property is concerned is considered a type of theft in US law, copyright violation is not. Fancy that.
Sigh. It isn't stealing. Fraud isn't stealing, it's fraud. Buying stolen property also isn't stealing, it is buying stolen property. Now, why do you suppose we call those things by different names, and have different laws regarding them, when they all amount to someone taking something that isn't rightfully theirs?
Based on your argument, we should also do away with murder as a separate crime, because all it really is is stealing someone's life. In fact, the only crime is stealing, and if it isn't stealing, it isn't a crime.
only if you don't have authorization. If the system lets you in by design, then you have authorization. The incoming house analogy will inevitably show how little the person knows about how computers communicate.
Stealing wifi is like dropping a house on a witch. It will make strange looking midgets dance around with glee, and get her sister to send flying monkeys after you.
Right, and when I buy someone else's game instead of yours, I am also depriving you of money you might have received. So buying anyone else's stuff but yours should be illegal, as it all deprives you of money you might have otherwise gotten.
Nice 'logic' there, buddy.
Also, try reading the entire post next time. I said it was wrong, just not theft.
If I cut off your head, that is stealing, not murder, because I am depriving you of something (your life). Yeah, that's it. There is no other crime than theft. And conversely, if it isn't theft, it must be okay.
Here's a radical idea! Read ALL of what other people post before getting in a snit and responding to things that weren't said, and making yourself look like an idiot.
You look very stupid when you miss the part where I said that, even though it isn't theft, it is wrong. I also said specifically in reply to another post that I do not copy anything copyrighted. So I am not like you. I recognize that although it isn't theft, it is wrong (but for different reasons) and I don't do it.
Unlike you, you amoral hypocrite.
Let me ask you a question: why are fraud, buying stolen property, theft, and copyright violation all separate crimes? Why not just call it all theft?
Let me ask you another few questions: do you own land? Is buying property that was originally stolen the moral equivalent of theft? Do you know who owned your land, originally? Were they paid for it fairly? Food for thought, isn't it?
I'm surprised you are the first to bite at that line. It was really meant to incite comment, but everyone else focused on the copyright crap.
There is a vast marketplace of governments for you to choose from. If you don't like this one, you could try making a deal with any of the others.
Last I checked, a free market in something does not guarantee you will find the exact choice you are looking for. No one owes you the choice you want.
Now, there are other very important questions that go along with this idea that I did not bring up.
First question: is it morally right to own more property than you can work yourself?
If it is, then you have no valid complaint against governments of any type, as they are simply exercising valid group ownership of land, and have every right to enforce borders and either keep you out, or require you to agree to go along with their rules.
Second question, what moral authority do property rights come from? If a person's claim to ownership of a thing is unilateral, why should others respect that claim? What are they getting from the bargain? Others who are party to the agreement should abide by it, but why should anyone who doesn't own property agree with people who claim they do? Besides force, that is.
Personally, I don't think it is morally right to own more land than you can use, and I don't think governments should be able to enforce borders. I think claims to ownership should derive from mutual and unanimous consent: you protect my property, I protect yours, for all people. I think any land not directly being worked by a person or group should be available for anyone to use in any way that isn't harmful to others.
Now why would I change my MO after nearly a decade? I'm a prick, that's part of my charm.
I hate it when otherwise intelligent people read a part of something, disagree with it, get in a snit, and then stop comprehending the rest of what was written. I said copyright violation is wrong.
But it is wrong for different reasons than theft is wrong. Each person should have rights to things they personally create. If I create a copy of something, barring any other agreements, that is MY work. Creators only have moral ownership of things they themselves create, not copies made by someone else.
The reason copyright violation is wrong is that we DO have other agreements. We agree to give creators an artificial monopoly over things they have created, in order to encourage creation and sharing. Without that artificial monopoly, anyone would have the right to copy anything they could perceive, and the only recourse creators would have would be simply not to let others perceive their creations.
I am giving up some of my natural rights in exchange for something I find more valuable than the right to copy (with my own work) anything I can see (with my own senses). To then turn around and copy something that another has been granted a monopoly on is breach of contract. That is the only reason it is wrong, and to claim differently is to claim ownership of MY senses and MY work without MY agreement, which is to claim I am your slave. I am not.
Do you think that buying stolen property is theft, plain and simple? Is fraud also theft, plain and simple? Then if you own any land, you are a thief, plain and simple, as all property was either stolen from its original owners, or they were defrauded of it.
Glad you agree with me. Fraud isn't theft. Knowingly buying stolen property isn't theft. Copyright violation isn't theft. Even though all those actions end up with a person possessing property that isn't rightfully theirs, the crimes are different, and have different punishments because they affect society differently.
We both agree that it is wrong, why do you feel the need to make it something it isn't? Isn't it enough just to say, "It's wrong, don't do it?"
I mean, why stop at theft? Maybe we should equate it with murder? That's even worse than theft, and if people thought of copyright violation as murder, then they'd be less likely to do it, right? That's why you want to equate it with theft, right? To make people feel bad about doing it? Well, maybe we should make all crimes equivalent to murder, that would sure convince people not to jaywalk.
Nope. I just don't think the second amendment says what its supporters think it says. However, as I live in a democratic society, and the courts have determined that it DOES say what you think it says, and the issue isn't really that important to me, I'm certainly willing to live with things the way they are.
Slashdot Mirror
Reading comprehension FAIL. I'm not questioning anything. I'm saying that newspapers should, before printing something as fact. I asked, "How do they know?" Well, if they DID check those facts, then that's how they know. It wasn't clear from the summary.
I never said I wanted you to have a web footed duck baby. I asked if you wanted one, and stated that if there were justice in the world, people who opposed testing would be the ones to suffer when dangers that could have been discovered by such testing surface.
And you are wrong about Thalidomide. It was sold in the US from 1957-1962. You may be thinking of it's 1998 approval by the FDA for use treating erythema nodosum leprosum.
Most distros do not include the dev packages in an install unless you ask them to. There is no reason for most users to have dev packages on a desktop, and there is no reason for dev packages to be on a production server. If you want them, they are easy enough to install.
And they aren't excluded for 'user friendliness.' Most users would have no idea if a dev package was installed or not. If anything, since they are invisible to people who don't need them, the user friendly thing would be to include them by default.
Backtrack all you like. Lets look over your post, shall we, and see what we can see?
"Show me research, that nanomaterials are safe. Otherwise we shouldn't allow them based on speculation that they are safe. "
I can show you research that Oxygen, water, cars, airplanes, ships, trains, and fire are not safe.
I am all for doing research to see what the dangers are but if you require any technology to be be proven safe then nothing will ever pass.
You can not prove anything is "safe".
You were trying to refute someone who simply asked that research be done to show a product is safe. You say that products can not be proven safe. You recommend researching for dangers, now what would it show if there were no dangers? It would show that the product is safe.
It really sounds like you are advocating for a very low standard of proof, the very same low standard that allowed horrible calamities like thalidomide to happen.
But I don't seriously hope you or anyone has a web footed duck baby. And maybe if we require that new products be shown not to cause harm, i.e. that they are SAFE, then no one will have to have another.
Name me a modern distro that doesn't do all those things. Seriously, have you used Linux recently? OH, sorry, sorry, you were being sarcastic, weren't you? Damn, I need my humor sensors adjusted.
Why should they have money for work they do? I do a lot of things that I don't get paid for. They should get paid when someone wants to pay them for something.
They should NOT get paid for work that I do. If they make their creation public, and I can perceive it, those are my sense impressions, not theirs. I did not agree to let them limit what I can perceive. And if I then copy what they did, that is MY work, not theirs. They did the initial work, but so what? They based their work on sense impressions they got of work that others before them did.
There IS a reason why I shouldn't copy things others do, but you don't even understand what it is.
Who wants to kill off anything? I just want them to bear the full costs of what they do, instead of, by default, expecting the public to pay for externalities.
You speak of capitalism as if it is some sort of sacrosanct theocracy that no one should question. Industries that cause harm should be regulated. Capitalism is a tool that we use to fulfill our needs. When it does not do so, another tool must be used.
How about not being a pedant and realizing that although you can't prove anything absolutely safe, you can do some basic due diligence to show that it's not horribly toxic.
Do you want to be the guy that gets the first new thalidomide baby? If there were any justice in the world, people like you, who claim we don't need to test new technology to determine what damage it might cause, should be the ones to suffer.
I gave you a chance to reread what I wrote. You obviously didn't. What, exactly, do we disagree on, hmmmm?
Here's a little quiz to test your reading comprehension.
1.) Do I claim copyright infringement is moral or in any way acceptable?
2.) Do I say I want a world without copyrights?
3.) Do you and I disagree over copyrights?
Even giving you a chance to go back and correct your misinterpretations, you refused, obviously believing there was no way you could have misread what I said. No, obviously "I need to learn" that when you completely miss the point of something, it doesn't mean you missed the point of something.
The paper has a duty to check facts that it publishes. How do they know that the 'daughter' publishing this information is really this woman's daughter at all, and not a jealous friend who wasn't invited?
Journalism has undergone a frightening shift in the last thirty years. Don't get me wrong: it has always been about selling eyes to the advertisers. But there used to be professional standards. People could take pride in saying they were a journalist. Journalists like Woodward and Bernstein were heroes protecting the public interest.
Now journalism is just another branch of the entertainment industry. Any sense of professional pride seems to be gone. Truth and accuracy don't matter.
It's not just stories like this, either. Journalists routinely slap their names on unedited press releases and call them stories without fact checking a damn thing. Politicians and businesses know that journalists are too lazy to do their jobs.
Fact checking is so last century. In the NEW and CONNECTED world of WEB 2.0, flash-mobs in the blogosphere fact check everything for you!
It can be hard to face the sex directly. We're all friends, and like to hang out, but it's not a group sex scene and at the end of a night of hanging out, it can get momentarily awkward.
Another difficulty is what I like to call 'new relationship energy.' You've just met, you're totally infatuated with this new person, and all you want to do is hang out with them. It's a different kind of feeling than the safe, secure, deep trust you find with a partner of many years.
Your partner seems to care more about the other person. It's really just infatuation, but infatuation can be pretty intense in the initial phases. And their infatuation with someone else is almost never going to correspond with yours, so you get to feel jealous and envious.
But you don't have to worry about lies and cheating. And you get to share in the good times. And you have them there to help pick up the pieces if your outside relationship goes south. To me that's worth it.
I am continually amazed at the poor reading comprehension skills of most Slashdot readers. Being geeks, and used to skimming quickly through written material, said readers come to something they don't agree with, and their comprehension shuts off as they formulate a reply in their heads.
They think they are still reading, but experience demonstrates otherwise. They are thinking about the lovely rant they are formulating, which unbeknown to them, doesn't even address the issues raised in the post they are responding to. It makes me sad, and frustrated.
I'm not for taking away all guns from everyone. Just sensible restrictions. After all, we don't permit individuals to own fully automatic machine guns, right? And there aren't many cases of people being mowed down with machine guns, so it seems to be working. The debate is obviously not about guns/no guns, rather, where to draw the line.
You know who convinced me gun control wasn't an issue worth fighting over? Micheal Moore, in Bowling for Columbine. Canadians have far more guns than we do, yet less gun violence. So ownership of guns isn't the problem. Its the culture of fear and machismo that pervades the US.
Not all fraud is theft. And if you look, you will see that, although fraud where property is concerned is considered a type of theft in US law, copyright violation is not. Fancy that.
Sigh. It isn't stealing. Fraud isn't stealing, it's fraud. Buying stolen property also isn't stealing, it is buying stolen property. Now, why do you suppose we call those things by different names, and have different laws regarding them, when they all amount to someone taking something that isn't rightfully theirs?
Based on your argument, we should also do away with murder as a separate crime, because all it really is is stealing someone's life. In fact, the only crime is stealing, and if it isn't stealing, it isn't a crime.
"Using someone else's wifi is stealing, "
only if you don't have authorization. If the system lets you in by design, then you have authorization.
The incoming house analogy will inevitably show how little the person knows about how computers communicate.
Stealing wifi is like dropping a house on a witch. It will make strange looking midgets dance around with glee, and get her sister to send flying monkeys after you.
Right, and when I buy someone else's game instead of yours, I am also depriving you of money you might have received. So buying anyone else's stuff but yours should be illegal, as it all deprives you of money you might have otherwise gotten.
Nice 'logic' there, buddy.
Also, try reading the entire post next time. I said it was wrong, just not theft.
If I cut off your head, that is stealing, not murder, because I am depriving you of something (your life). Yeah, that's it. There is no other crime than theft. And conversely, if it isn't theft, it must be okay.
Here's a radical idea! Read ALL of what other people post before getting in a snit and responding to things that weren't said, and making yourself look like an idiot.
You look very stupid when you miss the part where I said that, even though it isn't theft, it is wrong. I also said specifically in reply to another post that I do not copy anything copyrighted. So I am not like you. I recognize that although it isn't theft, it is wrong (but for different reasons) and I don't do it.
Unlike you, you amoral hypocrite.
Let me ask you a question: why are fraud, buying stolen property, theft, and copyright violation all separate crimes? Why not just call it all theft?
Let me ask you another few questions: do you own land? Is buying property that was originally stolen the moral equivalent of theft? Do you know who owned your land, originally? Were they paid for it fairly? Food for thought, isn't it?
I'm surprised you are the first to bite at that line. It was really meant to incite comment, but everyone else focused on the copyright crap.
There is a vast marketplace of governments for you to choose from. If you don't like this one, you could try making a deal with any of the others.
Last I checked, a free market in something does not guarantee you will find the exact choice you are looking for. No one owes you the choice you want.
Now, there are other very important questions that go along with this idea that I did not bring up.
First question: is it morally right to own more property than you can work yourself?
If it is, then you have no valid complaint against governments of any type, as they are simply exercising valid group ownership of land, and have every right to enforce borders and either keep you out, or require you to agree to go along with their rules.
Second question, what moral authority do property rights come from? If a person's claim to ownership of a thing is unilateral, why should others respect that claim? What are they getting from the bargain? Others who are party to the agreement should abide by it, but why should anyone who doesn't own property agree with people who claim they do? Besides force, that is.
Personally, I don't think it is morally right to own more land than you can use, and I don't think governments should be able to enforce borders. I think claims to ownership should derive from mutual and unanimous consent: you protect my property, I protect yours, for all people. I think any land not directly being worked by a person or group should be available for anyone to use in any way that isn't harmful to others.
What do you think?
Now why would I change my MO after nearly a decade? I'm a prick, that's part of my charm.
I hate it when otherwise intelligent people read a part of something, disagree with it, get in a snit, and then stop comprehending the rest of what was written. I said copyright violation is wrong.
But it is wrong for different reasons than theft is wrong. Each person should have rights to things they personally create. If I create a copy of something, barring any other agreements, that is MY work. Creators only have moral ownership of things they themselves create, not copies made by someone else.
The reason copyright violation is wrong is that we DO have other agreements. We agree to give creators an artificial monopoly over things they have created, in order to encourage creation and sharing. Without that artificial monopoly, anyone would have the right to copy anything they could perceive, and the only recourse creators would have would be simply not to let others perceive their creations.
I am giving up some of my natural rights in exchange for something I find more valuable than the right to copy (with my own work) anything I can see (with my own senses). To then turn around and copy something that another has been granted a monopoly on is breach of contract. That is the only reason it is wrong, and to claim differently is to claim ownership of MY senses and MY work without MY agreement, which is to claim I am your slave. I am not.
Do you think that buying stolen property is theft, plain and simple? Is fraud also theft, plain and simple? Then if you own any land, you are a thief, plain and simple, as all property was either stolen from its original owners, or they were defrauded of it.
No arguments there.
Glad you agree with me. Fraud isn't theft. Knowingly buying stolen property isn't theft. Copyright violation isn't theft. Even though all those actions end up with a person possessing property that isn't rightfully theirs, the crimes are different, and have different punishments because they affect society differently.
We both agree that it is wrong, why do you feel the need to make it something it isn't? Isn't it enough just to say, "It's wrong, don't do it?"
I mean, why stop at theft? Maybe we should equate it with murder? That's even worse than theft, and if people thought of copyright violation as murder, then they'd be less likely to do it, right? That's why you want to equate it with theft, right? To make people feel bad about doing it? Well, maybe we should make all crimes equivalent to murder, that would sure convince people not to jaywalk.
Nope. I just don't think the second amendment says what its supporters think it says. However, as I live in a democratic society, and the courts have determined that it DOES say what you think it says, and the issue isn't really that important to me, I'm certainly willing to live with things the way they are.