I'm now waiting for your semantic argument that argues that copyright infringement is not the same as stealing, and therefore allows you to rationalize that ripping people off is OK.
Intellectual property is not the same as physical property (for example, it [theoretically] expires) but let's not descend into the usual word games. Can you recognize, however, that -- though this does not justify infringement -- the copyright system is in fact malfunctioning, especially due to the unreasonably long time that passes before a work enters the public domain? And can we agree that the corporate stakeholders have persuaded the government to abandon the historic "copyright bargain" interpretation? And that late additions such as the Digital Millenium Copyright Act have tilted the playing field away from balanced -- in part by creating "access control rights" that have no grounding in the Constitution and, menacingly, no expiration date?
You don't have to be a eyepatch-wearing download junkie to see that things have gone awry.
The fact that you can sometimes join the ruling class doesn't change that.
Actually... that makes all the difference in the world. If a system has mobility, then its other ills will eventually be ironed out. The main worry I have for the Republic is the current atrophying of the lines of opportunity. Right now we have rulers but not a permament ruling class. But I agree that the mold is hardening.
I think you mean "changed back to how it was, which accomodated third parties."
Hmm, no, he/she probably didn't mean that, since there hasn't ever been such a time. Under Washington, there weren't really parties at all -- primarily because he unified the political scene by sheer gravitas. Under Adams, there were two parties (Federalist and anti-Federalist) -- and it's been that way ever since. There have been periods of one-party ascendancy but never a viable three- or more- party system. Even when third parties have done non-negligibly in the polls, their role has been as spoiler between the two dominant parties.
Just remember, unless the voting results in an exact tie, you're throwing your vote out anyway, so a vote for a third party candidate is as good as any.
What? Sure only the (50%+1)th vote is all that counts. Problem is, you don't know whose vote that is until the votes are all in.
Let's make it simple. Alice and Bob both love cookies; Charlene hates them but loves spinach for desert. They decide to hold an election to see what desert will be offered. Both Alice and Bob have read the parent comment and decided that, since the vote can't be split evenly (three people, after all), their votes must not count. They stay home from the polls. And bam! suddenly they're having spinach for desert -- even though a clear majority favors cookies.
It's an extreme example of course -- small numbers make it more dramatic -- but it's the reality. It's called the Paradox of the Infinitesimal: Each vote is such a small part of the total that its almost negligible... but together, in aggregate, they all count.
How about, for the one that didn't try to carve its position into the actual living flesh of the Republic, the Consitution?
I am getting so sick of people saying that there is no difference between the two parties. Guess what? We heard "It doesn't matter which one wins" in 2000. Then we ran the experiment. If you honestly believe this nation would be where it is is now, had Gore been sworn in, then you are either ill-informed or insane.
Because that truck is trying to merge and the assholes next to you and behind you are crowding too close to make slowing down or changing lanes an option that doesn't result in an accident?
Oh, please. The situations you mention consist of speeding past the limit for something like -- at worst -- 30 seconds. This will not show up on your file. The companies aren't dumb. They won't say, "Ah, but you went 55.000001 mph -- no discount for you!" They're looking for readings like an average of 75 mph.
Integrated up, the length of time you are "legitimately speeding" is negliglbe compared to the time you should be at the limit.
Or how about the dumbass who goes slow as hell on the highway, causing more of a danger to others than the guy who goes slightly over the speed limit?
Again, oh, please. What, are you the Great Karmic Equalizer -- you have to speed to compensate for his slowness, so that togehter your average speed is the speed limit? Even if you grant the premise that someone driving slowly is a menace -- which is a thin stretch -- that doesn't mean you should be going more than the limit.
You're making the typical case for Heroic Age Exceptionalism. Sure, most of the time, this behavior is dangerous, but in this one rare, convoluted, contrived circumstance, it might be beneficial, if you squint while looking at it... The insurance companies have a mountain of data and can tell you exactly how -- statistically -- speeding increases your odds of an accident. You don't like it? Argue with math.
While valuble in avaiation hot air does not fund research or industry that is economics which is just a fancy branch of mathematics which is.. science again.
Mathematics is not science. It's an allied field but since the ultimate criterion of truth is different, the disciplines are different.
Orion can take us to the stars, and it can be done with today's technology, not something that's just starting to enter the very earliest test phases.
Because Orion needs to carry its fuel, its period of acceleration is necessarily limited. If you count Orion as a star-faring technology, then you need to count chemical rockets, too... Just ask Pioneer 10.
What about...? [disturbingly long list of abuses elided]
Good point. Brin would probably say, these abuses are going to happen. That's the nature of technology. If we don't embrace the paradigm shift, then only the abuses will occur. Technology driven underground doesn't tend to shine lights. If we accept that the crosslinked world makes such abuses possible -- and if we demand the power to investigate and publish and monitor our elected officials as well -- then there's a chance we can counterbalance the worst.
I'm sure that the US has the same sort of checks in place, but these seem to break down when men involved in the energy industry are allowed to write a country's energy policy.
Indeed. But don't get too smug. The US had similar cultural inhibitions for a long while, until a small cabal squeaked into office and interpreted that as a mandate. I'm glad things are functioning more properly in the UK but it sounds like it's still more a matter of habit.
The licence fee is set by Parliament, but mainly all they do is put it up by in line with inflation every now and then.
So in principle Parlaiment could "blackmail" the BBC for increased control, though that would probably unleash a firestorm of protest. That's what I meant by a "habit of democracy", a concept I've been thinking about a lot lately. Our (American) recent experience with election shennanigans has me wondering how stable democracies really are -- how much do they depend on people not doing the unheard-of or the unthinkable.
Not a flame but an honest question from a Yank who'd like to understand: How does the BBC remain independent? Usually, the fact that the government disburses funds generally translates into control, explicit or otherwise. How does the BBC get public funds without strings being attached?
Bottom line executive summary: Privacy is dead; get over it. Instead of trying to hide everything we do, we should insist that every citizen has the same access to surveillance technologies that the government does. He offers the Rodney King tapes and the Abu Gharib prison photos as ways in which saturation surveillance has advanced the cause of justice and the empowerment of the citizenry.
Re:Squeee!
on
Broken Angels
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
This isn't a flame but it'll probably come off like one:
Loved 'Altered Carbon', and I'm delighted a sequel is being made.[emphasis added]
Anyone else concerned about how modern multimedia are unconsciously shaping (degrading?) our frameworks? Sequels to books are "written", not "made". I'm sure this isn't true, but it sounds like the poster can't even conceive of a mode of entertainment fundamentally different from TeeVee or talkies.
What's more, clearly the book is finished, so it's not even being written anymore -- being "made" is doubly wrong. At best you could say it's being published. (But I suspect in fact one would see that it's being "released"...)
Sorry. It's late and I've been on a plane most of the day; I guess my gripe gremlin is acting up...
Re:blatant thread-jacking,but
on
Broken Angels
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Newspapers make their money from selling readers to advertisers, not from selling papers at 50 cents a piece.
Um, what? If they didn't need the money from circulation ("need" here including their desired rate of return) they wouldn't charge it -- if the paper were free, it'd have more readers, driving up revenue from the supposedly omni-important advertisers.
In fact, it's a balance. The Post has decided it needs to charge $0.50 to meet its expenses and goals. For online, they've decided that they need demographic info. Either way it's their right to set whatever price they want... and your right to pay it or not.
But I don't understand why everyone seems to be griping like it's immoral for them to ask for the info.
When you compare this to the cost of going down to a newsstand and paying $.50, the newsstand option suddenly looks MUCH more attractive.
OK, so then don't do it. But don't get mad that they asked. It's sort of like getting pissed off that Bentley "dares" to charge $300,000 for a car. If no one wanted the car, they'd drop the price or go out of business. That's their option. No one's forcing you to buy the car (or read the paper). That's your option.
Words per minute and keystrokes per minute were vastly more important measures of productivity when your job consisted mostly of taking someone's document and rendering it in type, whether that document was your boss's longhand letter or your own shorthand notes of a meeting. But that meant you were a secretary. Most people typing today are not transferring it from one form to another; they are composing at the keyboard. Thought speed is going to be the bottleneck.
Put another way: I read lots of things from people who type as fast as they think. Generally, I wish they had taken longer and thought more.
I'll admit to a bias here: I am an old-fashioned hunt-and-peck typist. I can generally get about 55-60 wpm, which is clearly on the impaired side. But (if you'll forgive the pun) it hasn't slowed me down, because very rarely do I need to put out 100 words in a minute. My thoughts generally simmer longer than that.
I don't need to register to pick one up at the newsstand, why should I for the site?
Of course, they're also giving you the news without asking for 50 cents, either... Registration is the "price" you pay for full access to the online newspaper. Is that too much? Fine, then don't read it... but don't adopt some holier-than-thou attitude just because the newspaper (gasp) asks for something back before it hands over its content.
If it's a bad business model, they'll go under. But there's no moral high ground here.
Heaven forbid we get to spend our own money the way we think is best without having to justify it to everyone else in the world..
Of course you do. And if you don't like the taxes, you could -- for example -- move away. Why is it that everyone claims to be a zen capitalist but no one understands that taxes are the price of society. They are completely justifiable (* not that all taxes are necessarily justified) as the tangible cost of public goods, such as santiation or police protection or -- for those libertarians out there -- courts for enforcement of contracts.
Is it possible that some taxes are too high? Yes. Is it possible that some taxes choke off economic growth? Yes. Is it necessary that either of these be true in order that BushCo calls for tax breaks? No. Some of the neocons are quite honest: They're out to "starve the beast": to kill off public goods they disagree with, by cutting taxes, running huge deficits, and squeezing the budget. That's not based on the economic impact of the taxes; it's based purely on ideology.
It's especially fun when dealing with Tech support that's got an attitude, or developers that tell you what they think you'd like to hear.
Oh, because that never happens when the other guy is speaking American English... Maybe your problem is more with the people you're dealing with and less with their choice of language.
Slashdot Mirror
Intellectual property is not the same as physical property (for example, it [theoretically] expires) but let's not descend into the usual word games. Can you recognize, however, that -- though this does not justify infringement -- the copyright system is in fact malfunctioning, especially due to the unreasonably long time that passes before a work enters the public domain? And can we agree that the corporate stakeholders have persuaded the government to abandon the historic "copyright bargain" interpretation? And that late additions such as the Digital Millenium Copyright Act have tilted the playing field away from balanced -- in part by creating "access control rights" that have no grounding in the Constitution and, menacingly, no expiration date?
You don't have to be a eyepatch-wearing download junkie to see that things have gone awry.
Actually... that makes all the difference in the world. If a system has mobility, then its other ills will eventually be ironed out. The main worry I have for the Republic is the current atrophying of the lines of opportunity. Right now we have rulers but not a permament ruling class. But I agree that the mold is hardening.
Hmm, no, he/she probably didn't mean that, since there hasn't ever been such a time. Under Washington, there weren't really parties at all -- primarily because he unified the political scene by sheer gravitas. Under Adams, there were two parties (Federalist and anti-Federalist) -- and it's been that way ever since. There have been periods of one-party ascendancy but never a viable three- or more- party system. Even when third parties have done non-negligibly in the polls, their role has been as spoiler between the two dominant parties.
What? Sure only the (50%+1)th vote is all that counts. Problem is, you don't know whose vote that is until the votes are all in.
Let's make it simple. Alice and Bob both love cookies; Charlene hates them but loves spinach for desert. They decide to hold an election to see what desert will be offered. Both Alice and Bob have read the parent comment and decided that, since the vote can't be split evenly (three people, after all), their votes must not count. They stay home from the polls. And bam! suddenly they're having spinach for desert -- even though a clear majority favors cookies.
It's an extreme example of course -- small numbers make it more dramatic -- but it's the reality. It's called the Paradox of the Infinitesimal: Each vote is such a small part of the total that its almost negligible... but together, in aggregate, they all count.
How about, for the one that didn't try to carve its position into the actual living flesh of the Republic, the Consitution?
I am getting so sick of people saying that there is no difference between the two parties. Guess what? We heard "It doesn't matter which one wins" in 2000. Then we ran the experiment. If you honestly believe this nation would be where it is is now, had Gore been sworn in, then you are either ill-informed or insane.
Oh, please. The situations you mention consist of speeding past the limit for something like -- at worst -- 30 seconds. This will not show up on your file. The companies aren't dumb. They won't say, "Ah, but you went 55.000001 mph -- no discount for you!" They're looking for readings like an average of 75 mph.
Integrated up, the length of time you are "legitimately speeding" is negliglbe compared to the time you should be at the limit.
Again, oh, please. What, are you the Great Karmic Equalizer -- you have to speed to compensate for his slowness, so that togehter your average speed is the speed limit? Even if you grant the premise that someone driving slowly is a menace -- which is a thin stretch -- that doesn't mean you should be going more than the limit.
You're making the typical case for Heroic Age Exceptionalism. Sure, most of the time, this behavior is dangerous, but in this one rare, convoluted, contrived circumstance, it might be beneficial, if you squint while looking at it... The insurance companies have a mountain of data and can tell you exactly how -- statistically -- speeding increases your odds of an accident. You don't like it? Argue with math.
Mathematics is not science. It's an allied field but since the ultimate criterion of truth is different, the disciplines are different.
You probably think you're being funny, but this is in fact exactly right.
Um, no. As you approach the destination star, its light pressure will start to counteract your velocity and slow you down. The "brakes" are built in.
Because Orion needs to carry its fuel, its period of acceleration is necessarily limited. If you count Orion as a star-faring technology, then you need to count chemical rockets, too... Just ask Pioneer 10.
Good point. Brin would probably say, these abuses are going to happen. That's the nature of technology. If we don't embrace the paradigm shift, then only the abuses will occur. Technology driven underground doesn't tend to shine lights. If we accept that the crosslinked world makes such abuses possible -- and if we demand the power to investigate and publish and monitor our elected officials as well -- then there's a chance we can counterbalance the worst.
Indeed. But don't get too smug. The US had similar cultural inhibitions for a long while, until a small cabal squeaked into office and interpreted that as a mandate. I'm glad things are functioning more properly in the UK but it sounds like it's still more a matter of habit.
So in principle Parlaiment could "blackmail" the BBC for increased control, though that would probably unleash a firestorm of protest. That's what I meant by a "habit of democracy", a concept I've been thinking about a lot lately. Our (American) recent experience with election shennanigans has me wondering how stable democracies really are -- how much do they depend on people not doing the unheard-of or the unthinkable.
It's actually a depressing chain of thought.
Not a flame but an honest question from a Yank who'd like to understand: How does the BBC remain independent? Usually, the fact that the government disburses funds generally translates into control, explicit or otherwise. How does the BBC get public funds without strings being attached?
Or is this another habit of democracy?
on Salon: Three Cheers for the Surveillance Society!. I can't say I agree with everything he says but I think there's a lot of merit in it.
Bottom line executive summary: Privacy is dead; get over it. Instead of trying to hide everything we do, we should insist that every citizen has the same access to surveillance technologies that the government does. He offers the Rodney King tapes and the Abu Gharib prison photos as ways in which saturation surveillance has advanced the cause of justice and the empowerment of the citizenry.
Worth a read, in any event.
1 - 96.1 = -95.1
Anyone else concerned about how modern multimedia are unconsciously shaping (degrading?) our frameworks? Sequels to books are "written", not "made". I'm sure this isn't true, but it sounds like the poster can't even conceive of a mode of entertainment fundamentally different from TeeVee or talkies.
What's more, clearly the book is finished, so it's not even being written anymore -- being "made" is doubly wrong. At best you could say it's being published. (But I suspect in fact one would see that it's being "released"...)
Sorry. It's late and I've been on a plane most of the day; I guess my gripe gremlin is acting up...
A Fire Upon the Deep by Vernor Vinge
The Uplift War series by David Brin
The Gap Into series by Stephen R. Donaldson
Snow Crash or The Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson
OK, that's not three. Sorry.
Um, what? If they didn't need the money from circulation ("need" here including their desired rate of return) they wouldn't charge it -- if the paper were free, it'd have more readers, driving up revenue from the supposedly omni-important advertisers.
In fact, it's a balance. The Post has decided it needs to charge $0.50 to meet its expenses and goals. For online, they've decided that they need demographic info. Either way it's their right to set whatever price they want... and your right to pay it or not.
But I don't understand why everyone seems to be griping like it's immoral for them to ask for the info.
OK, so then don't do it. But don't get mad that they asked. It's sort of like getting pissed off that Bentley "dares" to charge $300,000 for a car. If no one wanted the car, they'd drop the price or go out of business. That's their option. No one's forcing you to buy the car (or read the paper). That's your option.
Words per minute and keystrokes per minute were vastly more important measures of productivity when your job consisted mostly of taking someone's document and rendering it in type, whether that document was your boss's longhand letter or your own shorthand notes of a meeting. But that meant you were a secretary. Most people typing today are not transferring it from one form to another; they are composing at the keyboard. Thought speed is going to be the bottleneck.
:)
Put another way: I read lots of things from people who type as fast as they think. Generally, I wish they had taken longer and thought more.
I'll admit to a bias here: I am an old-fashioned hunt-and-peck typist. I can generally get about 55-60 wpm, which is clearly on the impaired side. But (if you'll forgive the pun) it hasn't slowed me down, because very rarely do I need to put out 100 words in a minute. My thoughts generally simmer longer than that.
Even when I post to slashdot.
Of course, they're also giving you the news without asking for 50 cents, either... Registration is the "price" you pay for full access to the online newspaper. Is that too much? Fine, then don't read it... but don't adopt some holier-than-thou attitude just because the newspaper (gasp) asks for something back before it hands over its content.
If it's a bad business model, they'll go under. But there's no moral high ground here.
That sounds like an easy thing to be user-configurable. Maybe it's not too late...
Of course you do. And if you don't like the taxes, you could -- for example -- move away. Why is it that everyone claims to be a zen capitalist but no one understands that taxes are the price of society. They are completely justifiable (* not that all taxes are necessarily justified) as the tangible cost of public goods, such as santiation or police protection or -- for those libertarians out there -- courts for enforcement of contracts.
Is it possible that some taxes are too high? Yes. Is it possible that some taxes choke off economic growth? Yes. Is it necessary that either of these be true in order that BushCo calls for tax breaks? No. Some of the neocons are quite honest: They're out to "starve the beast": to kill off public goods they disagree with, by cutting taxes, running huge deficits, and squeezing the budget. That's not based on the economic impact of the taxes; it's based purely on ideology.
Oh, because that never happens when the other guy is speaking American English... Maybe your problem is more with the people you're dealing with and less with their choice of language.