I can't tell, as you don't give reasons, but I suspect you're being silly. It's true that I think that cap and trade is a lousy scheme, and that a carbon tax would be MUCH more reasonable, but I need to admit that I don't know much about the measure in question, and the bill could be much worse than I realize.
It's rather like, just because I'm in favor of universal health care doesn't mean I'm in favor of every implementation of universal health care that's possible. Some of the pieces that I've heard about the bill being proposed make me think it's probably one I wouldn't be in favor of...but I can't be sure. Too much smoke, and I'm not a lawyer, so I can't be really sure of what something means in a piece of legalese. It's worse than Forth, or even Perl.
Similarly, cap and trade is a bad idea, but there could be an implementation that would be better than not doing anything. There could also easily be implementations that are much worse. Some of the signs say that this bill is such a "much worse" implementation. (I.e., it's a bill that lets the polluters off free, with a government subsidy, to continue doing what they were doing.) The devil is in the details, and you don't provide anything specific.
Read "Halting State" by Charles Stross. (True, the version he was writing about was a bit more advanced...but it's clearly the same thing.)
Or read "The California Voodoo Game" by Larry Niven et. al. Again, a slightly more advanced version. If you've got a flexible imagination then you could try "Dream Park" (same author). There he was talking about holographic projections, but this is the same sort of thing, and there he was talking about something not much more advanced than this.
N.B.: All of these seem to require some sort of heads-up display, but I don't find that at all hard to imagine as an enhancement to what's being proposed.
OTOH, in NONE of these did people pay to watch commercials. I've read a couple of short stories where that happened, but in no longer form could anyone make it believable.
This is the kind of action that the FBI has an institutional bias in favor of, but it became much stronger under the Bushes. The Democrats rarely push back against is, but they also don't push to increase it. So it's fair to blame the Republicans more than the Democrats (though Teddy Rooseveldt wouldn't have been in favor of it). OTOH, it's also not right to give the Democrats a free pass. Their game plan seems to be to get the Republicans to do the things they don't want to be blamed for, and then take all the advantage they can of the blatantly unconstitutional laws and rules of operation that have been institutionalized.
They didn't. The first ten amendments were added because without them the original document couldn't get enough support to pass. Even then many thought it was much too authoritarian. (Check Patrick Henry's succinct summary of the constitution.)
But this isn't talking about copyright infringement. I'd agree that fraud + barratry + extortion was closer that theft, but not THAT much closer. They are stealing because after they have committed their actions you no longer have access to the property that you previously had access to.
It would help you to understand Slashdot, and other organizations, to remember that the organization is a fiction. The actual statements are coming from, and actions are taken by, various individuals.
Collective names, like Slashdot, are purely a stylistic convenience. Call it syntactical sugar. Only a very few individuals have any actual right to speak for the collective entity...and they VERY rarely do. Usually the spokesman is either self-appointed, or someone who can be denounced as "Not really representing our organization". (Remember, I'm NOT just talking about Slashdot.)
But neither of those have any pretense of being carbon neutral. As such, I don't see how they fit into this discussion. Yes, if you trash all environmental and safety regulations you can build things lots cheaper. That doesn't make it a good idea.
Clean coal pretends to be carbon neutral. It's a pretty shallow pretense, but it's good enough that someone who wants to believe it for other reasons can use it as why they were convinced. So clean coal is one of the plants that need to be competed against. It's naturally more expensive than coal without controls, so it's a bit easier to compete against.
I *think* your opinion is based around obsolete designs. I'm not certain. Perhaps you have good reasons for your beliefs that you didn't mention. It's certain that I don't trust the messianic proponents of either wind or solar, but I do notice that the amount of investment in them has been increasing at a substantial rate over the last decade. To me that means that they must be at least close to sufficiently efficient. (I should have been cured of this belief by bio-ethanol for gasoline, but I haven't been, and consider that a statistical aberration cause by a strong political pressure group.)
If I'm wrong, could you please offer me a link to substantiate your opinions? Academic sources are preferred over either governmental or industrial.
Calling it a more efficient medium misses the essence of this.
If you're talking about the National Enquirer, then you might have a point...I'm not sure, I don't read it. For genuine newspapers... No.
The problem is that newspapers need to return to their roots...and there doesn't seem to be any way to do that. Most newspapers don't HAVE investigative reporters, so they don't have anything special to offer. So they not only are dying, they deserve to die. The ones that do, though, have a problem:
Those investigative reporters cost money and require influence. And their results are sporadic. 1) How do you cover your costs in the interim? 2) How do you maintain public support when nothing special is coming out? 3) How do you catch people's attention when you have something significant to report?
I'm not in the industry, so I haven't been looking, but I don't see any answers. Many to most stories are now being broken by bloggers, but that has the problem that they don't have significant political support, so unpopular results are subject to suppression...sometimes by unpleasant means. (Newspapers had this problem too, but they had a larger power-base behind them.)
Unfortunately, most non-local newspapers (and some of them) *deserve* to die. They don't fulfill their role in the social contract, and haven't since they were bought out be big businesses. (Think of how Hearst started the Spanish-American war.) It's always been a rather shaky deal, as by it's nature the role they were supposed to play could not be enforced, but newspapers were supposed to inform the public about the significant political events that were happening. When "significant" gets defined by a small group of people, even if such a group contains divergent ideas about what's significant, then the deal isn't being kept. And the contents of the newspapers (& network broadcast stations) is defined by such a small group. There are divergent voices, but they all speak to the opinions of the rich. Some are liberal, some are conservative, but they're RICH liberals and RICH conservatives. The only moderately wealthy don't have a voice....but when they become bloggers they do.
Somehow a method needs to be found to fuse the strengths of the mass media and the bloggers, but what way would work isn't clear to me. The Slashdot model shows promise, but it needs LOTS of refinements. Note that Slashdot has significant financial backing, but empowers diverse voices. But also note the weaknesses...Few to no original stories, excessive noise from trolls, etc. The lack of strong editorial controls is a necessity for this to work as I think it should, but perhaps there should be either community control of which stories are significant, or, perhaps better, agents for each member that learn which stories are interesting. (But SlashDot2 already has too much JavaScript. I've got a fast computer, and my browser occasionally asks if the JavaScript hasn't gone into a loop, and should it kill it? So this needs to be done in a faster language, and should probably be mainly done as background processing....at a *very* nice priority--- say a niceness of 18 [unless I have the priorities backwards].)
Cute. But then MS hasn't been vigorously enforcing the terms, either. Or perhaps it's just that when they do, you don't hear about the companies anymore. I don't know any way of distinguishing.
Clearly it wouldn't be to their advantage to enforce those terms in a blanket manner. That would stop then from selling any copies. But it gives them the RIGHT to shut down any business they want, and to steal (excuse me, copy) all their business records. You've agreed to it, after all.
Now if you presume that their interests and yours aren't going to come into conflict, and also that they aren't insane, then this isn't a dangerous situation. It just puts you in an impossible bargaining position, but then since your interests are aligned with theirs, why would you need to bargain?
So when your records are locked into proprietary formats with no open backups, and no exit provisions, by some upgrade that said it was a "security upgrade", you don't have anything to complain about. (And, to be honest, most departments don't even seem to notice when this happens.)
Calling it a "suicide note" was perhaps a bit of an overreaction, but it was the reaction I had. And I don't regard it as essentially incorrect, just a bit of an overstatement. (OTOH, I'm not all that fond of SELinux, either. For essentially the same reasons. But it doesn't go as far, and is thus more justifiable.)
In *real* capitalism companies can charge what they please where they please, and if the prices are too different, then middle-men can buy things up in one place and sell them in another.
It's not a perfect system, but it's better than the one we've got.
(Note that I'm assuming that the middle-men don't have to pay taxes any higher than the original vending companies. That they're allowed to do this. And that various other hindrances to the free market aren't present. That these assumptions are contrafactual is part of why we don't live in a free market system.)
I pretty much agree. I don't see anything wrong with piracy against the very companies that bought the law that made it a crime. Buying the law was, itself, corruption, so they don't deserve ANY profits as a result of it.
OTOH, I consider it a reckless lifestyle choice. I'd prefer to just not purchase anything that supports DRM. So I don't. I've also stopped going to movies. I've also stopped buying music CDs. (Except from local bands without contracts with the RIAA or any member company.) And my software CDs are Linux & GPL (plus the occasional GPL compatibly licensed software). I made this choice before the DMCA was passed, though I'll admit that that reconfirmed my decision. (The Sonny-Bono copyright extension act was part of my reason. The rest came from reading the MS EULA for either Windows2000 or Office2000 at work. [My reaction to it was "This is a suicide note for any business that signs it!". The company lawyer's attitude was "No court will uphold this". He wouldn't realize that MS was capable of enforcing the EULA via technical measures, and that this was only to make their actions legal.])
In a kind of a way, you're correct. Unfortunately, the way that you're correct doesn't help your argument any.
The way that you're correct is that it requires a finer analysis to actually determine which is better for society. Unfortunately, after the final analysis...well, the RIAA paid to have laws passed which favored them and which many consider to be blatantly unconstitutional. (I know, the courts agree with them that the laws are constitutional. This doesn't convince me.)
Since the RIAA & it's member companies wrote and paid for the laws that benefit them, I don't believe that there's any justice in anyone else being obliged to obey them. As a practical matter, I'll agree that it's dangerous to act on that belief, under the presumption that we live in a just world.
To my mind this puts the RIAA & it's member companies in the same category as other criminal conspiracies.
OTOH, neither the FSF nor any other Free Software organization has successfully lobbied for laws supporting it's stance. So if it takes advantage of existing laws, they can't be blamed if someone else finds the laws unjust.
I'm sure that better arguments could be made, but this one suffices for me, so I've never felt obligated to dig deeper.
No, I'm not. I'm not considering whether something is legal or not to be a fundamental consideration with respect to "Will the person be hassled?" I don't believe it is.
E.g., in the area that I live there's a "crime" called "Driving while black or brown". It will cause you to be pulled over much more frequently, because the police are fairly sure that you won't be able to kick back at them.
Whenever an authority has immunity to consequences, it will act without justification. My belief is that what they're doing is displaying that they don't NEED to worry about offending those who are without power. I consider this to be both natural human nature and a very dangerous thing to allow to develop.
The solution to Wiki's is trivial. Drown the signal in noise. All you need to do is ensure that the search engines downgrade sites that you don't like and you've marginalized whatever message they're trying to push. And you don't even need to admit that you're doing anything. There's no way that anybody can tell.
The interesting thing about that is...titles are not copyrightable. I suppose he could have made it a trademark, but he didn't. And he sure didn't patent his title.
So... Michael Moore was embarrassed for social reasons, not for legal ones. And if Bradbury is a legitimate Republican, he shouldn't find anything wrong with it. The name, after all, was legally available for use.
Instead he's like most people, and an ideologue only when it's personally convenient. OK. That's the same way most people are. But he should be aware that he's just twisting the Republican doctrines to fit what's personally convenient.
Personally, I think they both acted as unpleasant people, but, from description, at least Michael Moore had the grace to be embarrassed about it.
But the thing is, the internet is censorable from a central location. (Well, several central locations, actually, but the point stands.)
Remember what W. Smith's job was in 1984? Now it's not necessarily. The information can be altered in situ without anyone having any awareness of it. Web pages are a re-writable medium, so you can't tell what's been censored, and what's just been updated. The fact that it isn't the same today as yesterday doesn't prove anything. And the wayback machine is no protection. They'll remove things on request.
That's a part of the message that *I* took away from Fahrenheit 451.
Ah, so then your post can be summed up as "I'm alright, Jack,..."
I'm sure that there are many people in privileged positions that will never experience problems from their local police, even though if they appeared less powerful they would. In some cases they *should* experience problems (e.g., drunk driving), and in others NOBODY should be hassled. But because THEY aren't hassled, they don't see a problem.
I remember reading about one that contained a GPL license. Don't remember if it contained the source code or not.
Interesting question: If you catch a GPL virus that is only being distributed as binary, are you guilty for copyright violation when it redistributes itself?
Every time I've noticed them in action the ACLU has been defending SOMEONE's freedoms. Sometimes there is a conflict, and it's true that the ACLU's position on the 2nd amendment doesn't make sense to me. (Even if you assert that the 2nd amendment is a collective right, that doesn't mean that the government is the only entity entitled to engage in authorizing collective action.)
From my reading of history, the framers of the constitution didn't particularly trust governments, and the militias that they were talking about were local organizations that more often than not would NOT have government authorization.
P.S.: I don't believe that the 2nd amendment interpreted literally (as I tend to) would be workable in urban areas. That doesn't mean that I approve of ad hoc transgressions on and re-writing of the constitution. The constitution has defined procedures that are supposed to be followed, and just saying "I don't like this piece, so I'll say it means something else" isn't the way it's supposed to be done. Such actions are not just unconstitutional, they're anti-constitutional.
Wait awhile. That $10,000 is already only worth a fraction of what it was when the law was passed. Give it a bit of time and it will be the cost of a loaf of bread. (OK, that's probably more time than things will continue relatively stable. Say, then, the cost of a kitchen chair.) It's already worth less than a tenth of what it was when I was a kid. (Prices aren't stable relative to each other, but a coke was a nickel, a loaf of bread was a dime, and a gallon of gas was a quarter. [I'm not saying these were all in the same year. These are the low prices that I remember.])
quote: Pepsi-Cola hits the spot 12 full ounces, that's a lot Twice as much for a nickel, too Pepsi-Cola is the drink for you.
(I presume that means that cokes were 6 oz. I remember that the price was, indeed, a nickel.)
You don't have an overactive imagination. Something roughly equivalent happened to my sister once coming out of Las Vegas...only without even the excuse of a was of cash. She was later given the excuse that someone (unidentified) somewhere (unspecified) filled out some form (also unspecified) incorrectly. Even if you believe it, it's a pretty shabby excuse. And for this she missed a party given in her honor as she was promoted to a different department. And had no chance to communicate with anyone involved, so she couldn't even warn them.
Personally, I consider the "explanation" possible. However, as the person who caused her to be detained suffered no penalty, I don't consider it an excuse. O, and there was no apology, even. ***** retard bastards. Probably too incompetent to hold down a job dispensing hamburgers at McDonalds.
Do I think these clowns make flying safer? It is to laugh.
Given all that, and given that you can buy a reader in the future that supports the same encryption, then it's feasible to make the system work...if you work hard enough at it.
I'm lazy. I don't like to work hard when I don't need to. So I'll just avoid DRM enabled systems.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't tell, as you don't give reasons, but I suspect you're being silly. It's true that I think that cap and trade is a lousy scheme, and that a carbon tax would be MUCH more reasonable, but I need to admit that I don't know much about the measure in question, and the bill could be much worse than I realize.
It's rather like, just because I'm in favor of universal health care doesn't mean I'm in favor of every implementation of universal health care that's possible. Some of the pieces that I've heard about the bill being proposed make me think it's probably one I wouldn't be in favor of...but I can't be sure. Too much smoke, and I'm not a lawyer, so I can't be really sure of what something means in a piece of legalese. It's worse than Forth, or even Perl.
Similarly, cap and trade is a bad idea, but there could be an implementation that would be better than not doing anything. There could also easily be implementations that are much worse. Some of the signs say that this bill is such a "much worse" implementation. (I.e., it's a bill that lets the polluters off free, with a government subsidy, to continue doing what they were doing.) The devil is in the details, and you don't provide anything specific.
Read "Halting State" by Charles Stross. (True, the version he was writing about was a bit more advanced...but it's clearly the same thing.)
Or read "The California Voodoo Game" by Larry Niven et. al. Again, a slightly more advanced version. If you've got a flexible imagination then you could try "Dream Park" (same author). There he was talking about holographic projections, but this is the same sort of thing, and there he was talking about something not much more advanced than this.
N.B.: All of these seem to require some sort of heads-up display, but I don't find that at all hard to imagine as an enhancement to what's being proposed.
OTOH, in NONE of these did people pay to watch commercials. I've read a couple of short stories where that happened, but in no longer form could anyone make it believable.
This is the kind of action that the FBI has an institutional bias in favor of, but it became much stronger under the Bushes. The Democrats rarely push back against is, but they also don't push to increase it. So it's fair to blame the Republicans more than the Democrats (though Teddy Rooseveldt wouldn't have been in favor of it). OTOH, it's also not right to give the Democrats a free pass. Their game plan seems to be to get the Republicans to do the things they don't want to be blamed for, and then take all the advantage they can of the blatantly unconstitutional laws and rules of operation that have been institutionalized.
They didn't. The first ten amendments were added because without them the original document couldn't get enough support to pass. Even then many thought it was much too authoritarian. (Check Patrick Henry's succinct summary of the constitution.)
But this isn't talking about copyright infringement. I'd agree that fraud + barratry + extortion was closer that theft, but not THAT much closer. They are stealing because after they have committed their actions you no longer have access to the property that you previously had access to.
It would help you to understand Slashdot, and other organizations, to remember that the organization is a fiction. The actual statements are coming from, and actions are taken by, various individuals.
Collective names, like Slashdot, are purely a stylistic convenience. Call it syntactical sugar. Only a very few individuals have any actual right to speak for the collective entity...and they VERY rarely do. Usually the spokesman is either self-appointed, or someone who can be denounced as "Not really representing our organization". (Remember, I'm NOT just talking about Slashdot.)
But neither of those have any pretense of being carbon neutral. As such, I don't see how they fit into this discussion. Yes, if you trash all environmental and safety regulations you can build things lots cheaper. That doesn't make it a good idea.
Clean coal pretends to be carbon neutral. It's a pretty shallow pretense, but it's good enough that someone who wants to believe it for other reasons can use it as why they were convinced. So clean coal is one of the plants that need to be competed against. It's naturally more expensive than coal without controls, so it's a bit easier to compete against.
I *think* your opinion is based around obsolete designs. I'm not certain. Perhaps you have good reasons for your beliefs that you didn't mention. It's certain that I don't trust the messianic proponents of either wind or solar, but I do notice that the amount of investment in them has been increasing at a substantial rate over the last decade. To me that means that they must be at least close to sufficiently efficient. (I should have been cured of this belief by bio-ethanol for gasoline, but I haven't been, and consider that a statistical aberration cause by a strong political pressure group.)
If I'm wrong, could you please offer me a link to substantiate your opinions? Academic sources are preferred over either governmental or industrial.
Calling it a more efficient medium misses the essence of this.
If you're talking about the National Enquirer, then you might have a point...I'm not sure, I don't read it. For genuine newspapers... No.
The problem is that newspapers need to return to their roots...and there doesn't seem to be any way to do that. Most newspapers don't HAVE investigative reporters, so they don't have anything special to offer. So they not only are dying, they deserve to die. The ones that do, though, have a problem:
Those investigative reporters cost money and require influence. And their results are sporadic.
1) How do you cover your costs in the interim?
2) How do you maintain public support when nothing special is coming out?
3) How do you catch people's attention when you have something significant to report?
I'm not in the industry, so I haven't been looking, but I don't see any answers. Many to most stories are now being broken by bloggers, but that has the problem that they don't have significant political support, so unpopular results are subject to suppression...sometimes by unpleasant means. (Newspapers had this problem too, but they had a larger power-base behind them.)
Unfortunately, most non-local newspapers (and some of them) *deserve* to die. They don't fulfill their role in the social contract, and haven't since they were bought out be big businesses. (Think of how Hearst started the Spanish-American war.) It's always been a rather shaky deal, as by it's nature the role they were supposed to play could not be enforced, but newspapers were supposed to inform the public about the significant political events that were happening. When "significant" gets defined by a small group of people, even if such a group contains divergent ideas about what's significant, then the deal isn't being kept. And the contents of the newspapers (& network broadcast stations) is defined by such a small group. There are divergent voices, but they all speak to the opinions of the rich. Some are liberal, some are conservative, but they're RICH liberals and RICH conservatives. The only moderately wealthy don't have a voice....but when they become bloggers they do.
Somehow a method needs to be found to fuse the strengths of the mass media and the bloggers, but what way would work isn't clear to me. The Slashdot model shows promise, but it needs LOTS of refinements. Note that Slashdot has significant financial backing, but empowers diverse voices. But also note the weaknesses...Few to no original stories, excessive noise from trolls, etc. The lack of strong editorial controls is a necessity for this to work as I think it should, but perhaps there should be either community control of which stories are significant, or, perhaps better, agents for each member that learn which stories are interesting. (But SlashDot2 already has too much JavaScript. I've got a fast computer, and my browser occasionally asks if the JavaScript hasn't gone into a loop, and should it kill it? So this needs to be done in a faster language, and should probably be mainly done as background processing....at a *very* nice priority--- say a niceness of 18 [unless I have the priorities backwards].)
Cute. But then MS hasn't been vigorously enforcing the terms, either. Or perhaps it's just that when they do, you don't hear about the companies anymore. I don't know any way of distinguishing.
Clearly it wouldn't be to their advantage to enforce those terms in a blanket manner. That would stop then from selling any copies. But it gives them the RIGHT to shut down any business they want, and to steal (excuse me, copy) all their business records. You've agreed to it, after all.
Now if you presume that their interests and yours aren't going to come into conflict, and also that they aren't insane, then this isn't a dangerous situation. It just puts you in an impossible bargaining position, but then since your interests are aligned with theirs, why would you need to bargain?
So when your records are locked into proprietary formats with no open backups, and no exit provisions, by some upgrade that said it was a "security upgrade", you don't have anything to complain about. (And, to be honest, most departments don't even seem to notice when this happens.)
Calling it a "suicide note" was perhaps a bit of an overreaction, but it was the reaction I had. And I don't regard it as essentially incorrect, just a bit of an overstatement. (OTOH, I'm not all that fond of SELinux, either. For essentially the same reasons. But it doesn't go as far, and is thus more justifiable.)
In *real* capitalism companies can charge what they please where they please, and if the prices are too different, then middle-men can buy things up in one place and sell them in another.
It's not a perfect system, but it's better than the one we've got.
(Note that I'm assuming that the middle-men don't have to pay taxes any higher than the original vending companies. That they're allowed to do this. And that various other hindrances to the free market aren't present. That these assumptions are contrafactual is part of why we don't live in a free market system.)
I pretty much agree. I don't see anything wrong with piracy against the very companies that bought the law that made it a crime. Buying the law was, itself, corruption, so they don't deserve ANY profits as a result of it.
OTOH, I consider it a reckless lifestyle choice. I'd prefer to just not purchase anything that supports DRM. So I don't. I've also stopped going to movies. I've also stopped buying music CDs. (Except from local bands without contracts with the RIAA or any member company.) And my software CDs are Linux & GPL (plus the occasional GPL compatibly licensed software). I made this choice before the DMCA was passed, though I'll admit that that reconfirmed my decision. (The Sonny-Bono copyright extension act was part of my reason. The rest came from reading the MS EULA for either Windows2000 or Office2000 at work. [My reaction to it was "This is a suicide note for any business that signs it!". The company lawyer's attitude was "No court will uphold this". He wouldn't realize that MS was capable of enforcing the EULA via technical measures, and that this was only to make their actions legal.])
No. Stealing cable started when the telegraph operators started stringing cables between different locations.
In a kind of a way, you're correct. Unfortunately, the way that you're correct doesn't help your argument any.
The way that you're correct is that it requires a finer analysis to actually determine which is better for society. Unfortunately, after the final analysis...well, the RIAA paid to have laws passed which favored them and which many consider to be blatantly unconstitutional. (I know, the courts agree with them that the laws are constitutional. This doesn't convince me.)
Since the RIAA & it's member companies wrote and paid for the laws that benefit them, I don't believe that there's any justice in anyone else being obliged to obey them. As a practical matter, I'll agree that it's dangerous to act on that belief, under the presumption that we live in a just world.
To my mind this puts the RIAA & it's member companies in the same category as other criminal conspiracies.
OTOH, neither the FSF nor any other Free Software organization has successfully lobbied for laws supporting it's stance. So if it takes advantage of existing laws, they can't be blamed if someone else finds the laws unjust.
I'm sure that better arguments could be made, but this one suffices for me, so I've never felt obligated to dig deeper.
No, I'm not. I'm not considering whether something is legal or not to be a fundamental consideration with respect to "Will the person be hassled?" I don't believe it is.
E.g., in the area that I live there's a "crime" called "Driving while black or brown". It will cause you to be pulled over much more frequently, because the police are fairly sure that you won't be able to kick back at them.
Whenever an authority has immunity to consequences, it will act without justification. My belief is that what they're doing is displaying that they don't NEED to worry about offending those who are without power. I consider this to be both natural human nature and a very dangerous thing to allow to develop.
The solution to Wiki's is trivial. Drown the signal in noise. All you need to do is ensure that the search engines downgrade sites that you don't like and you've marginalized whatever message they're trying to push. And you don't even need to admit that you're doing anything. There's no way that anybody can tell.
The interesting thing about that is...titles are not copyrightable. I suppose he could have made it a trademark, but he didn't. And he sure didn't patent his title.
So... Michael Moore was embarrassed for social reasons, not for legal ones. And if Bradbury is a legitimate Republican, he shouldn't find anything wrong with it. The name, after all, was legally available for use.
Instead he's like most people, and an ideologue only when it's personally convenient. OK. That's the same way most people are. But he should be aware that he's just twisting the Republican doctrines to fit what's personally convenient.
Personally, I think they both acted as unpleasant people, but, from description, at least Michael Moore had the grace to be embarrassed about it.
But the thing is, the internet is censorable from a central location. (Well, several central locations, actually, but the point stands.)
Remember what W. Smith's job was in 1984? Now it's not necessarily. The information can be altered in situ without anyone having any awareness of it. Web pages are a re-writable medium, so you can't tell what's been censored, and what's just been updated. The fact that it isn't the same today as yesterday doesn't prove anything. And the wayback machine is no protection. They'll remove things on request.
That's a part of the message that *I* took away from Fahrenheit 451.
Three. You forgot economics.
Ah, so then your post can be summed up as "I'm alright, Jack, ..."
I'm sure that there are many people in privileged positions that will never experience problems from their local police, even though if they appeared less powerful they would. In some cases they *should* experience problems (e.g., drunk driving), and in others NOBODY should be hassled. But because THEY aren't hassled, they don't see a problem.
I remember reading about one that contained a GPL license. Don't remember if it contained the source code or not.
Interesting question: If you catch a GPL virus that is only being distributed as binary, are you guilty for copyright violation when it redistributes itself?
Every time I've noticed them in action the ACLU has been defending SOMEONE's freedoms. Sometimes there is a conflict, and it's true that the ACLU's position on the 2nd amendment doesn't make sense to me. (Even if you assert that the 2nd amendment is a collective right, that doesn't mean that the government is the only entity entitled to engage in authorizing collective action.)
From my reading of history, the framers of the constitution didn't particularly trust governments, and the militias that they were talking about were local organizations that more often than not would NOT have government authorization.
P.S.: I don't believe that the 2nd amendment interpreted literally (as I tend to) would be workable in urban areas. That doesn't mean that I approve of ad hoc transgressions on and re-writing of the constitution. The constitution has defined procedures that are supposed to be followed, and just saying "I don't like this piece, so I'll say it means something else" isn't the way it's supposed to be done. Such actions are not just unconstitutional, they're anti-constitutional.
Wait awhile. That $10,000 is already only worth a fraction of what it was when the law was passed. Give it a bit of time and it will be the cost of a loaf of bread. (OK, that's probably more time than things will continue relatively stable. Say, then, the cost of a kitchen chair.) It's already worth less than a tenth of what it was when I was a kid. (Prices aren't stable relative to each other, but a coke was a nickel, a loaf of bread was a dime, and a gallon of gas was a quarter. [I'm not saying these were all in the same year. These are the low prices that I remember.])
quote:
Pepsi-Cola hits the spot
12 full ounces, that's a lot
Twice as much for a nickel, too
Pepsi-Cola is the drink for you.
(I presume that means that cokes were 6 oz. I remember that the price was, indeed, a nickel.)
You don't have an overactive imagination. Something roughly equivalent happened to my sister once coming out of Las Vegas...only without even the excuse of a was of cash. She was later given the excuse that someone (unidentified) somewhere (unspecified) filled out some form (also unspecified) incorrectly. Even if you believe it, it's a pretty shabby excuse. And for this she missed a party given in her honor as she was promoted to a different department. And had no chance to communicate with anyone involved, so she couldn't even warn them.
Personally, I consider the "explanation" possible. However, as the person who caused her to be detained suffered no penalty, I don't consider it an excuse. O, and there was no apology, even. ***** retard bastards. Probably too incompetent to hold down a job dispensing hamburgers at McDonalds.
Do I think these clowns make flying safer? It is to laugh.
Given all that, and given that you can buy a reader in the future that supports the same encryption, then it's feasible to make the system work...if you work hard enough at it.
I'm lazy. I don't like to work hard when I don't need to. So I'll just avoid DRM enabled systems.