It obviously would make me less tolerant if I actually believed that, but it doesn't make me less tolerant if I say it, and it certainly doesn't make society less tolerant for allowing an app to be downloaded and installed that said it. Quite the opposite is true in reality and logically. If you disallow the app because you don't agree with it, you are being intolerant. Funny thing about tolerance, you have to be tolerant of intolerance, or you aren't actually tolerant.
A good point generally--the last one especially. The first people whose rights must be defended are the most offensive, as a general rule. We still don't believe in absolute moral relativism--you have to be tolerant of intolerance to a degree, as far as most people I know are concerned. But not absolutely. And sometimes the way to respond is with the truth and better ideas. (At least, that is the theory behind free speech in law. It's been pretty much disproven by modern advertising and campaign techniques, but it is a very hopeful and almost idealistic and noble theory that nobody wants to go against).
That being said, there is at least one significant flaw. While saying "Fags aren't real people" here, in the context of making a point, does not change how you feel, saying it or even hearing it enough, being exposed to it, does influence the way we think. If you are surrounded by people who hate people, or the behaviour around you is that of disrespecting people, it influences the way that you interact. It does make you and other people less tolerant if you say it. We have a society that glorifies pimps and pimping. If people stop to think about it, even then, many don't realize how horrible that is--you have a great many pimps in this country and around the world who are slavers renting out slaves. But we still have a pop culture which often glorifies pimping. That celebrities or musicians or the kids in your neighborhood say it doesn't matter so long as they don't think it, so long as they know the truth. But they often don't know the truth, or don't think about it, and they're saying something that isn't true hurts a lot of people. Among others, tens of thousands of slaves in the US who are paid for by a society that doesn't speak against pimping. Many more around the world.
Intuitively it's a weak argument, because we know we can think or say one thing and believe another. But in reality, notice how your behavior or the behavior of others changes in response to the environment you're in, in response to what seems to be acceptable or said there.
It is not sarcasm. Sarcasm implies a bitter or cutting remark. I merely point out the arguments could be made with the same rationale.
I agree, it is an action. That action is more likely when people harbor certain thoughts. But regardless, the action can be justified on the same ground as the thought--i.e. you should just have a thicker skin about it, it's still okay to do this thing. (In one case, the action, in the other, the thinking, but in either case something the person should have a thicker skin about.) There are other reasons why they're different, but the same justification can help someone support a defense of either.
The point here is not the law. The point here is right and wrong. Not necessarily moral absolutism, but certainly morality. The law is a series of rules with loose policy justifications. It is entirely possible for someone to act within the law and still be doing something they should not do.
Is it leaving someone alone to say they need a cure for their sexual orientation? Is it supporting that position to allow someone else to say that using your infrastructure? Apple here was in the position of allowing or not allowing that position to be advocated on their platform. They are not a government. From a legal standpoint, they have wide discretion.
As I said, being offended for someone else may make it better or worse, but certainly different. You think it's worse. I think it depends. Here, of course, it was mostly groupthink. But I'd imagine there are also a lot of legitimate supporters. It depends on the reason why someone supported it, and that will vary from individual to individual.
Also, nobody got up in arms except change.org, and they probably did only a little bit. Most people just--what, signed an online petition? That takes under a minute.
Niggers and Fags aren't real people. Who's with me? Hurrah!!
If you are offended by the second sentence, then you probably should not have read past the first sentence. Who cares whether or not you agree its ok for me to say the second sentence? It was your choice to read it in the first place...
Here's the problem with that argument: it assumes that it doesn't hurt me or anyone else if you have an attitude of "Niggers and Fags aren't real people." In reality, it does. You may encounter Black People and Gay People whom you discount as real people. This not only means I live in a less tolerant society, it means I live in one where there is a racial divide, and I am bringing my kids up in that society. It also means that you discount those people, which hurts the market by taking many people out of it and introducing inefficiencies that come from not letting qualified people work in jobs they're qualified for. In addition, it makes you less likely to treat Black People or Gay People with the basic dignity with which we should treat all human beings. I happen to think it harms me to live in a society where people don't respect one another a tiny bit by default. You may not trust everyone, but there is no reason not to be a little bit courteous. It's not a zero-sum game. It makes everyone happier.
That is a fair critique--many people do not care. I was thinking of a recent survey I remembered putting the numbers around 53%, but to be fair, that will include people who don't care a great deal and I don't recall whether it was for gay marriage specifically or for gay service in the military.
Note that what the law is doesn't necessarily reflect what people support, because mobilization matters a great deal, as do procedural bars and the fact that people vote for whole people, not for individual issues.
I agree that it is accepted by those without an understanding of human history--but then, very few people have an understanding of human history, and it is also vehemently disliked by people with no understanding of human history.
What damage to society? If we put aside the people who are both gay and promiscuous, at least? Is it that it encourages people to engage in behavior contrary to the will of God (i.e. like Milton, where the crime was disobedience to the will of God regardless of whether you ate an apple or led a war on heaven)? Or do you mean that it somehow harms a community to have families in it that don't have a male and female parent?
I don't think that belief in a moral absolute--a moral absolute from the perspective of those who believe in it--is necessarily a bad thing. It *is* intolerance, but that is okay. I am intolerant of people who kill for fun. I am intolerant of the twenty-year old who guns someone down while laughing at him, or the children who steal airplanes and ram them into buildings. The question is when we should be intolerant--to what degree and when should we be open-minded, and to what degree and whenshould we be stubborn and idealistic in a way which disagrees with and judges the lives and/or decisions of many others.
I used to be fairly intolerant of gay people. I wouldn't mock them or deride them, but they were something I didn't know and I found the entire concept weird as hell. Then I met some. They're generally no better or worse than anyone else, so far as I could tell, Some of them are good people. Some aren't. So as to them as a class, I became more tolerant.
Now I don't believe they'll burn in hell for it, and if I did, I would obviously encourage them to be less gay, since I don't think good people should burn in hell. And good people can do bad things--as when I encounter people doing something bad, I try to get them to think about it.
I know someone who works with kids to prevent dehumanizing women and get them before they become customers for the trafficked women who operate as prostitutes in most cities around the world. (Many in the US.) The kids don't think of it as wrong to put the girls down and call them names and be absuive toward them until you make the connection in their head to child abuse. They come from poor families, and they all know child abuse, either from their families or from people they've known. It makes them think. Sorry, bit of a tangent there.
I do agree the "homophobe" label is ridiculous. But I also have seen nothing to indicate that being gay threatens society or traditional marriage.
You're making a lot of assertions about other people's intentions--saying they're too sensitive and they can't face the fact that a lot of people think male homosexual sex is disgusting. But there's no reason to assume either of those things, and they can be used to justify every kind of bigotry. Racial slurs, white supremacy, even discrimination based on skin color in the workplace. "It bothers you I won't hire you because you're black? You're too sensitive and just can't face the fact that I think black people are disgusting." "It bothers you I think the world would be better if your grandparents should have died in the holocaust? You're too sensitive and just can't face the fact I think jews are disgusting (well... just the guy kind anyway)."
There are also a lot of people who think it's wrong to think "gay-ness" needs a cure. That teaches that it is a choice that needs "curing", and most of apple's target demographic finds that idea wrong. Since most people don't engage in absolute moral relativism, what offends can steer market decisions. There's also the point that they are, for the most part, not being offended *for themselves* like with your crap about losing weight, stopping smoking, drinking, and taking drugs. They are doing it for other people, for the most part. That may make it better or worse, but it's certainly different.
Also, you're analogy to a ban on an app saying to stop picking your nose is improper. That is much more of a universal social norm, whereas in the US, the majority of the country supports gay marriage, but there is a massive divide and people feel very strongly about it. Everyone agrees it's okay to say you can stop picking your nose. Not everyone agrees it's okay to say you should cure gay marriage.
It is neither stupid, nor a meme. Cite-checking is something intelligent people do if they want to be sure about something. Someone made a claim that I have reason to know is wrong in almost every case. Rather than get into a fight about it or spend a while documenting he is wrong (which he is more likely to discount than his own research), I suggested he provide evidence for his assertion. If he is wrong he can realize it, and if he is right he can back it up.
> No, but if I did, I would be able to sue the grocery store for violation of their contract, as you can with the cellular companies if the service they're providing is suddenly sub-par and vastly inferior to its conditions at the start of the contract.
You almost certainly can't--read your contract. You can go to arbitration. Which you will lose.
Have you ever actually met UN prosecutors? Or policymakers? There are a lot of bottom-dwellers on the world stage, yes, and a lot of really self-involved people in power throughout the world. But there are also a lot of really good people involved in the work, and a lot of really competent people who believe in what they're doing, and there are people who--though they are self-involved--genuinely care about whether or not other people are dying.
Humanitarianism is a factor in the equation. It's just not the only factor. Wars cost a lost of money and lives, and UN intervention is sometimes good and sometimes bad. If you think they don't care whether their presence helps or hurts, you don't know them at all.
How about the first thing they report is when USPS trucks break driving laws? They don't even all have backup beepers. In New York City. Big heavy truck with no backup beeper that loads and unloads a lot in NYC? BAD idea.
> say, for example, where the creator gets an automatic payment per copy until reasonable salaries are achieved
I especially like this idea. Once someone has recouped cost and made a good return, the marginal returns copyright grants them should decrease and/or the work should enter the public domain. You'd run into hollywood accounting, of course, but it's a good start.
Here's an idea this conversation reminds me of... let's not hold people responsible (either in personal retribution or for fiscal remuneration) for the sins of their progenitors unless (1) they actively glorify them, *AND* (2) they rise to the level of genocide, war crimes, or population displacement.
There are enough living warlords and genocidal assholes that we don't need to go looking for dead ones.
That would be a much better Federation Prime Directive than the one they came up with. Much more tied to IRL than the one they used, which is effectively about how to do fieldwork in anthropology--but not as helpful.
Copyright isn't "strictly capitalist." It is an agreement between a creator and the public--I will spend my time creating work, and share it with you, in exchange for which you (the public) will have it free to use in a million years or so. (Less for patents) Arguably the socialist side is the public domain.
> The underlying purposes of copyright and fine points of intellectual property are far too abstract for the majority of Americans to even begin to comprehend.
I disagree--I think they could understand them just fine, we just do not choose to teach them. The "fine points" would obviously be harder to teach (it would have to be a concerted effort that was better than how we teach math), but most of those are useless outside of certain arcane professions. (i.e. patent attorney)
> I need more people like you. People seem to think that copyright is about "compensating" people or "being fair". The funny thing is that people who claim to be conservative and for small government often seem pro-copyright. Which is bizarre, since it is really one of the first socialist policies enacted by the young US government, along with patents, the postal service, and postal roads. I'm at a loss...:)
Well, to be fair, one rationale of copyright--not the primary one or the stated one, but one that makes it an acceptable policy for many rather than merely something economists say is useful--is the Lockean idea that people should have some reward or ownership over the product of their labor.
Out of curiosity, why do you consider patents, the postal service, postal roads, and copyrights to be socialist?
> Why? If people create content regardless of copyright infringement, which is the purpose of copyright, I fail to see why it's a major problem that needs to be handled.
Because the United States creates a great deal of IP, as do many countries. The people pirating are not only the people who would not pay for it--so market size decreases, GDP decreases, and trade imbalances increase. The biggest long-term threat to the United States, after Global Warming and possibly after spiraling healthcare and higher education costs, is the trade imbalance. We send more and more money outside the country to buy things. A bigger economy means more money for the few people at the top, but MOST of America is NOT at the top, and sending money out means that capital leaves and goes to buy things, putting other people at the top, leaving us in a worse and worse position (except for a very few) as the gini coefficient increases.
That being said, making copyright law on that basis is arguably unconstitutional. The only reason Congress is empowered to make copyright law is to promote the development of copyrightable works. (The terminology is actually "science and the useful arts, IIRC, but as it was understood two hundred years ago). They also have the power to regulate commerce between the states and with foreign nations, but making copyright law under the Commerce Clause is reading the IP clause entirely out of the Constitution, which should not be legitimate under any reasonable principles of interpretation. But most if not all courts would probably accept it anyway.
Well, yes. Being a good manager is like being a good engineer--you help people solve problems they come across, encourage good work, discourage shirking by inspiration and competitiveness more than by punishment and threats of recrimination, etc...
It's good to have an expert to go to when I have a problem. It's better to have someone who knows ten experts and can understand or walk through the general problem.
The rule about splitting infinitives is a prescriptivist grammarian trope. In other words, it's fine as a recommendation, but it isn't really a rule: a bunch of people invented it as a heuristic a hundred years ago and since then grammar nazis have used it. "To boldly go" actually sounds slightly better to my ear because it is two iambs in a row.
If it's clear from the sentence that it is an infinitive, it doesn't sound awkward, and it is clear that the modifiers modify what you intend them to, it doesn't matter that you don't follow the heuristic. It's not something like spelling "all right" "alright," where anyone well-educated on language will know right away that it's wrong.
> When everyone in the US has a roof over his head, then the space programme can be restarted.
We have enough roofs for everyone, we just value our personal space a lot. How many people could live in the houses of slashdotters alone without straining the physical location's ability to support them?
Did you just say American high schools teach practical life skills or how to open a bank account or form an original thought?
I have a friend who teaches freshman comp at U Arizona. Most of the freshmen do not know how to have abstract thoughts. You have to teach them.
Don't get me wrong--there are a LOT of very capable American high school students and graduates. But most of that isn't from stuff they learn in school. It's from parents (the number 1 factor in determining future education level is education level of parents) or reading or the net or friends or social organizations they're in or (to some very limited degree) enrichment programs, perhaps offered by local colleges.
I know someone else who taught in NY at a school where the kids beat up a cop in front of the school, so the cops came in and harassed the students for a week. In an unrelated incident he had to pull a student physically off a female teacher's leg. Some schools do teach a lot... but even the good ones, for the most part, do not teach you how to open a bank account or form an original thought. And the bad ones are struggling to teach reading.
I ignore the US on these and many world issues, because they only complain when Oil or money is involved, and only pass laws that increase profit for the few.
Not true; those issues--and complaining, for that matter--just get more press. We put out a watch list for human trafficking, too, as part of the annual Trafficking in Persons Report. (Google it, or look at River of Innocents for a good primer on the issue).
The US does care about money and oil, of course--money and oil pay for everything and make everything work, and we want things to work and influential donors care about those things, so so does the government. But those aren't the only things we care about. The Global Health Initiatives, for example, have tremendously increased the quality of life for hundreds of millions of people, yet they rarely make it into the news. For some reason it's not as sexy to prevent Malaria as it is to do another story on Charlie Sheen.
I fail to see how this is really news... Zimbabwe has a pretty bad human rights record, and stuff worse than this happens around the world all the time. A number of Universities have withdrawn honorary degrees given to Mugabe. The only difference here is the person whose rights were abused was a law professor.
Still, the slashdot community tends to have only slightly more knowledge than the general public about human rights matters. So perhaps it's good to occasionally have such stories.
Slashdot Mirror
It obviously would make me less tolerant if I actually believed that, but it doesn't make me less tolerant if I say it, and it certainly doesn't make society less tolerant for allowing an app to be downloaded and installed that said it. Quite the opposite is true in reality and logically. If you disallow the app because you don't agree with it, you are being intolerant. Funny thing about tolerance, you have to be tolerant of intolerance, or you aren't actually tolerant.
A good point generally--the last one especially. The first people whose rights must be defended are the most offensive, as a general rule. We still don't believe in absolute moral relativism--you have to be tolerant of intolerance to a degree, as far as most people I know are concerned. But not absolutely. And sometimes the way to respond is with the truth and better ideas. (At least, that is the theory behind free speech in law. It's been pretty much disproven by modern advertising and campaign techniques, but it is a very hopeful and almost idealistic and noble theory that nobody wants to go against).
That being said, there is at least one significant flaw. While saying "Fags aren't real people" here, in the context of making a point, does not change how you feel, saying it or even hearing it enough, being exposed to it, does influence the way we think. If you are surrounded by people who hate people, or the behaviour around you is that of disrespecting people, it influences the way that you interact. It does make you and other people less tolerant if you say it. We have a society that glorifies pimps and pimping. If people stop to think about it, even then, many don't realize how horrible that is--you have a great many pimps in this country and around the world who are slavers renting out slaves. But we still have a pop culture which often glorifies pimping. That celebrities or musicians or the kids in your neighborhood say it doesn't matter so long as they don't think it, so long as they know the truth. But they often don't know the truth, or don't think about it, and they're saying something that isn't true hurts a lot of people. Among others, tens of thousands of slaves in the US who are paid for by a society that doesn't speak against pimping. Many more around the world.
Intuitively it's a weak argument, because we know we can think or say one thing and believe another. But in reality, notice how your behavior or the behavior of others changes in response to the environment you're in, in response to what seems to be acceptable or said there.
It is not sarcasm. Sarcasm implies a bitter or cutting remark. I merely point out the arguments could be made with the same rationale.
I agree, it is an action. That action is more likely when people harbor certain thoughts. But regardless, the action can be justified on the same ground as the thought--i.e. you should just have a thicker skin about it, it's still okay to do this thing. (In one case, the action, in the other, the thinking, but in either case something the person should have a thicker skin about.) There are other reasons why they're different, but the same justification can help someone support a defense of either.
The point here is not the law. The point here is right and wrong. Not necessarily moral absolutism, but certainly morality. The law is a series of rules with loose policy justifications. It is entirely possible for someone to act within the law and still be doing something they should not do.
Is it leaving someone alone to say they need a cure for their sexual orientation? Is it supporting that position to allow someone else to say that using your infrastructure? Apple here was in the position of allowing or not allowing that position to be advocated on their platform. They are not a government. From a legal standpoint, they have wide discretion.
As I said, being offended for someone else may make it better or worse, but certainly different. You think it's worse. I think it depends. Here, of course, it was mostly groupthink. But I'd imagine there are also a lot of legitimate supporters. It depends on the reason why someone supported it, and that will vary from individual to individual.
Also, nobody got up in arms except change.org, and they probably did only a little bit. Most people just--what, signed an online petition? That takes under a minute.
Niggers and Fags aren't real people. Who's with me? Hurrah!!
If you are offended by the second sentence, then you probably should not have read past the first sentence. Who cares whether or not you agree its ok for me to say the second sentence? It was your choice to read it in the first place...
Here's the problem with that argument: it assumes that it doesn't hurt me or anyone else if you have an attitude of "Niggers and Fags aren't real people." In reality, it does. You may encounter Black People and Gay People whom you discount as real people. This not only means I live in a less tolerant society, it means I live in one where there is a racial divide, and I am bringing my kids up in that society. It also means that you discount those people, which hurts the market by taking many people out of it and introducing inefficiencies that come from not letting qualified people work in jobs they're qualified for. In addition, it makes you less likely to treat Black People or Gay People with the basic dignity with which we should treat all human beings. I happen to think it harms me to live in a society where people don't respect one another a tiny bit by default. You may not trust everyone, but there is no reason not to be a little bit courteous. It's not a zero-sum game. It makes everyone happier.
That is a fair critique--many people do not care. I was thinking of a recent survey I remembered putting the numbers around 53%, but to be fair, that will include people who don't care a great deal and I don't recall whether it was for gay marriage specifically or for gay service in the military.
Note that what the law is doesn't necessarily reflect what people support, because mobilization matters a great deal, as do procedural bars and the fact that people vote for whole people, not for individual issues.
I agree that it is accepted by those without an understanding of human history--but then, very few people have an understanding of human history, and it is also vehemently disliked by people with no understanding of human history.
What damage to society? If we put aside the people who are both gay and promiscuous, at least? Is it that it encourages people to engage in behavior contrary to the will of God (i.e. like Milton, where the crime was disobedience to the will of God regardless of whether you ate an apple or led a war on heaven)? Or do you mean that it somehow harms a community to have families in it that don't have a male and female parent?
I don't think that belief in a moral absolute--a moral absolute from the perspective of those who believe in it--is necessarily a bad thing. It *is* intolerance, but that is okay. I am intolerant of people who kill for fun. I am intolerant of the twenty-year old who guns someone down while laughing at him, or the children who steal airplanes and ram them into buildings. The question is when we should be intolerant--to what degree and when should we be open-minded, and to what degree and whenshould we be stubborn and idealistic in a way which disagrees with and judges the lives and/or decisions of many others.
I used to be fairly intolerant of gay people. I wouldn't mock them or deride them, but they were something I didn't know and I found the entire concept weird as hell. Then I met some. They're generally no better or worse than anyone else, so far as I could tell, Some of them are good people. Some aren't. So as to them as a class, I became more tolerant.
Now I don't believe they'll burn in hell for it, and if I did, I would obviously encourage them to be less gay, since I don't think good people should burn in hell. And good people can do bad things--as when I encounter people doing something bad, I try to get them to think about it.
I know someone who works with kids to prevent dehumanizing women and get them before they become customers for the trafficked women who operate as prostitutes in most cities around the world. (Many in the US.) The kids don't think of it as wrong to put the girls down and call them names and be absuive toward them until you make the connection in their head to child abuse. They come from poor families, and they all know child abuse, either from their families or from people they've known. It makes them think. Sorry, bit of a tangent there.
I do agree the "homophobe" label is ridiculous. But I also have seen nothing to indicate that being gay threatens society or traditional marriage.
You're making a lot of assertions about other people's intentions--saying they're too sensitive and they can't face the fact that a lot of people think male homosexual sex is disgusting. But there's no reason to assume either of those things, and they can be used to justify every kind of bigotry. Racial slurs, white supremacy, even discrimination based on skin color in the workplace. "It bothers you I won't hire you because you're black? You're too sensitive and just can't face the fact that I think black people are disgusting." "It bothers you I think the world would be better if your grandparents should have died in the holocaust? You're too sensitive and just can't face the fact I think jews are disgusting (well... just the guy kind anyway)."
There are also a lot of people who think it's wrong to think "gay-ness" needs a cure. That teaches that it is a choice that needs "curing", and most of apple's target demographic finds that idea wrong. Since most people don't engage in absolute moral relativism, what offends can steer market decisions. There's also the point that they are, for the most part, not being offended *for themselves* like with your crap about losing weight, stopping smoking, drinking, and taking drugs. They are doing it for other people, for the most part. That may make it better or worse, but it's certainly different.
Also, you're analogy to a ban on an app saying to stop picking your nose is improper. That is much more of a universal social norm, whereas in the US, the majority of the country supports gay marriage, but there is a massive divide and people feel very strongly about it. Everyone agrees it's okay to say you can stop picking your nose. Not everyone agrees it's okay to say you should cure gay marriage.
I live in DC. Trust me, it is neither safer nor more efficient. The road system is a mess, and there are Segways everywhere.
Surely they don't *have* to--that would be like painting a bulls-eye for antiaircraft.
It is neither stupid, nor a meme. Cite-checking is something intelligent people do if they want to be sure about something. Someone made a claim that I have reason to know is wrong in almost every case. Rather than get into a fight about it or spend a while documenting he is wrong (which he is more likely to discount than his own research), I suggested he provide evidence for his assertion. If he is wrong he can realize it, and if he is right he can back it up.
Citation needed.
> No, but if I did, I would be able to sue the grocery store for violation of their contract, as you can with the cellular companies if the service they're providing is suddenly sub-par and vastly inferior to its conditions at the start of the contract.
You almost certainly can't--read your contract. You can go to arbitration. Which you will lose.
> Humanitarianism is not a factor in the equation
Have you ever actually met UN prosecutors? Or policymakers? There are a lot of bottom-dwellers on the world stage, yes, and a lot of really self-involved people in power throughout the world. But there are also a lot of really good people involved in the work, and a lot of really competent people who believe in what they're doing, and there are people who--though they are self-involved--genuinely care about whether or not other people are dying.
Humanitarianism is a factor in the equation. It's just not the only factor. Wars cost a lost of money and lives, and UN intervention is sometimes good and sometimes bad. If you think they don't care whether their presence helps or hurts, you don't know them at all.
How about the first thing they report is when USPS trucks break driving laws? They don't even all have backup beepers. In New York City. Big heavy truck with no backup beeper that loads and unloads a lot in NYC? BAD idea.
> say, for example, where the creator gets an automatic payment per copy until reasonable salaries are achieved
I especially like this idea. Once someone has recouped cost and made a good return, the marginal returns copyright grants them should decrease and/or the work should enter the public domain. You'd run into hollywood accounting, of course, but it's a good start.
Here's an idea this conversation reminds me of... let's not hold people responsible (either in personal retribution or for fiscal remuneration) for the sins of their progenitors unless (1) they actively glorify them, *AND* (2) they rise to the level of genocide, war crimes, or population displacement.
There are enough living warlords and genocidal assholes that we don't need to go looking for dead ones.
That would be a much better Federation Prime Directive than the one they came up with. Much more tied to IRL than the one they used, which is effectively about how to do fieldwork in anthropology--but not as helpful.
Copyright isn't "strictly capitalist." It is an agreement between a creator and the public--I will spend my time creating work, and share it with you, in exchange for which you (the public) will have it free to use in a million years or so. (Less for patents) Arguably the socialist side is the public domain.
> The underlying purposes of copyright and fine points of intellectual property are far too abstract for the majority of Americans to even begin to comprehend.
I disagree--I think they could understand them just fine, we just do not choose to teach them. The "fine points" would obviously be harder to teach (it would have to be a concerted effort that was better than how we teach math), but most of those are useless outside of certain arcane professions. (i.e. patent attorney)
> I need more people like you. People seem to think that copyright is about "compensating" people or "being fair". The funny thing is that people who claim to be conservative and for small government often seem pro-copyright. Which is bizarre, since it is really one of the first socialist policies enacted by the young US government, along with patents, the postal service, and postal roads. I'm at a loss... :)
Well, to be fair, one rationale of copyright--not the primary one or the stated one, but one that makes it an acceptable policy for many rather than merely something economists say is useful--is the Lockean idea that people should have some reward or ownership over the product of their labor.
Out of curiosity, why do you consider patents, the postal service, postal roads, and copyrights to be socialist?
> Why? If people create content regardless of copyright infringement, which is the purpose of copyright, I fail to see why it's a major problem that needs to be handled.
Because the United States creates a great deal of IP, as do many countries. The people pirating are not only the people who would not pay for it--so market size decreases, GDP decreases, and trade imbalances increase. The biggest long-term threat to the United States, after Global Warming and possibly after spiraling healthcare and higher education costs, is the trade imbalance. We send more and more money outside the country to buy things. A bigger economy means more money for the few people at the top, but MOST of America is NOT at the top, and sending money out means that capital leaves and goes to buy things, putting other people at the top, leaving us in a worse and worse position (except for a very few) as the gini coefficient increases.
That being said, making copyright law on that basis is arguably unconstitutional. The only reason Congress is empowered to make copyright law is to promote the development of copyrightable works. (The terminology is actually "science and the useful arts, IIRC, but as it was understood two hundred years ago). They also have the power to regulate commerce between the states and with foreign nations, but making copyright law under the Commerce Clause is reading the IP clause entirely out of the Constitution, which should not be legitimate under any reasonable principles of interpretation. But most if not all courts would probably accept it anyway.
Well, yes. Being a good manager is like being a good engineer--you help people solve problems they come across, encourage good work, discourage shirking by inspiration and competitiveness more than by punishment and threats of recrimination, etc...
It's good to have an expert to go to when I have a problem. It's better to have someone who knows ten experts and can understand or walk through the general problem.
The rule about splitting infinitives is a prescriptivist grammarian trope. In other words, it's fine as a recommendation, but it isn't really a rule: a bunch of people invented it as a heuristic a hundred years ago and since then grammar nazis have used it. "To boldly go" actually sounds slightly better to my ear because it is two iambs in a row.
If it's clear from the sentence that it is an infinitive, it doesn't sound awkward, and it is clear that the modifiers modify what you intend them to, it doesn't matter that you don't follow the heuristic. It's not something like spelling "all right" "alright," where anyone well-educated on language will know right away that it's wrong.
> When everyone in the US has a roof over his head, then the space programme can be restarted.
We have enough roofs for everyone, we just value our personal space a lot. How many people could live in the houses of slashdotters alone without straining the physical location's ability to support them?
Did you just say American high schools teach practical life skills or how to open a bank account or form an original thought?
I have a friend who teaches freshman comp at U Arizona. Most of the freshmen do not know how to have abstract thoughts. You have to teach them.
Don't get me wrong--there are a LOT of very capable American high school students and graduates. But most of that isn't from stuff they learn in school. It's from parents (the number 1 factor in determining future education level is education level of parents) or reading or the net or friends or social organizations they're in or (to some very limited degree) enrichment programs, perhaps offered by local colleges.
I know someone else who taught in NY at a school where the kids beat up a cop in front of the school, so the cops came in and harassed the students for a week. In an unrelated incident he had to pull a student physically off a female teacher's leg. Some schools do teach a lot... but even the good ones, for the most part, do not teach you how to open a bank account or form an original thought. And the bad ones are struggling to teach reading.
> "password", mmm, no. "123456"
Remind me to change the combination on my luggage.
I ignore the US on these and many world issues, because they only complain when Oil or money is involved, and only pass laws that increase profit for the few.
Not true; those issues--and complaining, for that matter--just get more press. We put out a watch list for human trafficking, too, as part of the annual Trafficking in Persons Report. (Google it, or look at River of Innocents for a good primer on the issue).
The US does care about money and oil, of course--money and oil pay for everything and make everything work, and we want things to work and influential donors care about those things, so so does the government. But those aren't the only things we care about. The Global Health Initiatives, for example, have tremendously increased the quality of life for hundreds of millions of people, yet they rarely make it into the news. For some reason it's not as sexy to prevent Malaria as it is to do another story on Charlie Sheen.
I fail to see how this is really news... Zimbabwe has a pretty bad human rights record, and stuff worse than this happens around the world all the time. A number of Universities have withdrawn honorary degrees given to Mugabe. The only difference here is the person whose rights were abused was a law professor.
http://www.hrw.org/en/world-report-2011/zimbabwe (Human Rights Watch report on Zimbabwe).
Still, the slashdot community tends to have only slightly more knowledge than the general public about human rights matters. So perhaps it's good to occasionally have such stories.