If too many people get it in their heads that free speech = killing Hatians, then free speech may fall in popularity.
No, this case is not about equating free speech with killing Haitians. It's about allowing someone to say "Kill the Haitians" -- and to say it within the context of fiction, what's more.
If freedom of speech is to mean anything at all, it requires that government regulation of speech, when it occurs, be entirely content neutral. People are going to raise the "fighting words" and "fire in a theatre" exceptions, because people don't understand the extreme limitations that those "exceptions" labor under. The Court has been very clear that bans based on what someone said will almost never pass constitutional muster.
Read farther. I said the game isn't freedom of speech, but the game may contain elements of speech.
Yeah, I saw that, too. I just don't buy it. Is a book "speech"? I think almost any First Amendment expert would say Yes. The "container" doesn't matter -- whether it's a book, a song, a poster, a video, a sculpture, or a videogame. Banning this game would be in fact an infringement on the free speech rights of the publishers -- and of people who might buy it.
And I don't see how it loses protection by being interactive. An interactive game -- where the player makes choices -- is closer to speech (an active thing) than reading is.
Finally, here's the real bear of the problem: No one believes the game designers are actually recommending that people go out and "kill the Haitians". No one ascribes to them an actual actively racist motive. But what if they were advocating that action? Then the game would be even more protected under the First Amendment, because it would be a political position.
Ultimately this points up the value of the First Amendment and indicates why citizenship is hard -- why freedom is difficult: True freedom requires of each of us that we allow for truly repulsive opinions and attitudes to be expressed. True freedom means allowing the worst darkest corners of humanity to have their say. True freedom imposes a state of discomfort on us, in return for liberty.
Cars don't explode because a battery overheats in the trunk. Stop watching so many action movies...
Nah. If we were using action movie physics, we'd all see that cars don't explode because a battery overheats. Cars explode because they come in the slightest contact with anything whatsoever.:)
Really, a lot of this amounts to people and entities wanting to muscle their way into how other people do their business. Don't like the way films or music are distributed? Don't buy the copies being sold.
... which is why some people use this as justification to download...:)
The Picasso heirs alone have generated a mountain of case on this issue in just about every jurisdiction imaginable. They're quite rapacious about making a living off their famous, dead ancestor.
And that's one of the main problems with modern copyright -- the ability for people (or corporations) to derive ludicrous benefit long after the act of creation (and in this case, even the creator) is gone.
if they were making it law that phones must be GPS enables AND everyone must own and carry a phone, you'd begin to have a point.
Exactly. Along the same lines, the government should have the ability to scan any information transmitted from (or stored on) your computer, in case it's used for tax evasion. After all, if you don't like this, you don't have to have a computer. And the government should have the authority to root through your house periodically, if you live in a high-crime area, in case you're concealing drugs. After all, you don't have to live in a city.
The article was quite specific: It's not the existence of the technology to which civil libertarians are objecting. It's the unregulated and unrestricted use of the technology that's worrisome.
it is perfectly possible to triangulate the position of the mobile terminal, regardless of what support there is or is not on the actual mobile itself.
I think you've missed the point. Your boss or parent or boyfriend (or stalker) doesn't have the ability to triangulate on you -- it's not an easy thing. If the police do it, there'll be records, and it probably falls under wiretapping statutes. The issue here is: There are no legal guidelines for the ubiquitous surveilliance mentioned in the article.
And that would be true, if the original post had read
don't forget that iTunes originally had a no sharing limit.
although even in that case, one would expect a hyphen to make the connection clearer:
don't forget that iTunes originally had a no-sharing limit.
Further, the usual word choice would have been a "no-sharing limitation", since this is a qualitative condition and not a numeric instance (such as a "three-song sharing limit"). I suppose one could construe this as a "no-song sharing limit" but I think it'ss getting pretty tangled.
All of that is a tangent, though, because the original post said
don't forget that iTunes originally had no sharing limit.
without the "a". Without the article, this parses as "has no (sharing limit)" -- that is, there was no limit to the number of songs that could be shared. This meaning is in accord with the context (as the other is not) and clearly what was intended. That advantage -- the ability to share without limit -- is what the poster meant when he/she said, "People were abusing this to copy music P2P-style, so it was removed." Problem is, the advantage was never mentioned so it is an implicit antecedent. The rules of grammar say that the "it" refers to the "sharing limit", of which the poster had already said there was none -- and so "it", being absent, could not be removed.
You ever try going back to a store and telling them you got too little change?
No. The amount, on the rare times that I'm certain I've received too little, has never been enough to justify the trip. When I get too much, I can't make that call -- it's their money.
I fully understand that the import of the question is, Do you really think the store's going to give you the extra? And of course I expect they would not. So what? My morality isn't contingent on theirs.
Yeah, right up until the point that Tom Clancy gives up on democracy and decides that the only hope for America is to wipe out the duly-elected Congress and start over... sure, his good guy, Jack Ryan, comes to power, but only at an unthinkable cost. Recall that Debt of Honor was released in 1994 and thus written before the staggering 1994 win of the US House by the Republicans. For many years, many conservative thinkers felt the Congress was forever beyond their reach...
I'll admit it, I stopped reading Clancy with this book. I couldn't get past the implicit bleakness in its view of the American democracy supposedly heralded.
It disturbs me that no one seems to question this "of course". Your friend was wrong. He made an unjustifiable profit on a mistake made in good faith by the clerk -- a mistake he clearly recognized as such. What he did might have been legal but it was wrong. And yes, I'm the kind of guy who goes back to a store if I discover I've received too much change.
They kept Mir in orbit, functioning well, always manned, etc., for about fifteen years
Not counting oxygen failures, several fires, and the odd collision with a supply ship. Mir functioned. It certainly did not function well. And keep in mind that the realistic, incremental approach is what gave us the Space Shuttle and the ISS.
'They' must refer to more than one person, or you're wrong.
True in formal writing or speech... for now. Check back in a century and I'd bet you'll see the singular "they" accepted. It's easier than formulating a new, concise, elegant approach to "he/she". And rant all you want, but the world is never going back to the default "he".
Nor, IMHO, should it. Language evolves and no language does it better than English. The language expresses the needs of the culture -- if the culture as a whole (or even in large part) decides the old way is inadequate, the language will change accordingly.
Or, to put it succintly, the only languages spoken "perfectly" are dead ones.
Philosophers going back to Plato and Descartes have explored doubt of their external realities. They are certainly NOT Dick's themes.
I think that's being unfair. "The psychological effects and costs of ambition have been done since the Greeks -- they certainly are not Shakespeare's themes." Hmmm. Reads a bit off, doesn't it? The Wired author probably is a little breahtless (in Wired? Really?) But these are "Dick's themes" in that they are themes he explored exhaustively. While it would be hyperbole to trace all such stories back to Dick, it would be a disservice to pretend he has not had a major impact on stories with such themes. In fact, I do not believe it too gross an exaggeration to claim that he has more impact in this subgenre than any other single person.
Jackson has said that Lee's parts were cut from the 3rd film because they should really be part of the 2nd,
Um, then, shouldn't they have been in the second movie? The books are nearly 60 years old and he's read them a zillion times -- it's not like this issue popped up out of nowhere.
If consumers want their HDTV, they have to accept limits on the ability to redistribute TV shows on the Web. (emphasis added)
But isn't that the point -- judging by sales, consumers don't want their HDTV. Why is this allegedly pro-capitalism administration, usually so gung-ho to invoke the market to address societal needs, apparently so willing to overlook the overwhelming verdict of the market: People just aren't itching to get HDTV. Why is government intervention and the "picking of winners" OK here but not, say, in national health insurance?
At my wedding, every single guest had a camera. My wife and I asked if people could send us copies of their best photos from our wedding, which is no big thing because most people would do that anyway.
Hey, it's the Open Source approach to a wedding album.:)
Yes, you can do it yourself with your little disposable. But I can guarantee they'll look crappy. You won't know why the pro's pictures look better, because you're not trained to see it. All you'll know is that gut feeling that he did something you didn't.
And yet, the point raised by the article is, oftentimes the "professional" pictures don't look better. Yes, often, they do. But I've seen more than a small number of absolutely dreadful wedding spreads -- what exactly was the couple paying for then?
I did think it might be a lesser known fact that the engineering of a plane is becoming incredible reliable to the point that the human is becoming the least reliable piece of the puzzle.
Of course the same is true for automboiles, yet no one is willing to give up control over driving... in a century of auto making we have made significant safety improvements to every part of the sytem -- except the driver...
Slashdot Mirror
No, this case is not about equating free speech with killing Haitians. It's about allowing someone to say "Kill the Haitians" -- and to say it within the context of fiction, what's more.
If freedom of speech is to mean anything at all, it requires that government regulation of speech, when it occurs, be entirely content neutral. People are going to raise the "fighting words" and "fire in a theatre" exceptions, because people don't understand the extreme limitations that those "exceptions" labor under. The Court has been very clear that bans based on what someone said will almost never pass constitutional muster.
Yeah, I saw that, too. I just don't buy it. Is a book "speech"? I think almost any First Amendment expert would say Yes. The "container" doesn't matter -- whether it's a book, a song, a poster, a video, a sculpture, or a videogame. Banning this game would be in fact an infringement on the free speech rights of the publishers -- and of people who might buy it.
And I don't see how it loses protection by being interactive. An interactive game -- where the player makes choices -- is closer to speech (an active thing) than reading is.
Finally, here's the real bear of the problem: No one believes the game designers are actually recommending that people go out and "kill the Haitians". No one ascribes to them an actual actively racist motive. But what if they were advocating that action? Then the game would be even more protected under the First Amendment, because it would be a political position.
Ultimately this points up the value of the First Amendment and indicates why citizenship is hard -- why freedom is difficult: True freedom requires of each of us that we allow for truly repulsive opinions and attitudes to be expressed. True freedom means allowing the worst darkest corners of humanity to have their say. True freedom imposes a state of discomfort on us, in return for liberty.
Betcha no one manages to bring that up in court.
If someone tells you to think for yourself, and you do, have you? Or have you not?
Nah. If we were using action movie physics, we'd all see that cars don't explode because a battery overheats. Cars explode because they come in the slightest contact with anything whatsoever.
You'll only be a true slashdotter when you realize your God-given right to make points instantly, whether or not they are valid.
And that's one of the main problems with modern copyright -- the ability for people (or corporations) to derive ludicrous benefit long after the act of creation (and in this case, even the creator) is gone.
Exactly. Along the same lines, the government should have the ability to scan any information transmitted from (or stored on) your computer, in case it's used for tax evasion. After all, if you don't like this, you don't have to have a computer. And the government should have the authority to root through your house periodically, if you live in a high-crime area, in case you're concealing drugs. After all, you don't have to live in a city.
The article was quite specific: It's not the existence of the technology to which civil libertarians are objecting. It's the unregulated and unrestricted use of the technology that's worrisome.
I think you've missed the point. Your boss or parent or boyfriend (or stalker) doesn't have the ability to triangulate on you -- it's not an easy thing. If the police do it, there'll be records, and it probably falls under wiretapping statutes. The issue here is: There are no legal guidelines for the ubiquitous surveilliance mentioned in the article.
although even in that case, one would expect a hyphen to make the connection clearer:
Further, the usual word choice would have been a "no-sharing limitation", since this is a qualitative condition and not a numeric instance (such as a "three-song sharing limit"). I suppose one could construe this as a "no-song sharing limit" but I think it'ss getting pretty tangled.
All of that is a tangent, though, because the original post said
without the "a". Without the article, this parses as "has no (sharing limit)" -- that is, there was no limit to the number of songs that could be shared. This meaning is in accord with the context (as the other is not) and clearly what was intended. That advantage -- the ability to share without limit -- is what the poster meant when he/she said, "People were abusing this to copy music P2P-style, so it was removed." Problem is, the advantage was never mentioned so it is an implicit antecedent. The rules of grammar say that the "it" refers to the "sharing limit", of which the poster had already said there was none -- and so "it", being absent, could not be removed.
But thanks for playing the grammar game.
Appple removed something they didn't have? "It" refers to "no sharing limit".) I think you've got antecedent issues...
No. The amount, on the rare times that I'm certain I've received too little, has never been enough to justify the trip. When I get too much, I can't make that call -- it's their money.
I fully understand that the import of the question is, Do you really think the store's going to give you the extra? And of course I expect they would not. So what? My morality isn't contingent on theirs.
Yeah, right up until the point that Tom Clancy gives up on democracy and decides that the only hope for America is to wipe out the duly-elected Congress and start over... sure, his good guy, Jack Ryan, comes to power, but only at an unthinkable cost. Recall that Debt of Honor was released in 1994 and thus written before the staggering 1994 win of the US House by the Republicans. For many years, many conservative thinkers felt the Congress was forever beyond their reach...
I'll admit it, I stopped reading Clancy with this book. I couldn't get past the implicit bleakness in its view of the American democracy supposedly heralded.
It disturbs me that no one seems to question this "of course". Your friend was wrong. He made an unjustifiable profit on a mistake made in good faith by the clerk -- a mistake he clearly recognized as such. What he did might have been legal but it was wrong. And yes, I'm the kind of guy who goes back to a store if I discover I've received too much change.
Doesn't this mean you've liked books you've never read? Isn't that a little, I don't know, fanboyish?
Not counting oxygen failures, several fires, and the odd collision with a supply ship. Mir functioned. It certainly did not function well. And keep in mind that the realistic, incremental approach is what gave us the Space Shuttle and the ISS.
True in formal writing or speech... for now. Check back in a century and I'd bet you'll see the singular "they" accepted. It's easier than formulating a new, concise, elegant approach to "he/she". And rant all you want, but the world is never going back to the default "he".
Nor, IMHO, should it. Language evolves and no language does it better than English. The language expresses the needs of the culture -- if the culture as a whole (or even in large part) decides the old way is inadequate, the language will change accordingly.
Or, to put it succintly, the only languages spoken "perfectly" are dead ones.
I think that's being unfair. "The psychological effects and costs of ambition have been done since the Greeks -- they certainly are not Shakespeare's themes." Hmmm. Reads a bit off, doesn't it? The Wired author probably is a little breahtless (in Wired? Really?) But these are "Dick's themes" in that they are themes he explored exhaustively. While it would be hyperbole to trace all such stories back to Dick, it would be a disservice to pretend he has not had a major impact on stories with such themes. In fact, I do not believe it too gross an exaggeration to claim that he has more impact in this subgenre than any other single person.
That depends on what you're trying to produce.
Um, then, shouldn't they have been in the second movie? The books are nearly 60 years old and he's read them a zillion times -- it's not like this issue popped up out of nowhere.
But isn't that the point -- judging by sales, consumers don't want their HDTV. Why is this allegedly pro-capitalism administration, usually so gung-ho to invoke the market to address societal needs, apparently so willing to overlook the overwhelming verdict of the market: People just aren't itching to get HDTV.
Why is government intervention and the "picking of winners" OK here but not, say, in national health insurance?
Hey, it's the Open Source approach to a wedding album.
And yet, the point raised by the article is, oftentimes the "professional" pictures don't look better. Yes, often, they do. But I've seen more than a small number of absolutely dreadful wedding spreads -- what exactly was the couple paying for then?
Of course the same is true for automboiles, yet no one is willing to give up control over driving... in a century of auto making we have made significant safety improvements to every part of the sytem -- except the driver...
Sounds about right to me.