Did you try to submit this as a story? That's the joke that should have been posted on Slashdot today. It's the best one I've seen on the web so far, second only to the Google one.
The unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted material is a civil offense under copyright law, since the copyright owner has the exclusive right to reproduce his work or authorise its reproduction.
It is not stealing (a crime) since: 1- unauthorised copies of copyright material remain the property of the owner of the copyright, 2- information, in this case music, cannot be stolen and 3- the rights (the exclusive right to reproduce his work, among others) of the owner of a copyrighted work cannot be stolen
It's an unfortunate human tendency to label everyone/everything as either "for" or "against", "friend" or "enemy". After reading the comments posted to this article, I feel the need to point out a few things.
However, please allow me these two warnings before I begin: 1) To fanatics on both sides of the fence, read the whole darn thing before starting to flame 2) I picked up the christian religion as the default one for this text, since I believe it is the one that most/.ers are familiar with.
On religion and belief It takes more than belief (read: faith) in the existance of God to make someone religious. That sole belief makes that person just that, a believer (as in "I believe that God exist"). A religion implies faith, a doctrine and a moral code of some kind (in our case, conformity in faith and life to the precepts inculcated in the Bible, respecting the conduct of life and duty toward God and man). The same will thus also apply to someone proclaming to be an atheist. This only informs us that this particular individual does not believe in God (or that he/she believe that God does not exist, as an important diffence has to be made here, though popular usage has ignored the latter) and only that. It does not imply the acceptance of any particular moral code, which is then left for that person to define (which is where --close your eyes kids, this may corrup your soul-- words like "humanism" may start to appear =). With that in mind, lets move on to the next point I wanted to bring out.
Science is NOT a religion Some posters stated that science was a religion, while replying to arguments from people making a clear distinction between these two (as one user so eleganlty puts it: "First, religion and science are two utterly unconnected fields. In mathematical terms, R.S=0" =) What is their basis for such a claim?
How many don't realize that their own beliefs are based on a sort of faith, that is, a faith in scientific results that they haven't personally witnessed or belief in events too far back in time to personally witness. To me, all of us have some degree of faith. Those who deny it haven't fully looked at their own faith.
In a word: faith. Before aguring against that statement, I need to say a few words about a very popular game called "the redefinition game". I could define "cat" as "something with four tires and a wheel", but by doing so I would make that term lose it's true meaning. The same thing apply in our case to "faith". If basic ideas such as, for example, the assumptions we make to make some sort of sense out of the sensory data we experience are called "acts of faith", then almost everything we know must be said to be based on acts of faith, and the term loses its meaning. When someone accept the Big Bang theory, for example, they don't do it "based on a sort of faith [...] in scientific results that they haven't personally witnessed or belief in events too far back in time to personally witness", they do it because that theory is the fruit of something called the scientific method. That method has proven itself, there is no need to have "faith" in it. Obviously, the results may be erronous, and no one ever claimed that theory couldn't be proven wrong (else it wouldn't be science). It is simply the best explanation we have for it yet. No faith is required here.
Religion, on the other hand, make the statements "God exist" and "The Bible is His words". Then go on from there. It is for those two firsts statements that faith is required. The evidence supporting the Big Bang Theory is freely available to anyone who takes the trouble to gatter it or read up on it. Anyone can study that evidence and examine the reasoning being the theory. But if there is a belief that is based solely on faith, one can't examine those reasons. As an side note, most religions offer a cosmology and a biology, a theory of life, a theory of origins, and reasons for existence. In doing so, they demonstrate that religion is, in a sense, science, but it's just bad science. Which brings us to my next point.
Religion without science & science without religion? Religion without science? Let me be blunt: simply plain stupid. Trying to pretend things don't exist just because they don't fit it a particular vision of the world just doesn't cut it. The worst of these being religious pseudo-science. Science without religion? Why not? But science without morals/ethics? No, I think not. That can very well come from a religious persective, but it doesn't have to.
"Religion has a much more important role in human destiny than science" I'll try to rephrase this statement, to make the intentions of Dyson clearer. When put in context, this sentence shows that it is his opinion that religion, not science, should play a leading role in shapping human destiny. Now, substitute "religion" for "ethics" and I'll definitively agree with him. That moral and ethical infrastructure can be religiously-grounded, but once again, it doesn't have to be. While it is science that opens us the doors of the future, it is us who must decide what to do with those discoveries and ultimatly shape that future, and not simply let it go ahead blindy. With things such as cloning and genetic engineering looming on the horizon, we must make our choice on how to use those technologies.
The Secret Service aren't supposed to be involved in domestic investigations (except maybe of counterfeiting, forgery, et al), which would be right on the fringes of the Cyberpunk genre.
The U.S. Secret Service mission is "To protect the President and Vice-President, their immediate families, important presidential candidates, visiting heads of state, and other dignitaries. To enforce laws against counterfeiting currency, fraud, forgery, credit card fraud, computer fraud, and electronic transfer fraud."
So the Secret Services was very much withing its jurisdiction when they went after a few SJG employes on charges of "transport of property obtained by fraud" and "traffic of passwords or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization" (as mentioned in the U.S.S. affidavit for the search warrant for SJG).
I'm having a huge doubt here suddently: It seems to me that the GPL falls under what can be categorised as "shrink-warp licenses" thus making it illegal.
Please tell me that I am wrong, because shrink-warp licenses are illegal (1435 C.c.Q.) where I live (Canada) and I know that they are too in many US States. Some companies tried to sue under their skrink-warp license, and got clubbed to death in court in a nano-second.
Can someone share some light on this subject?
-Earthling
Re:This is getting a lot of attention.
on
Victory in Holland
·
· Score: 1
You're right... I misinterpreted his post. My bad.
Slightly off-topic, but I think it's worth to consider since many people here claim to play female models in Quake2/3 because it gives them a "tactical advantage". However, lots of people seems to have conflicting opinions as wheter or not playing a female character in Quake2/3 makes any difference. Here's the answer:
1- The boxes around each models are *exactly* the same. That means it's no harder to hit the female model than the male on in q2, nor is it harder to hit, say, Crash (female) than Doom (male) in q3.
2- However, the female models are (sometimes alot) smaller on screen than the male models (but that also valid for some weird ones like Orb or Bones). I personnaly feels that it's make them harder to see, harder to aim at them precisely, and thus harder to hit. Agreed, that's arguable, but still.
3- BUT, the *true* reason why you should play a female model in Quake2 is because the footsteps sounds coming from them is much quieter than the one from the male models. Now before you say "bullshit", let me tell you than anyone who ever played 1 on 1 (and especially those of us who play in official tournaments), *sound-awareness* (if that's a word) is what makes the difference between good and great players. If you can not only tell where your opponent is from by the powerups, weapons, etc. they pick up but simply by their footsteps (louder footsteps = you can hear them from further away), you have a huge advantage. That's why you'll see alot of (good) players walking in Quake2/3 when not engaged in combat (so they won't make any noise). The same is not true in q3, as some female models make more noise than male ones, and vice versa. But specific models, like Anarki (male) and Slash (female) make noticably less noise than the others.
All in all, the difference between the male and female models isn't all that great, but why don't take all the advantages you can get?
-Earthling
Re:This is getting a lot of attention.
on
Victory in Holland
·
· Score: 1
Your's is a twisted kind of logic. Not the comment you were replying to.
It's a twisted kind of logic. If your library has full internet access, then it attracts the guys who will surf porn. Those guys are the same guys that will rape young girls.
Or so you say. However I have yet to see any study that makes a direct connection between pornography and rape. And beside, do you really think that people who "surf porn" will do it at the public library?
Therefore, the guy was hanging around the library, just about to, or just finishing up, surfing porn, and in the mood to rape a young girl, and he found one.
Proof? Hard evidence to support your claim? Do you even know what actually happened in this case?
Logically, if you don't have full internet access, the guy wouldn't have been there since he couldn't get to the porn, therefore he wouldn't have raped the young girl there.
What about the pornographic magasines they sell at your local bookstore or convenience store? Obviously they'll attract all the rapists in your area. And who ever said that that guy was there for the porn? Maybe he just enjoy reading, at a library that happens to have 'net access (sure he's sick, but that doesn't prevent anything).
Slashdot Mirror
That's the joke that should have been posted on Slashdot today. It's the best one I've seen on the web so far, second only to the Google one.
Great piece of work if you ask me, congrads.
-Earthling
It is not stealing (a crime) since:
1- unauthorised copies of copyright material remain the property of the owner of the copyright,
2- information, in this case music, cannot be stolen and
3- the rights (the exclusive right to reproduce his work, among others) of the owner of a copyrighted work cannot be stolen
-Earthling
However, please allow me these two warnings before I begin: /.ers are familiar with.
1) To fanatics on both sides of the fence, read the whole darn thing before starting to flame
2) I picked up the christian religion as the default one for this text, since I believe it is the one that most
On religion and belief
It takes more than belief (read: faith) in the existance of God to make someone religious. That sole belief makes that person just that, a believer (as in "I believe that God exist"). A religion implies faith, a doctrine and a moral code of some kind (in our case, conformity in faith and life to the precepts inculcated in the Bible, respecting the conduct of life and duty toward God and man). The same will thus also apply to someone proclaming to be an atheist. This only informs us that this particular individual does not believe in God (or that he/she believe that God does not exist, as an important diffence has to be made here, though popular usage has ignored the latter) and only that. It does not imply the acceptance of any particular moral code, which is then left for that person to define (which is where --close your eyes kids, this may corrup your soul-- words like "humanism" may start to appear =).
With that in mind, lets move on to the next point I wanted to bring out.
Science is NOT a religion
Some posters stated that science was a religion, while replying to arguments from people making a clear distinction between these two (as one user so eleganlty puts it: "First, religion and science are two utterly unconnected fields. In mathematical terms, R.S=0" =)
What is their basis for such a claim?
In a word: faith. Before aguring against that statement, I need to say a few words about a very popular game called "the redefinition game". I could define "cat" as "something with four tires and a wheel", but by doing so I would make that term lose it's true meaning. The same thing apply in our case to "faith". If basic ideas such as, for example, the assumptions we make to make some sort of sense out of the sensory data we experience are called "acts of faith", then almost everything we know must be said to be based on acts of faith, and the term loses its meaning. When someone accept the Big Bang theory, for example, they don't do it "based on a sort of faith [...] in scientific results that they haven't personally witnessed or belief in events too far back in time to personally witness", they do it because that theory is the fruit of something called the scientific method. That method has proven itself, there is no need to have "faith" in it. Obviously, the results may be erronous, and no one ever claimed that theory couldn't be proven wrong (else it wouldn't be science). It is simply the best explanation we have for it yet. No faith is required here.
Religion, on the other hand, make the statements "God exist" and "The Bible is His words". Then go on from there. It is for those two firsts statements that faith is required. The evidence supporting the Big Bang Theory is freely available to anyone who takes the trouble to gatter it or read up on it. Anyone can study that evidence and examine the reasoning being the theory. But if there is a belief that is based solely on faith, one can't examine those reasons.
As an side note, most religions offer a cosmology and a biology, a theory of life, a theory of origins, and reasons for existence. In doing so, they demonstrate that religion is, in a sense, science, but it's just bad science. Which brings us to my next point.
Religion without science & science without religion? Religion without science? Let me be blunt: simply plain stupid. Trying to pretend things don't exist just because they don't fit it a particular vision of the world just doesn't cut it. The worst of these being religious pseudo-science.
Science without religion? Why not? But science without morals/ethics? No, I think not. That can very well come from a religious persective, but it doesn't have to.
"Religion has a much more important role in human destiny than science"
I'll try to rephrase this statement, to make the intentions of Dyson clearer. When put in context, this sentence shows that it is his opinion that religion, not science, should play a leading role in shapping human destiny.
Now, substitute "religion" for "ethics" and I'll definitively agree with him. That moral and ethical infrastructure can be religiously-grounded, but once again, it doesn't have to be. While it is science that opens us the doors of the future, it is us who must decide what to do with those discoveries and ultimatly shape that future, and not simply let it go ahead blindy. With things such as cloning and genetic engineering looming on the horizon, we must make our choice on how to use those technologies.
-Earthling
At least if we could vote for Cthulhu for President... :)
And remember: 9 9 2 0 .2 2 9 9 8 9 2 1 2 .3 3 4
-Earthling
The U.S. Secret Service mission is "To protect the President and Vice-President, their immediate families, important presidential candidates, visiting heads of state, and other dignitaries. To enforce laws against counterfeiting currency, fraud, forgery, credit card fraud, computer fraud, and electronic transfer fraud."
So the Secret Services was very much withing its jurisdiction when they went after a few SJG employes on charges of "transport of property obtained by fraud" and "traffic of passwords or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization" (as mentioned in the U.S.S. affidavit for the search warrant for SJG).
-Earthling
It seems to me that the GPL falls under what can be categorised as "shrink-warp licenses" thus making it illegal.
Please tell me that I am wrong, because shrink-warp licenses are illegal (1435 C.c.Q.) where I live (Canada) and I know that they are too in many US States. Some companies tried to sue under their skrink-warp license, and got clubbed to death in court in a nano-second.
Can someone share some light on this subject?
-Earthling
You're right... I misinterpreted his post. My bad.
-Earthling
1- The boxes around each models are *exactly* the same. That means it's no harder to hit the female model than the male on in q2, nor is it harder to hit, say, Crash (female) than Doom (male) in q3.
2- However, the female models are (sometimes alot) smaller on screen than the male models (but that also valid for some weird ones like Orb or Bones). I personnaly feels that it's make them harder to see, harder to aim at them precisely, and thus harder to hit. Agreed, that's arguable, but still.
3- BUT, the *true* reason why you should play a female model in Quake2 is because the footsteps sounds coming from them is much quieter than the one from the male models. Now before you say "bullshit", let me tell you than anyone who ever played 1 on 1 (and especially those of us who play in official tournaments), *sound-awareness* (if that's a word) is what makes the difference between good and great players. If you can not only tell where your opponent is from by the powerups, weapons, etc. they pick up but simply by their footsteps (louder footsteps = you can hear them from further away), you have a huge advantage. That's why you'll see alot of (good) players walking in Quake2/3 when not engaged in combat (so they won't make any noise).
The same is not true in q3, as some female models make more noise than male ones, and vice versa. But specific models, like Anarki (male) and Slash (female) make noticably less noise than the others.
All in all, the difference between the male and female models isn't all that great, but why don't take all the advantages you can get?
-Earthling
-Earthling