Ignore that, it seems to be a problem with Microsoft's site not actually fetching the page requested every so often. Sorry for the confusion. (Also, yes I notice it's the same link now haha)
Funny, screwed that one up. What I meant was I could not remember what the name of the auction agency was...there is no way you could have grasped that from my previous comment.:)
The city where I live has the auction place where older equipment that has survived the corporate environment is auctioned off per pallet. (cannot remember name for the life of me, but that is not important) I remember seeing once an entire pallet, yes forklift style 50+ item pallet of lcd 17 inch monitors go for 50 bucks. Even if half of them didn't work, I think many communities could benefit from a little more collaboration and awareness in what I call "smart economic recycling".
Just my take...
Funny thing is at work, most still tend to use Perl over all other languages when dealing with text, well those with any computer science background...
Note, this is a generalization across 50 or so people where I work, could be different elsewhere.
Good point sir.
Now understand, this is out of the scope of my original reply/argument. But I am happy to share my tidbit here:
14 years is arbitrary, but within the scope of any law I feel it is important to say that copyright is different that a trademark. I believe songs/software/whatever are not such and the number of years before a song goes said "public" should be significantly lower. Your quote:
Depending on the response to this, it presupposes an answer to the morality of copying such works (>14 years old) with the current law (given the premise morality != law).
Precisely! Morality isn't law and we just, as citizens, gotta work our ass off to fix the laws. But also I believe that artists and musicians are entitled to some compensation as are software developers and the movie industry. Hell give them an incentive to make more material! At the same time, the times are different and there is a population that accepts what 20 years ago very few could have foreseen.
If you wanted a definitive answer, I am sorry I do not have one. I know that by ripping off software I am hurting someone, but at the same time I have excuses to say but I am just perpetuating some fallacy or whatever... In truth, as they say in every economics class out there:
There is no such thing as a free lunch
I do not have the answers, hell I do not think anyone does. But I can tell you it will be interesting to see how the market sculpts the industries over the next few years.
Lastly, I see exactly what you meant...and I think I could say that we both agree to say that this is a two fronted argument with no definitive answer (that changes person to person).
PS: perhaps choice 3? I dunno...haha
Had to look that one up a bit to answer this:
Correct me if I am wrong, but legal positivism embraces the idea that laws are valid not due to natural law or a basis of moral code, but rather that they are set in place by a governing authority and society accepts this to be valid. I usually, when it comes to philosophical views, like to say I am wary to follow any logic completely to its own end. I do not think that all laws are valid due to that simple definition: the system may put a law into effect that the authorities enforce and the rest of society disregards. The law is still a law but by no means is it a valid law if it is universally unaccepted outside the branch of what we deem the authority.
Long story short, I do not like that definition but I cannot quite wrap my head about it. I'd say, a law can be morally sound and vice versa...likewise laws do exist that are immoral and morals do coincide with laws. However, claiming that this is a result of how society forms laws is not as important to the fact that an individual may develop a moral code in contrast to that of society. Perception is reality to an individual, and if that citizen views their moral code to be in conflict with a law then their moral code is at conflict with that law. The law or that person's morality will not change no matter how much I persuade them otherwise or use laws to try to sway the scale of their moral beliefs. Personal ethics are independent, not out of human nature or the lack of morals affecting laws (lawmaker's personal morals), but rather because by definition one is defined by self perception and the other is not.
If you need what I thought I meant to say here is an outline, here ya go:
Main breakdown:
Personal moral code is independent of the laws.
I break copyright law and perform something against my moral code (by a very small amount). The two coinciding is incidental.
I break the law by speeding but with no effect on my moral code
Laws cannot be used to imply moral code.
...after some cute anecdotal stories (whatever haha)...
You would say "Copyright shouldn't exist" and you are entitled to your opinion and I am not arguing this fact, but rather how you justify it.
Putting a lawful definition on stealing and piracy and assuming that extension to copyright infringement is invalid... does not make something morally right.
The morals of copyright were not my argument, nor were the laws. I was merely stating that you cannot bridge the two.
See another response I had. Hope this helps clear my gibberish, I do not disagree with anything you said perhaps other than to what you thought my point was
I did not mean that the law implies morality, I meant morality is a seperate threshold that may or may not affect how we chose to obey the law
Your right lawmakers are fucked up out there
I stated a personal moral code, you know what you believe to be right and wrong. Ethics is synonymous here
Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is a branch of philosophy which seeks to address questions about morality; that is, about concepts such as good and bad, right and wrong, justice, and virtue. source
I think you are meaning just laws and all branches which others apply onto us, which I agree with you.
This article was not about information, or even the so called laws of Copyright and how this is a black vs white good vs evil. The author states that we should "buy one game a year" because it is in "our best interest", our ethics
We really do not disagree on anything regarding copyright, I was just was remarking on how you talked first of the laws: stealing and piracy and how that did not apply to Copyright. Then since those laws don't apply, it becomes ok, all ironic you would even mention laws since you
No what I was saying is that I know what I am doing is illegal, but that is okay because I justify by my moral threshold. What he is saying is that since his definitions of piracy and theft do not coincide with Copyright, it abstains him from the morality component:
it is ALWAYS ok to 'infringe' on his imaginary rights
I say no, be aware that your breaking the law, but do not extend the law to morality when the issue at hand, as stated by this Slashdot article, is the morality component.
yes you broke the law but...this isn't something that bothers you.
I agree wholeheartedly with your statement that illegal does not imply immoral and I can perhaps see in my tired mind where parts of my comment may have been misconstrued...and yes there are many immoral laws and vice-versa out there:)
It is still morally wrong. Sorry. I may not agree with the copyright law, but I know if I download a film, I performed something morally wrong however small it may be! Think of it like this: if I drive 26 mph in my neighborhood, I am breaking the law and I know this. If there was a way to catch me (for the sake of this argument assume this is so), I know I would have to pay for the ticket. Will this prevent me from going a couple miles per hour over? No.
The point I am trying to make is that just because it is not that big of deal doesn't make it right and it certain does not abstain one from a personal moral code. In the corporate world, this is what gets the big guys, you know the bastards you hear on the news who did these horrifying things and thought it was fine, in trouble. Having seen this moral slip, in my life, through a friend, I can tell you the slippery slope argument does not apply: what does it the ability to let one-self's moral boundaries slip without at least the acknowledgment that the change occurred. No, downloading illegal games will not cause me to go rob a store later in life or even steal a candy bar from the grocery store, but there is no gray area to a personal ethical code. (We each have our own!)
I am not trying to incite some type of response from you GNUALMAFUERTE, I have many friends who would agree with you and I sometimes find myself on both sides of the argument isle on many occasions, rather I am merely remarking on how we must guard ourselves as a society to where we really want to draw the threshold of "acceptable" at. You would say "Copyright shouldn't exist" and you are entitled to your opinion and I am not arguing this fact, but rather how you justify it. (Again, the fact that you infringe on copyright laws does not phase me at all) What bothers me is that by assembling what you refer to stealing as into physical goods, and generalizing stealing piracy as the duty performed by actual pirates (even the dumb ones who attack Navy ships) the moral threshold for you is that stealing would now require that you perform something remotely close to those acts!
I say relax, grab a beer, go download a song, and say hell with it: yes you broke the law but just like many others going a few over the speed limit, even with full knowledge of the law...this isn't something that bothers you.
Your right on finding the correct quote, thanks for that. As for the applicability of the quote, I went back and read the source. Just like most quotes, my incorrect version and your one sentence could both be taken out of context. Ironically however this is what many have been saying here in the comments about wikileaks: they may present facts out of context on occasion. Similarly, in truth, Ben Franklin was referring to something I may have taken out of context. We should all watch or read the whole thing more often it seems before drawing any conclusion haha. Great point.:)
Exactly AmigaHeretic. It is a moral threshold: sure just about everyone will admit that downloading a movie is "morally wrong" or unlawful. The issue is not whether people consider it a bad thing, but that it is really just a small detail:
Going 5 over the speed limit to many drivers is not that big of deal. Yes they could get caught and yes they know that they will have to pay the consequences...but hell, most people just don't care enough.
Will Google be able to make Metaweb work on their omniscient scale, or was this just Google making sure a startup doesn't become yet another player in search?
Wrong and wrong, you see Google is freebasing now:
The web isn’t merely words[, or water-soluble,] it’s information about things in the real world, and understanding the relationships between real-world entities...
Sometimes you have to give it a good ole "smoke-test" to see the possibilities...Google should be careful though, the path they have chosen is a slippery slope!
There are of course many possibilities of name overlap but I do not think that would be an issue. What it seems they would do is have a registered account to access the internet, similar to that of our Slashdot account except you would only get one, it would use your real name (Social Security number equivalent backing it), and if you posted a bad thing you would lose Karma (being that the largest followed religion is Buddhism). Wait, I've seen that Karma somewhere before...
Although the article does seem biased, I do not mind as I agree with the sentiment that this move to eliminate anonymity is disturbing. This leads me to two questions:
What do you think the "end-game" plan is for the governing body of China?
Full cutoff from the West?
Winning the hearts and minds of its citizens?
Encouraging foreign businesses?
Something else?
Something seems a little backwards here...are they really all that naive to see that they may end up losing control?
On a less serious note, isn't this a copyright violation of Blizzard's real id? I mean Blizzard's is voluntary, but maybe they could sue China for a copyright violation... (yes I am being sarcastic)
I'd say maybe 10% on topic, just to the fact I was trying to point out that since this chemical is so prevalent, enforcing this regulation may be near damn impossible...guess I left that out. (Carlin was indeed lucky if he swam in the overexposed Hudson too)
My youngest daughter just found out she was born with only one kidney after an MRI, and I suspect that it's a birth defect caused by my exposure to dioxins before she was concieved.
If I offended you I did not mean to portray a total disregard to a dangerous substance. Also, you make the point about swimming in raw sewage, or regarding Carlin's humor and I would have to agree: humor is best left as humor.
Slashdot Mirror
This was entirely not the article I expect, damn.
Ignore that, it seems to be a problem with Microsoft's site not actually fetching the page requested every so often. Sorry for the confusion. (Also, yes I notice it's the same link now haha)
A correct link for the article above is here.
Funny, screwed that one up. What I meant was I could not remember what the name of the auction agency was...there is no way you could have grasped that from my previous comment. :)
http://www.linuxhomesecurity.com/ All the surveillance is based on MythTV. Seems open source friendly.
A bunch of tabs for future "support" on that website I see... I really hate to be that guy but it reminds me of this: xkcd
The city where I live has the auction place where older equipment that has survived the corporate environment is auctioned off per pallet. (cannot remember name for the life of me, but that is not important) I remember seeing once an entire pallet, yes forklift style 50+ item pallet of lcd 17 inch monitors go for 50 bucks. Even if half of them didn't work, I think many communities could benefit from a little more collaboration and awareness in what I call "smart economic recycling".
Just my take...
Funny thing is at work, most still tend to use Perl over all other languages when dealing with text, well those with any computer science background...
Note, this is a generalization across 50 or so people where I work, could be different elsewhere.
Good point sir.
Speed Limit Enforced By Aircraft
Not practical (or possible outside of those giant white lines)...but I can't help think how much I would love to be pulled over by an aircraft.
14 years is arbitrary, but within the scope of any law I feel it is important to say that copyright is different that a trademark. I believe songs/software/whatever are not such and the number of years before a song goes said "public" should be significantly lower. Your quote:
Depending on the response to this, it presupposes an answer to the morality of copying such works (>14 years old) with the current law (given the premise morality != law).
Precisely! Morality isn't law and we just, as citizens, gotta work our ass off to fix the laws. But also I believe that artists and musicians are entitled to some compensation as are software developers and the movie industry. Hell give them an incentive to make more material! At the same time, the times are different and there is a population that accepts what 20 years ago very few could have foreseen.
If you wanted a definitive answer, I am sorry I do not have one. I know that by ripping off software I am hurting someone, but at the same time I have excuses to say but I am just perpetuating some fallacy or whatever... In truth, as they say in every economics class out there:
There is no such thing as a free lunch
I do not have the answers, hell I do not think anyone does. But I can tell you it will be interesting to see how the market sculpts the industries over the next few years.
Lastly, I see exactly what you meant...and I think I could say that we both agree to say that this is a two fronted argument with no definitive answer (that changes person to person).
PS: perhaps choice 3? I dunno...haha
Had to look that one up a bit to answer this:
Correct me if I am wrong, but legal positivism embraces the idea that laws are valid not due to natural law or a basis of moral code, but rather that they are set in place by a governing authority and society accepts this to be valid. I usually, when it comes to philosophical views, like to say I am wary to follow any logic completely to its own end. I do not think that all laws are valid due to that simple definition: the system may put a law into effect that the authorities enforce and the rest of society disregards. The law is still a law but by no means is it a valid law if it is universally unaccepted outside the branch of what we deem the authority.
Long story short, I do not like that definition but I cannot quite wrap my head about it. I'd say, a law can be morally sound and vice versa...likewise laws do exist that are immoral and morals do coincide with laws. However, claiming that this is a result of how society forms laws is not as important to the fact that an individual may develop a moral code in contrast to that of society. Perception is reality to an individual, and if that citizen views their moral code to be in conflict with a law then their moral code is at conflict with that law. The law or that person's morality will not change no matter how much I persuade them otherwise or use laws to try to sway the scale of their moral beliefs. Personal ethics are independent, not out of human nature or the lack of morals affecting laws (lawmaker's personal morals), but rather because by definition one is defined by self perception and the other is not.
You would say "Copyright shouldn't exist" and you are entitled to your opinion and I am not arguing this fact, but rather how you justify it.
The morals of copyright were not my argument, nor were the laws. I was merely stating that you cannot bridge the two.
See another response I had. Hope this helps clear my gibberish, I do not disagree with anything you said perhaps other than to what you thought my point was
:)
cheers
Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is a branch of philosophy which seeks to address questions about morality; that is, about concepts such as good and bad, right and wrong, justice, and virtue.
source
I think you are meaning just laws and all branches which others apply onto us, which I agree with you.
I don't give a fuck about the law
No what I was saying is that I know what I am doing is illegal, but that is okay because I justify by my moral threshold. What he is saying is that since his definitions of piracy and theft do not coincide with Copyright, it abstains him from the morality component:
it is ALWAYS ok to 'infringe' on his imaginary rights
I say no, be aware that your breaking the law, but do not extend the law to morality when the issue at hand, as stated by this Slashdot article, is the morality component.
yes you broke the law but...this isn't something that bothers you.
I agree wholeheartedly with your statement that illegal does not imply immoral and I can perhaps see in my tired mind where parts of my comment may have been misconstrued...and yes there are many immoral laws and vice-versa out there :)
It is still morally wrong. Sorry. I may not agree with the copyright law, but I know if I download a film, I performed something morally wrong however small it may be! Think of it like this: if I drive 26 mph in my neighborhood, I am breaking the law and I know this. If there was a way to catch me (for the sake of this argument assume this is so), I know I would have to pay for the ticket. Will this prevent me from going a couple miles per hour over? No.
The point I am trying to make is that just because it is not that big of deal doesn't make it right and it certain does not abstain one from a personal moral code. In the corporate world, this is what gets the big guys, you know the bastards you hear on the news who did these horrifying things and thought it was fine, in trouble. Having seen this moral slip, in my life, through a friend, I can tell you the slippery slope argument does not apply: what does it the ability to let one-self's moral boundaries slip without at least the acknowledgment that the change occurred. No, downloading illegal games will not cause me to go rob a store later in life or even steal a candy bar from the grocery store, but there is no gray area to a personal ethical code. (We each have our own!)
I am not trying to incite some type of response from you GNUALMAFUERTE, I have many friends who would agree with you and I sometimes find myself on both sides of the argument isle on many occasions, rather I am merely remarking on how we must guard ourselves as a society to where we really want to draw the threshold of "acceptable" at. You would say "Copyright shouldn't exist" and you are entitled to your opinion and I am not arguing this fact, but rather how you justify it. (Again, the fact that you infringe on copyright laws does not phase me at all) What bothers me is that by assembling what you refer to stealing as into physical goods, and generalizing stealing piracy as the duty performed by actual pirates (even the dumb ones who attack Navy ships) the moral threshold for you is that stealing would now require that you perform something remotely close to those acts!
I say relax, grab a beer, go download a song, and say hell with it: yes you broke the law but just like many others going a few over the speed limit, even with full knowledge of the law...this isn't something that bothers you.
You'd be surprised how many non-informed individuals think this is the case...
Anyways, hilarious.
Your right on finding the correct quote, thanks for that. As for the applicability of the quote, I went back and read the source. Just like most quotes, my incorrect version and your one sentence could both be taken out of context. Ironically however this is what many have been saying here in the comments about wikileaks: they may present facts out of context on occasion. Similarly, in truth, Ben Franklin was referring to something I may have taken out of context. :)
We should all watch or read the whole thing more often it seems before drawing any conclusion haha. Great point.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
-Benjamin Franklin
Exactly AmigaHeretic. It is a moral threshold: sure just about everyone will admit that downloading a movie is "morally wrong" or unlawful. The issue is not whether people consider it a bad thing, but that it is really just a small detail:
Going 5 over the speed limit to many drivers is not that big of deal. Yes they could get caught and yes they know that they will have to pay the consequences...but hell, most people just don't care enough.
Great point.
Basically I know the lack of efficiency is not the issue - rather it is the fact that nothing else will suffice. Chris Burke nailed it when he stated:
Something the Navy cares about far less than, well, basically every other factor that goes into the design of a naval nuclear power plant.
Plus with the newer prototypes being considered, the need for power on these things could double, we'll see.
Ok, that comment made my day. I'm no OS hater, rather I prefer when people are open-minded.
Will Google be able to make Metaweb work on their omniscient scale, or was this just Google making sure a startup doesn't become yet another player in search?
Wrong and wrong, you see Google is freebasing now:
The web isn’t merely words[, or water-soluble,] it’s information about things in the real world, and understanding the relationships between real-world entities...
Sometimes you have to give it a good ole "smoke-test" to see the possibilities...Google should be careful though, the path they have chosen is a slippery slope!
That was really informative...and I thought my search was reliable on the internet.
thanks
There are of course many possibilities of name overlap but I do not think that would be an issue. What it seems they would do is have a registered account to access the internet, similar to that of our Slashdot account except you would only get one, it would use your real name (Social Security number equivalent backing it), and if you posted a bad thing you would lose Karma (being that the largest followed religion is Buddhism).
Wait, I've seen that Karma somewhere before...
Although the article does seem biased, I do not mind as I agree with the sentiment that this move to eliminate anonymity is disturbing. This leads me to two questions:
Something seems a little backwards here...are they really all that naive to see that they may end up losing control?
Interesting, but completely off topic.
I'd say maybe 10% on topic, just to the fact I was trying to point out that since this chemical is so prevalent, enforcing this regulation may be near damn impossible...guess I left that out. (Carlin was indeed lucky if he swam in the overexposed Hudson too)
My youngest daughter just found out she was born with only one kidney after an MRI, and I suspect that it's a birth defect caused by my exposure to dioxins before she was concieved.
If I offended you I did not mean to portray a total disregard to a dangerous substance. Also, you make the point about swimming in raw sewage, or regarding Carlin's humor and I would have to agree: humor is best left as humor.