And God forbid a company should make some money off anything I do unless I know about it before hand?
Come on now. This is exactly like a banner ad, only probably a lot more effective. What, do you think they should include a disclaimer that says "WARNING! We are making money off this product! If you don't want any companies making money, do not click this link."
Companies exist to make money. This has the added bonus of helping our economy along. So should we expect "this type of thing" from Microsoft? Making money? I should hope so.
An attitude that there are some things which need to be private, and some things which don't? There's a large difference between big companies and our government knowning where we are, listening to our phone calls, and reading our e-mails and TiVo using what we watch on television as a way to deliever ads that we might actually find interesting.
And besides, if you don't find it useful, or you don't want people know what you're watching, the simple solution is to not use their service! This isn't something that's forced upon anyone, so I don't see how it can possibly be alarming. At worst, its annoying to people who want to use their service but don't want to deal with usage tracking.
So when did we all decide that the government had to parent children? Since when did parents lose the responsibility to parent their own children?
You hit the nail on the head in saying that it is the parents responsibility to raise their children. That means if they want to control what their children buy/watch/play/hear, they can pay attention to what their children are doing, and not depend on government regulation to watch them.
True, but then by this logic even physical creations of man are natural. That doesn't mean that property wants to be free.
When I say information isn't natural, I mean it is synthesized, as opposed to just existing, well, naturally. So one can't really equate a statement about particles that want to expand, which weren't created by man, to a statement about information, which is synthesized by man. And there seems to be a distinction between what is created by man and what isn't, such as in the case of private property.
I certainly don't agree that it makes sense to protect all information. Rather, it makes sense to allow those who recognize or create information (and I'd imagine which was actually done depends on the sort of information we're talking about) to have a means by which to protect that information in a reasonable, limited fashion. How we protect that information is really the issue, then, and not whether it ought to be protected at all.
Certainly, I'm not pleased with the current state of many laws regarding IP. They're often downright stupid. However, that doesn't mean that all laws regarding IP ought to be revoked. There's a happy medium between complete control over information and no control over information at all which needs to be achieved... lets hope we get there.
Except, of course, that information doesn't really *exist* at all. Information is just a concept.
So, to put it quite simply, this should be true because if I put effort into synthesizing some information, given our current economic system, it makes sense that I should be compensated for that. This is the same reason that I should be compensated for an object I create beyond what it cost to make--I mark it up for the effort and knowledge I put into the product. Our economic system depends on compensation for our work, so rather than encouraging us to keep information to ourselves by not giving us any protection, we provide protection to let us share that information, but in some instances, protect it.
To say that information can't exist independent of nature doesn't say that it is in essence natural. It is synthesized, and as such, I think in a social contract society, it makes sense that it could be controlled by its creator, at least to a limited degree.
But your quote only involves the representation of information. There's no doubt that this is a physical, and therefore natural, thing. But information represented in such a fashion was first created by somebody.
The major problem with your analogy is that it wrongly assumes that information has anything to do with nature. It doesn't. Information is an intellectual creation of mankind.
As such, I don't see how natural laws can govern the state of information. Since I create information, I ought to have the freedom (yes, it is a freedom) to control that information as I see fit. If I can choose whether or not to create the information to begin with, I should be able to create it it on my own terms.
Don't get me wrong... I really do like free information, due both to my limited budget and the simple fact that free information tends to be more useful. Regardless, since information is created, and doesn't naturally exist, it isn't something that can, by law of nature, be free. Free information must be created with the intention of being free.
True, the trouble is, there are a lot of stupid laws that the constitution doesn't say anything about. The court doesn't have much control over those laws, they just have to interpret based on the laws that are on the books, stupid or not.
What an interesting combination of technologies. First, you can get shot multiple times by a robot gone bezerk. Then, the doctor trained by the VR with a robotic arm mentioned in the same article can go ahead and remove the bullets for you, and you're good as new! This is definitely brilliant marketing.
I do, however, disagree with you on one point. While its certainly true that companies need to protect their trademarks, and if you created a mySQL clone named Oracle, you would be a target for a law suit, I don't think in this case this law suit is warranted at all. Samba is nothing like this other companies product of the same name, and Samba really isn't a product in the traditional sense of the word. There is no threat of trademark dilution, especially since Samba wasn't developed in Germany, at least not as its primary market.
It seems the closest analogy I can think of to something not open source would involve me purchasing a certain product here, then moving to Germany and bringing the product with me and getting sued because there's a different product with the same name there.
Napster is able to protect copyrighted materials from being shared and chooses not to? How exactly does that work out? They have no way to know what materials being shared are copyrighted and which aren't... MP3's certainly aren't tagged with copyright information, and just checking filenames woudln't work too well.
I don't condone the copyright infringement that happens regularly over Napster, but the folks at Napster aren't the ones breaking the law. So, while I do agree that there is no justification for obtaining music illegally over Napster, the law suit still unwarranted.
Wait a minute... how is that different from a telephone company? The telephone company gives us a directory of phone numbers, and provides us a service by which we can make phone calls. Phone calls aren't illegal by nature, but I'm sure they can be.
Enter Napster. They provide a way to transfer a file, and a directory of its contents (not entirely unlike a phone book, although a bit more detailed). Transfering files, even music files, is not an illegal action. Transfering copyrighted files is.
Does Napster help people commit crimes? Yes. Do knife manufacturers? Yes. Do car manufacturers? Yes. Just because Napster is used illegally, even mostly illegally, does not mean that the the company itself has commited any crime or needs to be put out of business. They just provide a tool, as many other companies do, which can be used to commit a crime.
So you think they should maintain a list of every single copyrighted work on earth, and some slight variations on spelling or song titles, and block any file with that name? Buildling the list would be impossible for a small company to do, and it wouldn't work very well.
If you're just going to block artist names, you'll end up blocking legal material, as well. Substrings may end up appearing in uncopyrighted songs, and Napster will be useless for all kinds of material, not just copyrighted stuff.
Sure, its a great idea, but its just impractical.
The bottom line: Napster isn't doing anything illegal, and they aren't involved in copyright infringement at all. The only crime being commited is by the users, and there's no way for Napster to take control of that without shutting down their servers completely. Anything can be misused, and Napster is no different. We can't shut everything down that can facilitate crime... so just leave Napster alone!
Or, alternatively, what if this particular man did indeed have a gun, but the cops didn't? Guess who would be dead? The four cops.
You cannot rid the world of guns. And even once you do, are you going to go for knives next? And cars? All of them kill people regularly, but that doesn't mean they should be outlawed. More importantly, outlawing guns only prevents people from defending themselves from others who *do* have guns. And those who want to use guns to hurt people are those who aren't going to care whether its against the law or not.
Look at how well the drug war is preventing the usage of drugs. You think we should now declare a gun war, which would probably be just as effective?
Really? Can you make nerve gas? Let's see ya do it.
Well, to barge on in the conservation, I'd probably speak for most of us when I say, no, we can't make nerve gas. But somebody out there can...
And last I checked, this wasn't a discussion about nerve gas, it was a discussion about guns. And there are certainly people out there who can make guns, although admittedly, I'm not one of them.
There are countless examples of areas that limit guns severely or ban them, and the result is an increase in crime. There is much truth to the over-used statement, "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."
But it doesn't matter what his side is. The bottom line is, the Quake source was released under the GPL, and he is required to obey it. If he doesn't like the GPL, he shouldn't have released any binaries. Simple as that.
His story is irrelevant... he agreed to a contract and now he's trying to break it. Where's the validity in this?
Oookay... I certainly wouldn't call that propaganda, but whatever floats yer boat. Nothing wrong with expressing my views, as it's clear you like to express yours, as we all do.
Yes, you're right, there are differences between incest and same-sex marriages, so I'll give you that one, the point still stands that same-sex marriages aren't much different than multiple wives. Tax reasons aside, I think that's a stretch as an excuse, the point is, there's no reason I can see that we should give legal benefits to gay couples living together. Yes it's morally wrong, no I don't think the government should stop it, but why should they acknowledge it any more than my 7 wives?
And what if a guy wanted to marry his pet dog? Should that be legally accepted because it's not hurting anyone, not producing any children, and not causing any tax troubles? Of course you'll tell me it's different than homosexuality, but how? Both stray from normal behaviour, and I don't think you can argue that normal for humanity isn't man-woman relationships. That's how we're designed.
Blindly takes a stand on any issue? How are my stands any more blind than yours? Firstly, morality is perfectly valid, but my stand, as far as government intervention is concerned, isn't based on morality. Abortion is murder because it's destroying a life... murder is wrong (and there are few that disagree with this, I'm sure). Essentially, even believing murder is wrong (without putting the abortion issue with it) is still a blind moral stance, because it assumes that morally, people have a right to life and taking that right is wrong.
There is right, and there is wrong, and there are times when both of these need to be enforced. For you yourself to be blind by telling me I'm merely using blind morals shows you fail to recognize that you too are taking a moral stance, your morals are just far separated from mine.
Which is in itself a belief. If I were to say "none", then perhaps I believe that there's nothing to believe. Or perhaps I simply believe that X shouldn't be believed. Regardless, I still believe something. We all must have a viewpoint, even if that viewpoint is to have no viewpoint, and as such, there is no such thing as no belief.:)
The hypocracy in religion (esp. christinaity) is sickening...
You speak as though every Christian and every religious person is one entity. People seem to have a hard time seeing Christians as individuals. Yes, there are Christian extremists, as there are extremists of every other sort, but to call an entire group hypocritical because of the actions of the most visible, but least representative, of a classification is just wrong.
I agree, we should be able to do anything unless it violates other people's rights, but, since you mentioned it, let's look at your list of things we're not allowed to "push" on you...
anti-abortion - Perhaps I feel this is a violation of other people's rights? I believe abortion is murder. Now, obviously, you're going to disagree with me, and I'd rather not start a long discussion about it, but I'd say that my viewpoint is a viable one, and thus, I have every right to push for abortion to be illegal. Whether or not this is a violation of other people's rights is very much debatable.
prayer in school - Depending upon the context, couldn't this too be seen as a violation of people's rights? No, teachers oughtn't lead prayer of students, but that's not to say students oughtn't be able to assemble on their own and pray, just like the chess club assembles to play chess, but as I understand it, prayer clubs are denied the use of school facilities because it happens to be religiously focused. Whose rights are they violating by holding prayer club again? And whose rights are being violated by denying it?
propaganda - Uh... yeah.
same-sex marriages - Why can't I feel we should fail to recognize same-sex marriages? What gives them validity? By the same logic, should it be legal for me to marry my sister? After all, it's not violating anyones rights for me to do it, and in fact, it's violating mine by not allowing it! Or perhaps it's not a right. Gay folks are free to live together, I won't bother them, even if I think it's horribly morally wrong. But what good reason do you have for lawful recognition of that that wouldn't also apply to, say, having 12 wives, 3 of which I'm directly related to?
That's what pisses me off about people who blindly oppose religion. Because it focuses on such crazy concepts as absolute morality, some people decide we're just being closed-minded hypocrites, instead of people standing up for legitimate concerns. I don't mind intelligent discussion about these issues, but I do mind meaningless attacks on viewpoints merely because they're associated with Christianity.
My apologies for not backing up my claims to begin with, I was merely trying to provide a simple theory as to what the previous poster may have intended...
I certainly make no attempt to claim that the US Government has made any attempt to ban the practice of Christianity, or any other religion in America. Nor was that the implication of my claim. I was merely establishing that the left wing tends to be quite hostile towards religion, much like Jon Katz.
But, since we're on the subject...
No, I'm not one of those misguided types that believes I'm being oppressed because people rightfully oppose unconstitutional attempts to mandate my religion and impose it on everybody. I neither feel directly oppressed, nor do I feel that my religion ought to be imposed by schools, for instance.
On the other hand, I do feel there as an extreme amount of hostility towards Christianity, much of which has been brought upon Christians by extreme fundamentalists (a group to which I certainly don't belong). And I do feel there is a transition in the interpretations of religion in the constitution that strays from the intended meaning. After all, terminology such as "separation of church and state" can't be found in the constitution, but it is assumed to be as binding as though it were.
That's not to say I feel there shouldn't be a separation of church and state, but I do feel that the degree to which that is taken is just silly. The constitution mandates that congress not impose any national religion upon the people of the US. I don't quite understand how we've gone from that to feeling that it is illegal to have a manger on government property. Yet that's what it has come to. Teachers shouldn't be forcing Christianity on students, nor should they teach it as the only viable viewpoint, but does that mean that a teacher ought to be fired for the mere mention? I wouldn't be surprised if a teacher could get fired for having a Jesus fish on the back of their car in a school parking lot these days.
Believe me, I don't advocate the teaching of religion in schools, or the imposition of it in any way... if anything I'm quite opposed. I just worry when this is taken to such an extreme that it infringes upon a person's liberty to practice their religion.
What worries me is trend and attitude, but not the current state of religious freedom in America. I think America is going in a bad direction in a lot of ways, but it's not there yet, and I hope it'll never reach there.
Uhhh.. why do you think Katz is an "extreme left-winger?"
I would say Katz is an extreme left-winger in the sense that he is exceptionally hostile towards relgion, as left-wingers tend to be. That's what the post focused on, so I'd say that's how the classification was meant as well.
It's the left wing that is doing everything they can do destroy freedom of religion, and instead give people "freedom" from religion. I don't read a lot of Katz, but from what I've read, he'd be happy with that, and therefore in that respect, he is a left-winger.
At least, that's how I (another one of those Christian slahsdotters) see it.
Well, it will certainly be interesting to see what they've really been up to, considering all the speculation that's been flying around/. and elsewhere. Their secrecy has led hype to grow pretty bad... I think many people are going to be disappointed if the chip doesn't cure cancer and eliminate world hunger, all while reducing taxes and paying off the US national debt. Perhaps it was really created by extra-terrestrial bacteria, and transmeta just reverse engineered it?
At any rate, nice to know the hype is over and we can see what all the fuss was (even if it shouldn't have been) about. But hey, if it runs Linux, it must be good, right?:)
You think quality is really standing in people's way? Someone who is likely to pirate an mp3 to get a single song, which they don't want to buy an entire cd for, is not likely to buy the cd just because it provides a slightly higher quality. Yes, I'm sure there is some loss of revenue due to piracy, but I think the number is significantly lower than many would want you to think. My guess is, if someone is willing to pirate software, music, or movies, they're not planning on buying it, even if it weren't available pirated. I'm sure most of the piracy that occurs simply occurs because it's there. If it wasn't there, they'd do without. Sure, some of them would have bought it, but I'd guess it's a small percentage.
But yes, you're right, the RIAA and all other companies losing revenue (even if its not much) have the right to do something about it. But that doesn't mean that anything they do that appears to be attacking the problem is the right thing. Attacking mp3 itself, when I can use it perfectly legally, even to make copies of my own CD, is not a valid way to combat piracy. They need to fight the pirates, not the medium pirates can use to accomplish their goals.
Slashdot Mirror
And God forbid a company should make some money off anything I do unless I know about it before hand?
Come on now. This is exactly like a banner ad, only probably a lot more effective. What, do you think they should include a disclaimer that says "WARNING! We are making money off this product! If you don't want any companies making money, do not click this link."
Companies exist to make money. This has the added bonus of helping our economy along. So should we expect "this type of thing" from Microsoft? Making money? I should hope so.
An attitude that there are some things which need to be private, and some things which don't? There's a large difference between big companies and our government knowning where we are, listening to our phone calls, and reading our e-mails and TiVo using what we watch on television as a way to deliever ads that we might actually find interesting.
And besides, if you don't find it useful, or you don't want people know what you're watching, the simple solution is to not use their service! This isn't something that's forced upon anyone, so I don't see how it can possibly be alarming. At worst, its annoying to people who want to use their service but don't want to deal with usage tracking.
So when did we all decide that the government had to parent children? Since when did parents lose the responsibility to parent their own children?
You hit the nail on the head in saying that it is the parents responsibility to raise their children. That means if they want to control what their children buy/watch/play/hear, they can pay attention to what their children are doing, and not depend on government regulation to watch them.
True, but then by this logic even physical creations of man are natural. That doesn't mean that property wants to be free.
When I say information isn't natural, I mean it is synthesized, as opposed to just existing, well, naturally. So one can't really equate a statement about particles that want to expand, which weren't created by man, to a statement about information, which is synthesized by man. And there seems to be a distinction between what is created by man and what isn't, such as in the case of private property.
I certainly don't agree that it makes sense to protect all information. Rather, it makes sense to allow those who recognize or create information (and I'd imagine which was actually done depends on the sort of information we're talking about) to have a means by which to protect that information in a reasonable, limited fashion. How we protect that information is really the issue, then, and not whether it ought to be protected at all.
Certainly, I'm not pleased with the current state of many laws regarding IP. They're often downright stupid. However, that doesn't mean that all laws regarding IP ought to be revoked. There's a happy medium between complete control over information and no control over information at all which needs to be achieved... lets hope we get there.
Except, of course, that information doesn't really *exist* at all. Information is just a concept.
So, to put it quite simply, this should be true because if I put effort into synthesizing some information, given our current economic system, it makes sense that I should be compensated for that. This is the same reason that I should be compensated for an object I create beyond what it cost to make--I mark it up for the effort and knowledge I put into the product. Our economic system depends on compensation for our work, so rather than encouraging us to keep information to ourselves by not giving us any protection, we provide protection to let us share that information, but in some instances, protect it.
To say that information can't exist independent of nature doesn't say that it is in essence natural. It is synthesized, and as such, I think in a social contract society, it makes sense that it could be controlled by its creator, at least to a limited degree.
That doesn't mean that information is natural, it just often relates to natural things. Information is synthesized by man.
But your quote only involves the representation of information. There's no doubt that this is a physical, and therefore natural, thing. But information represented in such a fashion was first created by somebody.
The major problem with your analogy is that it wrongly assumes that information has anything to do with nature. It doesn't. Information is an intellectual creation of mankind.
As such, I don't see how natural laws can govern the state of information. Since I create information, I ought to have the freedom (yes, it is a freedom) to control that information as I see fit. If I can choose whether or not to create the information to begin with, I should be able to create it it on my own terms.
Don't get me wrong... I really do like free information, due both to my limited budget and the simple fact that free information tends to be more useful. Regardless, since information is created, and doesn't naturally exist, it isn't something that can, by law of nature, be free. Free information must be created with the intention of being free.
True, the trouble is, there are a lot of stupid laws that the constitution doesn't say anything about. The court doesn't have much control over those laws, they just have to interpret based on the laws that are on the books, stupid or not.
What an interesting combination of technologies. First, you can get shot multiple times by a robot gone bezerk. Then, the doctor trained by the VR with a robotic arm mentioned in the same article can go ahead and remove the bullets for you, and you're good as new! This is definitely brilliant marketing.
I do, however, disagree with you on one point. While its certainly true that companies need to protect their trademarks, and if you created a mySQL clone named Oracle, you would be a target for a law suit, I don't think in this case this law suit is warranted at all. Samba is nothing like this other companies product of the same name, and Samba really isn't a product in the traditional sense of the word. There is no threat of trademark dilution, especially since Samba wasn't developed in Germany, at least not as its primary market.
It seems the closest analogy I can think of to something not open source would involve me purchasing a certain product here, then moving to Germany and bringing the product with me and getting sued because there's a different product with the same name there.
I don't condone the copyright infringement that happens regularly over Napster, but the folks at Napster aren't the ones breaking the law. So, while I do agree that there is no justification for obtaining music illegally over Napster, the law suit still unwarranted.
Enter Napster. They provide a way to transfer a file, and a directory of its contents (not entirely unlike a phone book, although a bit more detailed). Transfering files, even music files, is not an illegal action. Transfering copyrighted files is.
Does Napster help people commit crimes? Yes. Do knife manufacturers? Yes. Do car manufacturers? Yes. Just because Napster is used illegally, even mostly illegally, does not mean that the the company itself has commited any crime or needs to be put out of business. They just provide a tool, as many other companies do, which can be used to commit a crime.
If you're just going to block artist names, you'll end up blocking legal material, as well. Substrings may end up appearing in uncopyrighted songs, and Napster will be useless for all kinds of material, not just copyrighted stuff.
Sure, its a great idea, but its just impractical.
The bottom line: Napster isn't doing anything illegal, and they aren't involved in copyright infringement at all. The only crime being commited is by the users, and there's no way for Napster to take control of that without shutting down their servers completely. Anything can be misused, and Napster is no different. We can't shut everything down that can facilitate crime... so just leave Napster alone!
Or, alternatively, what if this particular man did indeed have a gun, but the cops didn't? Guess who would be dead? The four cops.
You cannot rid the world of guns. And even once you do, are you going to go for knives next? And cars? All of them kill people regularly, but that doesn't mean they should be outlawed. More importantly, outlawing guns only prevents people from defending themselves from others who *do* have guns. And those who want to use guns to hurt people are those who aren't going to care whether its against the law or not.
Look at how well the drug war is preventing the usage of drugs. You think we should now declare a gun war, which would probably be just as effective?
Well, to barge on in the conservation, I'd probably speak for most of us when I say, no, we can't make nerve gas. But somebody out there can...
And last I checked, this wasn't a discussion about nerve gas, it was a discussion about guns. And there are certainly people out there who can make guns, although admittedly, I'm not one of them.
There are countless examples of areas that limit guns severely or ban them, and the result is an increase in crime. There is much truth to the over-used statement, "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."
His story is irrelevant... he agreed to a contract and now he's trying to break it. Where's the validity in this?
Yes, you're right, there are differences between incest and same-sex marriages, so I'll give you that one, the point still stands that same-sex marriages aren't much different than multiple wives. Tax reasons aside, I think that's a stretch as an excuse, the point is, there's no reason I can see that we should give legal benefits to gay couples living together. Yes it's morally wrong, no I don't think the government should stop it, but why should they acknowledge it any more than my 7 wives?
And what if a guy wanted to marry his pet dog? Should that be legally accepted because it's not hurting anyone, not producing any children, and not causing any tax troubles? Of course you'll tell me it's different than homosexuality, but how? Both stray from normal behaviour, and I don't think you can argue that normal for humanity isn't man-woman relationships. That's how we're designed.
Blindly takes a stand on any issue? How are my stands any more blind than yours? Firstly, morality is perfectly valid, but my stand, as far as government intervention is concerned, isn't based on morality. Abortion is murder because it's destroying a life... murder is wrong (and there are few that disagree with this, I'm sure). Essentially, even believing murder is wrong (without putting the abortion issue with it) is still a blind moral stance, because it assumes that morally, people have a right to life and taking that right is wrong.
There is right, and there is wrong, and there are times when both of these need to be enforced. For you yourself to be blind by telling me I'm merely using blind morals shows you fail to recognize that you too are taking a moral stance, your morals are just far separated from mine.
Which is in itself a belief. If I were to say "none", then perhaps I believe that there's nothing to believe. Or perhaps I simply believe that X shouldn't be believed. Regardless, I still believe something. We all must have a viewpoint, even if that viewpoint is to have no viewpoint, and as such, there is no such thing as no belief. :)
You speak as though every Christian and every religious person is one entity. People seem to have a hard time seeing Christians as individuals. Yes, there are Christian extremists, as there are extremists of every other sort, but to call an entire group hypocritical because of the actions of the most visible, but least representative, of a classification is just wrong.
I agree, we should be able to do anything unless it violates other people's rights, but, since you mentioned it, let's look at your list of things we're not allowed to "push" on you...
anti-abortion - Perhaps I feel this is a violation of other people's rights? I believe abortion is murder. Now, obviously, you're going to disagree with me, and I'd rather not start a long discussion about it, but I'd say that my viewpoint is a viable one, and thus, I have every right to push for abortion to be illegal. Whether or not this is a violation of other people's rights is very much debatable.
prayer in school - Depending upon the context, couldn't this too be seen as a violation of people's rights? No, teachers oughtn't lead prayer of students, but that's not to say students oughtn't be able to assemble on their own and pray, just like the chess club assembles to play chess, but as I understand it, prayer clubs are denied the use of school facilities because it happens to be religiously focused. Whose rights are they violating by holding prayer club again? And whose rights are being violated by denying it?
propaganda - Uh... yeah.
same-sex marriages - Why can't I feel we should fail to recognize same-sex marriages? What gives them validity? By the same logic, should it be legal for me to marry my sister? After all, it's not violating anyones rights for me to do it, and in fact, it's violating mine by not allowing it! Or perhaps it's not a right. Gay folks are free to live together, I won't bother them, even if I think it's horribly morally wrong. But what good reason do you have for lawful recognition of that that wouldn't also apply to, say, having 12 wives, 3 of which I'm directly related to?
That's what pisses me off about people who blindly oppose religion. Because it focuses on such crazy concepts as absolute morality, some people decide we're just being closed-minded hypocrites, instead of people standing up for legitimate concerns. I don't mind intelligent discussion about these issues, but I do mind meaningless attacks on viewpoints merely because they're associated with Christianity.
I certainly make no attempt to claim that the US Government has made any attempt to ban the practice of Christianity, or any other religion in America. Nor was that the implication of my claim. I was merely establishing that the left wing tends to be quite hostile towards religion, much like Jon Katz.
But, since we're on the subject...
No, I'm not one of those misguided types that believes I'm being oppressed because people rightfully oppose unconstitutional attempts to mandate my religion and impose it on everybody. I neither feel directly oppressed, nor do I feel that my religion ought to be imposed by schools, for instance.
On the other hand, I do feel there as an extreme amount of hostility towards Christianity, much of which has been brought upon Christians by extreme fundamentalists (a group to which I certainly don't belong). And I do feel there is a transition in the interpretations of religion in the constitution that strays from the intended meaning. After all, terminology such as "separation of church and state" can't be found in the constitution, but it is assumed to be as binding as though it were.
That's not to say I feel there shouldn't be a separation of church and state, but I do feel that the degree to which that is taken is just silly. The constitution mandates that congress not impose any national religion upon the people of the US. I don't quite understand how we've gone from that to feeling that it is illegal to have a manger on government property. Yet that's what it has come to. Teachers shouldn't be forcing Christianity on students, nor should they teach it as the only viable viewpoint, but does that mean that a teacher ought to be fired for the mere mention? I wouldn't be surprised if a teacher could get fired for having a Jesus fish on the back of their car in a school parking lot these days.
Believe me, I don't advocate the teaching of religion in schools, or the imposition of it in any way... if anything I'm quite opposed. I just worry when this is taken to such an extreme that it infringes upon a person's liberty to practice their religion.
What worries me is trend and attitude, but not the current state of religious freedom in America. I think America is going in a bad direction in a lot of ways, but it's not there yet, and I hope it'll never reach there.
I would say Katz is an extreme left-winger in the sense that he is exceptionally hostile towards relgion, as left-wingers tend to be. That's what the post focused on, so I'd say that's how the classification was meant as well.
It's the left wing that is doing everything they can do destroy freedom of religion, and instead give people "freedom" from religion. I don't read a lot of Katz, but from what I've read, he'd be happy with that, and therefore in that respect, he is a left-winger.
At least, that's how I (another one of those Christian slahsdotters) see it.
At any rate, nice to know the hype is over and we can see what all the fuss was (even if it shouldn't have been) about. But hey, if it runs Linux, it must be good, right? :)
But yes, you're right, the RIAA and all other companies losing revenue (even if its not much) have the right to do something about it. But that doesn't mean that anything they do that appears to be attacking the problem is the right thing. Attacking mp3 itself, when I can use it perfectly legally, even to make copies of my own CD, is not a valid way to combat piracy. They need to fight the pirates, not the medium pirates can use to accomplish their goals.