I think what he was suggesting is that other crims, such as rape, murder, and corporate corruption, should be concentrated on much more than people pirating video games.
I dare anyone here to say with a straight face that they honestly believe that the police focus more on anti-piracy efforts than rape, murder, and corporate corruption.
If he really was suggesting that, why? I mean, why suggest the police do something that they already do?
Also, piracy is different. Murder, most people will agree is bad. However with piracy it depends on if you agree with the law or not. I for one pirate tons of movies. Sorry, I do. I download movies first ALWAYS. If they are good I THEN go see them in the theatre. Same with CDs.
You have a point, piracy is different, but it still is the law. If these groups want to engage in civil disobedience to protest this law, fine, but civil disobedience does require actually submitting to punishment.
Uhh, why on earth would this be negligence? Unless the property owner is suing the person who leaked the information, and even then it wouldn't make more sense, there would be more fitting statutory causes of action. Laches is an equitable, common-law doctrine, not a statutory one, so you'd have to look up the statute governing civil remedies for breach of IP law and find the statute of limitations.
Here we go again with the whole "Global Warming" theory. Lets just drop it.
Well, I was going to listen to the scientists with their cutting edge equipment and rigorous scientific method, but I guess you anonymous internet cranks don't want me to, so I'll stop. No problemo.
Unfortunately the students aren't reasonable. Universities are supposed to be places of learning, and when they're paying vast amounts of money to maintain internet connectivity then they have the right to try to make sure that bandwidth isn't being wasted.
To continue your analogy you can have all your cyanide in one place where it is easy to control and prevent others from getting or you can spread it all over every surface in your house. Which form would you rather have?
Well my analogy already showed how cyanide in the ocean isn't dangerous because it's so dilute, so you don't need to extend the analogy at all. And it falls apart at the point you're trying to make because it's extremely difficult to store it safely, unlike cyanide.
There are several general responses to this assertion. The first is that we can just put it in a large, specially-made storage facility like Yuca mountain. Unfortunately not only is that still dangerous (and the danger is compounded by having so much of the material in one place), it's also very expensive and these things WILL fill up. We already have way too much waste now that we can't get rid of, so it boggles the mind how so many people here are arguing that we should increase the amount of waste a hundredfold by opening up many, many new plants.
Another common solution brought up is to dump it into ocean trenches and let the earth's convective system draw it down and out of harms way. It's an interesting idea, but you can't just drop it at the ocean's surface over a trench and assume it will fall right where it needs to go. And the depths involved pose serious challenges to large scale movement of the waste down to the right place. Plus it is somewhat risky to just toss this stuff down there and assume it won't come back out until it's not radioactive anymore.
I know it's geek chic to assume everyone against increased nuclear use is against it "just because they see the word nuclear", but it's just not true. I think nuclear plants can operate safely (with intense government oversight and regulation--no, this is not something that you want "the market to decide"), but I don't think it's a smart idea to put more into operation until we figure out something to do with the waste that's more clueful than sticking it in a hole in the ground.
By that insane logic a glassful of cyanide is safer than a glassful of ocean water, because the ocean has more net cyanide in it than the glass does. What makes nuclear waste dangerous is it's concentration.
It should be a matter of triage, first make society safe, then worry about maintaing private industry's profit margins against the gangs of computer toting outlaw teenagers.
However, the victims of muggings, spousal abuse, drug related violence and gangsta drive-by shootings do not make the hefty campaign contributions, nor do they have the ability to make press and TV conferences. They are just the average tax-payers - you know - the ones the Law Enforcement Officers swore to serve, protect, and defend.
That's unfair I think. To say that the police should only focus on serious crime until serious crime disappears doesn't really seem logical. You get a diminishing returns. For example, put two detectives on a murder case and you'll do better than if you put one. Put 7,000,000 detectives on a murder case, and it probably won't be solved more quickly, at least enough so as to justify the cost and effort.
For every police (encompassing here state, municipal, and federal) agent chasing after copyright violators there are tens of thousands going after murderers, muggers, and drug dealers.
Berman is to Star Trek as Eisner is to Disney. And Gene and Walt are wretching in their graves.
Only Star Trek's continuity was always wretched. Roddenberry is no better than Berman, he couldn't be bothered to come up with a decent backstory either, so the continuity in TOS was even worse than in TNG.
So what you're saying is that it's impossible for me to buy a BMW and eat a steak right now. I have to buy a Ford with a McDonalds burger because profit motivation will never create quality?
I've never seen a more ridiculous, shoddily made strawman.
Where did I say "profit motivation will never create quality"? Please, find it for me.
I mean, my post wasn't very long, only wrote a few sentences, but after scouring it I still can't find it.
I mean, at one point I say that the profit motive doesn't result in quality all the time, but I just can't imagine an English speaker misinterpreting it to that extent.
The problem isn't the private sector. If it were true that quality in the private sector was always hurt by profit motive, then private sector businesses would always produce substandard quality vs. public works.
Yes, the problem IS the private sector. Efficiency, quality, and reliability DOES NOT automatically follow when profit is the motivation.
The problem is not that the private sector can't produce a quality product, but rather that the government doesn't demand it
The government did demand it, they were promised it, and Diebold lied about it.
but I really think there's a better balance than the way the government operates now.
No, there isn't. Diebold does a hell of a lot worse than the government does.
What's happening here is all the people with the anti-government, pro-privatization bias are scrambling to make it look like somehow it wasn't the private sector's fault.
An iceberg displaces an equal weight of liquid water, so when it melts you won't see much of a change in sea level either up or down. Antarctica melting, however, would produce a very, very noticeable effect.
There's also the fact that warm water is less dense than cold, so even if no new water was added to the ocean an increase in global temperature would show a rise in sea level.
Nobody's claiming that anthropogenic sources would be the SINGLE reason that global warming may be happening. The bizarre thing is when the anti-environmentalist fruitcakes claim that since it wouldn't be the only source of warming then it should be ignored. It's like seeing a guy get hit by a car, then walking over to him and kicking him. Yeah, the car did more damage, but that doesn't mean the kick had no effect.
Nothing wrong with that. It's when people go from "I haven't seen enough proof" to "which means that global warming or cooling can't exist, so there should be no regulations whatsoever placed on manufacturing" that stupidity rears its ugly head.
Definitely. And even if somehow Linux as a system was totally destroyed (don't ask me how) FreeBSD would take up the slack (Linux really isn't that unique, people). Which is another reason why they'd probably feel little compunction in taking the money and running.
Slashdot Mirror
When I first heard about it I wanted to see it. Then I saw the trailer. It was silly to the point where you'd think it was a parody.
I think what he was suggesting is that other crims, such as rape, murder, and corporate corruption, should be concentrated on much more than people pirating video games.
I dare anyone here to say with a straight face that they honestly believe that the police focus more on anti-piracy efforts than rape, murder, and corporate corruption.
If he really was suggesting that, why? I mean, why suggest the police do something that they already do?
Also, piracy is different. Murder, most people will agree is bad. However with piracy it depends on if you agree with the law or not. I for one pirate tons of movies. Sorry, I do. I download movies first ALWAYS. If they are good I THEN go see them in the theatre. Same with CDs.
You have a point, piracy is different, but it still is the law. If these groups want to engage in civil disobedience to protest this law, fine, but civil disobedience does require actually submitting to punishment.
I only use targa! So the files are a few hundred megabytes, big deal, gives me time to catch up on my reading while transferring them...
Uhh, why on earth would this be negligence? Unless the property owner is suing the person who leaked the information, and even then it wouldn't make more sense, there would be more fitting statutory causes of action. Laches is an equitable, common-law doctrine, not a statutory one, so you'd have to look up the statute governing civil remedies for breach of IP law and find the statute of limitations.
Let's not forget Resident Evil, Tomb Raider and Wing Commander.
I think we'd all be better off if we DID forget those movies.
"Hmm, they voted yes on this proposition to limit outsourcing, but...oops, accidently moved that to /dev/null. Oh well, next record..."
Here we go again with the whole "Global Warming" theory. Lets just drop it.
Well, I was going to listen to the scientists with their cutting edge equipment and rigorous scientific method, but I guess you anonymous internet cranks don't want me to, so I'll stop. No problemo.
It's time to actually listen to users for a change and not what the +5 upmods say.
Quickly, mod him down! He challenges our hegemony!
I am married and I did it without Vulcan ears, blaster pistols, wizards or trolls.
You freak.
Universities are more reasonable than that!
Unfortunately the students aren't reasonable. Universities are supposed to be places of learning, and when they're paying vast amounts of money to maintain internet connectivity then they have the right to try to make sure that bandwidth isn't being wasted.
To continue your analogy you can have all your cyanide in one place where it is easy to control and prevent others from getting or you can spread it all over every surface in your house. Which form would you rather have?
Well my analogy already showed how cyanide in the ocean isn't dangerous because it's so dilute, so you don't need to extend the analogy at all. And it falls apart at the point you're trying to make because it's extremely difficult to store it safely, unlike cyanide.
There are several general responses to this assertion. The first is that we can just put it in a large, specially-made storage facility like Yuca mountain. Unfortunately not only is that still dangerous (and the danger is compounded by having so much of the material in one place), it's also very expensive and these things WILL fill up. We already have way too much waste now that we can't get rid of, so it boggles the mind how so many people here are arguing that we should increase the amount of waste a hundredfold by opening up many, many new plants.
Another common solution brought up is to dump it into ocean trenches and let the earth's convective system draw it down and out of harms way. It's an interesting idea, but you can't just drop it at the ocean's surface over a trench and assume it will fall right where it needs to go. And the depths involved pose serious challenges to large scale movement of the waste down to the right place. Plus it is somewhat risky to just toss this stuff down there and assume it won't come back out until it's not radioactive anymore.
I know it's geek chic to assume everyone against increased nuclear use is against it "just because they see the word nuclear", but it's just not true. I think nuclear plants can operate safely (with intense government oversight and regulation--no, this is not something that you want "the market to decide"), but I don't think it's a smart idea to put more into operation until we figure out something to do with the waste that's more clueful than sticking it in a hole in the ground.
By that insane logic a glassful of cyanide is safer than a glassful of ocean water, because the ocean has more net cyanide in it than the glass does. What makes nuclear waste dangerous is it's concentration.
Lovecraft didn't actually split the infinitive there though...
It should be a matter of triage, first make society safe, then worry about maintaing private industry's profit margins against the gangs of computer toting outlaw teenagers. However, the victims of muggings, spousal abuse, drug related violence and gangsta drive-by shootings do not make the hefty campaign contributions, nor do they have the ability to make press and TV conferences. They are just the average tax-payers - you know - the ones the Law Enforcement Officers swore to serve, protect, and defend.
That's unfair I think. To say that the police should only focus on serious crime until serious crime disappears doesn't really seem logical. You get a diminishing returns. For example, put two detectives on a murder case and you'll do better than if you put one. Put 7,000,000 detectives on a murder case, and it probably won't be solved more quickly, at least enough so as to justify the cost and effort.
For every police (encompassing here state, municipal, and federal) agent chasing after copyright violators there are tens of thousands going after murderers, muggers, and drug dealers.
Berman is to Star Trek as Eisner is to Disney. And Gene and Walt are wretching in their graves.
Only Star Trek's continuity was always wretched. Roddenberry is no better than Berman, he couldn't be bothered to come up with a decent backstory either, so the continuity in TOS was even worse than in TNG.
cast Gabrielle Union
Those three words alone have convinced me to agree with your idea.
His input into TNG i think made it the great series it was.
No, his input wasn't very good. It was the TNG writers who managed to twist TNG into a good series, despite Roddenberry's input.
So what you're saying is that it's impossible for me to buy a BMW and eat a steak right now. I have to buy a Ford with a McDonalds burger because profit motivation will never create quality?
I've never seen a more ridiculous, shoddily made strawman.
Where did I say "profit motivation will never create quality"? Please, find it for me.
I mean, my post wasn't very long, only wrote a few sentences, but after scouring it I still can't find it.
I mean, at one point I say that the profit motive doesn't result in quality all the time, but I just can't imagine an English speaker misinterpreting it to that extent.
Intellectual property is wrong because I think they are going after copyrights and not also patents.
Intellectual property refers to both copyrights and patents (and also trademarks if anyone cares).
The problem isn't the private sector. If it were true that quality in the private sector was always hurt by profit motive, then private sector businesses would always produce substandard quality vs. public works.
Yes, the problem IS the private sector. Efficiency, quality, and reliability DOES NOT automatically follow when profit is the motivation.
The problem is not that the private sector can't produce a quality product, but rather that the government doesn't demand it
The government did demand it, they were promised it, and Diebold lied about it.
but I really think there's a better balance than the way the government operates now.
No, there isn't. Diebold does a hell of a lot worse than the government does.
What's happening here is all the people with the anti-government, pro-privatization bias are scrambling to make it look like somehow it wasn't the private sector's fault.
An iceberg displaces an equal weight of liquid water, so when it melts you won't see much of a change in sea level either up or down. Antarctica melting, however, would produce a very, very noticeable effect.
There's also the fact that warm water is less dense than cold, so even if no new water was added to the ocean an increase in global temperature would show a rise in sea level.
Nobody's claiming that anthropogenic sources would be the SINGLE reason that global warming may be happening. The bizarre thing is when the anti-environmentalist fruitcakes claim that since it wouldn't be the only source of warming then it should be ignored. It's like seeing a guy get hit by a car, then walking over to him and kicking him. Yeah, the car did more damage, but that doesn't mean the kick had no effect.
Nothing wrong with that. It's when people go from "I haven't seen enough proof" to "which means that global warming or cooling can't exist, so there should be no regulations whatsoever placed on manufacturing" that stupidity rears its ugly head.
Since then he has become a veteran of almost 500 flights and claims to be the world's only Rocketman. Obviously he hasn't seen Rocketeer.
Or Elton John.
Definitely. And even if somehow Linux as a system was totally destroyed (don't ask me how) FreeBSD would take up the slack (Linux really isn't that unique, people). Which is another reason why they'd probably feel little compunction in taking the money and running.