A computer is a box of wires. Add software and you get a very useful tool. You can use that tool to create value. You can transfer that value for cash. You have to use some of that cash to maintain your tools. Cheaper tools that can create the same value enhance profits. Profits are good.
GPL software = cheap tools = more profits = more taxes =... well, lets not go there shall we?
The software was designed for those people, not for the 1 percent who are going to take the lock cutters and cut the lock off and steal music in an unauthorized way.
That is, I suppose as opposed to stealing it in an authorized way?:p.
This statement suggests that even fair use has to be authorized. My understanding is that the limited monopoly known as copyright is what needs to be authorized. Freedom is the baseline.
[culture jam disclaimer]Now IANAL, and I suspect that actually doing this would not be viewed as appropriate by store owners and cops but . . . [/culture jam disclaimer]
People could help the industry out . . . produce stickers on your printer at home and take them with you when you shop. Consult your list of CDnots and affix something like:
ALERT: This is not a CD! It may not work on your equipment. Check http://...... to find out why.
This is just the kind of campaign that Adbusters Adbusters[adbusters.org] specializes in.
Since there is no international law, and Osama bin Laden is not a citizen, the rule of law does not apply to him.
The rule of law is meant to constrain governments to actions limited by constitutional and legal authority. The alternative is the devine right of kings.
Just because the U.S. DOESN'T respect its own constitution, doesn't mean it SHOULDN'T.
Three words for you, showing the use of the word "war" for rhetorical purposes to justify repression at home and illegal acts abroad:
WAR on drugs.
Also, the fact that the U.S. only recognizes international law when it suits them (see GATT, WTO, IMF, FTA), doesn't mean that the concept of international law is meaningless.
US citizens are demanding that violence be answered with violence. But, states can only LEGALLY do violence 2 ways: criminal law and war. Since this is international and the US is afraid to sign on to the international court of criminal justice (lest it's CIA agents end up tried for crimes against humanity) it can't use criminal law. We're stuck using war rhetoric.
Of course international law limits war to conflict between states, so that doesn't fit either. The U.S. insistance on acting outside the realm of international law is the real problem that the "war" rhetoric reveals.
As many have noted, what we will see is a war on individual liberties and on justice. Welcome to the war on the rule of law!
Ted Koppel even suggests that Rick Mercer, one of our beloved comedy heros is a communist, anarchist and even malicious for his hilarious "Talking to Americans" spot.
Sure, the computer belongs to my boss, as does my time when I'm on the clock.
But, I am entitled to breaks and if I choose to spend part of my lunchhour reading Slashdot or even writing a loveletter to my wife, it is none of my employer's business.
Sure, I have to respect the acceptable use policy and thankfully, where I work, it is pretty liberal. But I am also a human being entitled to a little breathing space.
I'm not saying that I should be free to download kiddie porn or do anything else illegal using the tools provided. But, just as I feel free to make an occasional personal call from work (not long distance mind you), I don't feel that every keystroke I type is on the clock, just because the computer is not my own.
Recently, I returned to my former employer a computer loaned to me in the hopes that I would do some work at home, or at least use it to master the tools of my trade. After having had it in my house for over a year, there was no way I could be sure exactly what was on the drive. The only way I could be sure that I didn't leave embarrasing or questionable material on the drive was to return it blank and that is what I did.
I feel a little guilt that the boss might have to pay to reinstall the software, but I am sure that the unremunerated hours of work I did on the machine while it was in my possession more than compensates for that small cost.
The long and short of it is that the computer is not like most tools. It is a medium of communication. If free speech is not to be constrained, some accommodation must be made in recongition that not every communication an employee participates in during the inordinate fraction of their life spent at work is going to be work related.
See Dan Gardner's 10-day investigative report For a really good exposé on the harms caused by the war on drugs. He's getting 2+ full broadsheet pages per day with a front page lead.
-- flameproof --
I don't imagine that you'll be reading this in the American press real soon
I for one am pleased that at least one government is responsible enought to step in to put limits on this bizarrely violent form of brainwashing. I'm speaking now about the Point & Shoot video games with graphic results and no consequences.Are we so naive that we think this has no impact on kids. Probably it would be best that adults not mess with this sh.. either, but it's hard to put the Genie back in the bottle. And even a commie Canuk knows there is a limit to what the state can and should do to protect adults from their own self-abusive behaviour.
At least one battlefield psychologist, Colonel David Grossman, sees these "games" as little more that killing simulators that are alarmingly similar to the type used to desensitize solidiers and law enforcement agents -- but without the discipline and supervision that keeps these state-trained killers in check. While I don't agree with all that Grossman says (in fact I think he's a bit shell-shocked himself), he makes good reading and there is audio available here as well.
IANA-technogeek, but I'm surprised that there is no way to set up a new top level domain say ".sex" and then use the domain name registry system to enforce a segregation of all the porn sites into this domain. Violators could have their domain names dropped from the top level domain-name servers or treat them like spammers and use a blacklist. ISPs could then collectively banish violators.
Once segregated, filtering becomes trivial.
Perhaps so, but what has changed is the extent to which multinational corps have succeeded in sucking up the wealth of the entire world for the benefit of a few.
While everyone seems to agree that there is alot more wealth these days, few people understand that it is enormously concentrated in the hands of a disgustingly rich few while most of the world struggles to survive. This is accellerating and first world workers are beginning to feel the pinch as well. If you care about such things and aren't mindlessly opposed to such "commie-think" read on.
The following is an extract from the recent Nick Beam lectures that can be read here.
In the recent period a flood of information has been published showing the staggering growth of social polarisation on a world scale. The wealth of the 475 world billionaires, for example, is now equivalent to the combined incomes of more than 50 percent of the world's population, some 3 billion people. And this amassing of riches is proceeding at an accelerating rate. The number of billionaires in the United States alone has increased from 13 in 1982 to 149 in 1996 and has increased since then. According to the 1998 United Nations World Development Report, the three richest people in the world have assets exceeding the combined Gross Domestic Product of the 48 least developed countries, the 15 richest people have assets worth more than the total GDP of sub-Saharan Africa and the 32 richest more assets than the GDP of South Asia. The wealth of the richest 84 individuals exceeds the GDP of China with its 1.2 billion inhabitants. And what of the majority of the world's people? Of the 4.4 billion people in so-called developing countries, almost three fifths lack basic sanitation, one third have no safe drinking water and one quarter have inadequate housing, while one fifth are undernourished, and the same proportion have no access to decent health services. Between 1960 and 1994 the gap in the per capita income between the richest one fifth of the world's population and the poorest one fifth more than doubled, increasing from 30:1 to 78:1. By 1995 the ratio had risen to 82:1. In 1997 the richest one fifth of the world's population received 86 percent of world income, with the poorest fifth receiving just 1.3 percent. More than 1.3 billion people are forced to subsist on less than $1 per day--a life-threatening situation. According to the UN, out of the 147 countries defined as "developing" some 100 had experienced "serious economic decline" over the past 30 years.
Slashdot Mirror
A computer is a box of wires. Add software and you get a very useful tool. You can use that tool to create value. You can transfer that value for cash. You have to use some of that cash to maintain your tools. Cheaper tools that can create the same value enhance profits. Profits are good.
... well, lets not go there shall we?
GPL software = cheap tools = more profits = more taxes =
This statement suggests that even fair use has to be authorized. My understanding is that the limited monopoly known as copyright is what needs to be authorized. Freedom is the baseline.
[culture jam disclaimer]Now IANAL, and I suspect that actually doing this would not be viewed as appropriate by store owners and cops but . . . [/culture jam disclaimer]
People could help the industry out . . . produce stickers on your printer at home and take them with you when you shop. Consult your list of CDnots and affix something like:
ALERT: This is not a CD! It may not work on your equipment. Check http://...... to find out why.
This is just the kind of campaign that Adbusters Adbusters[adbusters.org] specializes in.
Bring him to the Hague. It was good enough for Milosovic. But given the FBI's inability to put together a case that will stand up in court . . .
The rule of law is meant to constrain governments to actions limited by constitutional and legal authority. The alternative is the devine right of kings.
Three words for you, showing the use of the word "war" for rhetorical purposes to justify repression at home and illegal acts abroad:
WAR on drugs.
Also, the fact that the U.S. only recognizes international law when it suits them (see GATT, WTO, IMF, FTA), doesn't mean that the concept of international law is meaningless.
Say the following 3 times:
Rule of Law!
US citizens are demanding that violence be answered with violence. But, states can only LEGALLY do violence 2 ways: criminal law and war. Since this is international and the US is afraid to sign on to the international court of criminal justice (lest it's CIA agents end up tried for crimes against humanity) it can't use criminal law. We're stuck using war rhetoric.
Of course international law limits war to conflict between states, so that doesn't fit either. The U.S. insistance on acting outside the realm of international law is the real problem that the "war" rhetoric reveals.
As many have noted, what we will see is a war on individual liberties and on justice. Welcome to the war on the rule of law!
No charges will be laid. Just a bullet in the brain -- this is, after all, the "war on terrorism"
Repubican Police State.
This is must see RealTV!
Everything from asthma to zymotic diseases will be blamed on them.
Ready the missle defenses! Beware the commie horde!
Why then is this threat suddenly everywhere?
They're FUDing the Net!
The logic is simple. Business wants a new manageable internet. First, prove to the world that end-to-end is broken. Then, advance proposals to fix it.
Waiting for the other shoe to drop. . .
Michael Geist's hompage at University of Ottawa
Did you even read the article?
Sure, the computer belongs to my boss, as does my time when I'm on the clock.
But, I am entitled to breaks and if I choose to spend part of my lunchhour reading Slashdot or even writing a loveletter to my wife, it is none of my employer's business.
Sure, I have to respect the acceptable use policy and thankfully, where I work, it is pretty liberal. But I am also a human being entitled to a little breathing space.
I'm not saying that I should be free to download kiddie porn or do anything else illegal using the tools provided. But, just as I feel free to make an occasional personal call from work (not long distance mind you), I don't feel that every keystroke I type is on the clock, just because the computer is not my own.
Recently, I returned to my former employer a computer loaned to me in the hopes that I would do some work at home, or at least use it to master the tools of my trade. After having had it in my house for over a year, there was no way I could be sure exactly what was on the drive. The only way I could be sure that I didn't leave embarrasing or questionable material on the drive was to return it blank and that is what I did.
I feel a little guilt that the boss might have to pay to reinstall the software, but I am sure that the unremunerated hours of work I did on the machine while it was in my possession more than compensates for that small cost.
The long and short of it is that the computer is not like most tools. It is a medium of communication. If free speech is not to be constrained, some accommodation must be made in recongition that not every communication an employee participates in during the inordinate fraction of their life spent at work is going to be work related.
My .02
-- flameproof --
I don't imagine that you'll be reading this in the American press real soon
--deflameproof--
I for one am pleased that at least one government is responsible enought to step in to put limits on this bizarrely violent form of brainwashing. I'm speaking now about the Point & Shoot video games with graphic results and no consequences.Are we so naive that we think this has no impact on kids. Probably it would be best that adults not mess with this sh.. either, but it's hard to put the Genie back in the bottle. And even a commie Canuk knows there is a limit to what the state can and should do to protect adults from their own self-abusive behaviour. At least one battlefield psychologist, Colonel David Grossman, sees these "games" as little more that killing simulators that are alarmingly similar to the type used to desensitize solidiers and law enforcement agents -- but without the discipline and supervision that keeps these state-trained killers in check. While I don't agree with all that Grossman says (in fact I think he's a bit shell-shocked himself), he makes good reading and there is audio available here as well.
IANA-technogeek, but I'm surprised that there is no way to set up a new top level domain say ".sex" and then use the domain name registry system to enforce a segregation of all the porn sites into this domain. Violators could have their domain names dropped from the top level domain-name servers or treat them like spammers and use a blacklist. ISPs could then collectively banish violators. Once segregated, filtering becomes trivial.
Sooo.... Less feet standing on more necks!
While everyone seems to agree that there is alot more wealth these days, few people understand that it is enormously concentrated in the hands of a disgustingly rich few while most of the world struggles to survive. This is accellerating and first world workers are beginning to feel the pinch as well. If you care about such things and aren't mindlessly opposed to such "commie-think" read on.
The following is an extract from the recent Nick Beam lectures that can be read here.
Everything else is just red herring. What me paranoid?
That's the trouble with you kids. No appreciation for the classics!