If you support the concept of reselling digital content, they you are embracing DRM.
No. I'm saying that I think that DRM is awful and that I think the fact that some people may be dishonest in some people's eyes shouldn't prevent someone from reselling a digital good.
I always find it so ironic when slashdot users express outrage at censorship, then turn around and ban their fellow users from posting and do their very best to hide and prevent dissenting views from being posted or viewed.
How do you know they aren't talking about mandatory government censorship? I'd say it's likely that they are.
Why should we wait until this person has actually killed potentially hundreds of people with a bomb or some similar device or act before acting against him?
Because I care more about protecting innocents from being arrested than I do stopping criminals (even if the criminals are 'dangerous').
you don't go actively looking for such information
Why not? I think they should have to prove that he was indeed going to use this to commit a crime.
can't own guns because you might shoot someone, can't have alcohol in the car because you might drink some (and being impaired you might hit someone), can't own drugs because you might sell/use them.
All I've got is Comcast. That's all I've ever had, too. So if Comcast treats people where I live poorly, there's nothing that can be done (outside of canceling Comcast and getting awful satellite or dial-up).
Not from what I've seen. I've seen people who struggled and struggled and still were only able to learn the most basic concepts. I don't know why, and I don't know about eight year olds, but they were unable to learn it.
And EVERYBODY would benefit from a little basic programming.
Not from what I've seen, no. I know people who would have nothing to gain from such classes.
Not to mention and introduction to logic and breaking tasks down into simple parts. EVERYONE can make use of those skills.
I honestly doubt it has that great of an effect for people who don't have the aptitude/desire (I'd say the majority) to learn it. I honestly doubt it even has that great of an effect on people who want to learn it. At least in terms of teaching people logic. In the real world, I honestly doubt it would do much.
The majority of people won't use a foreign language?
Depends on the country. And different countries have different school systems.
would miss out on an enormous amount of useful information.
Probably wouldn't amount to much, honestly.
As for geography, as a participant in a democracy you get to influence the (foreign) policy of your country by voting. I don't think knowing where a couple of countries are is too much to ask from someone who can influence war.
I'm not seeing the connection here. None of this sounds like it would make that much of a difference for the average person. It would be nice if this knowledge made everyone super intelligent, but from the way things are now, it's clear (to me, at least) that forcing these subjects on people isn't really doing all that much.
You can't have a working democracy without an educated populace.
I wouldn't exactly call them "educated" right now, either. They seem to be "test and forget" people.
As others have said, who makes the choice about what is useful and and what isn't?
The person themselves.
Sometimes you have to realise children are poor decision makers, and until they are begin to pick their own subjects, they need a wide range of topics to be delivered to them and sometimes forced.
Teach them the basics until high school, and then let them choose. If, as high school students, they fail to pick the classes that they'll need, then too bad for them. They can, of course, find another way to acquire the necessary knowledge.
I don't think forcing subjects on people is efficient unless a majority of people will actually use the knowledge. If they don't use the knowledge and don't care about it, it is unlikely that they'll even remember (as far as I've seen). Thus, even if they need to use it in the future, they'll probably already have mostly forgotten it (and will thus need to relearn it). I'd rather people spend their time on subjects that they'll need.
Sorry, but I don't see that happening. The ability to read has been proven to be a very useful skill. The ability to program, while sometimes useful, will probably not be nearly as vital to the population at large at this current point in time (and likely in the near future).
I simply don't see any reason that the majority of people will need to learn how to program. You can use past examples all you want, but that doesn't mean they'll hold true here.
From this it follows that most of what is taught to children most of them won't need so might as well not nether teaching them anything
"Anything"? Teach them things that a majority are likely to use, and leave the rest optional (unless teaching it to them will benefit the majority greatly).
Don't aim so low.
I'm simply saying that forcibly teaching them things that they most likely won't use probably isn't very efficient. It takes time away from learning things that they will use and, at least in some people's eyes, is a waste of time. The classes would still be there, but optional.
Not everyone has the aptitude to do maths or geography or a foreign language or...
And after that: "and a majority probably don't need to"
As for your examples, if the majority of people likely won't use them, then I think they should be optional (basic math will likely be used by everyone).
But I don't think it should ever be forced. Not everyone has the aptitude or desire to learn how to program, and a majority probably don't need to (although, if it turns out that they're somewhat decent at it, it may be able to make some things easier for them).
Every person believes they are not swayed by signs, posters, and advertisements and that every other person is.
Actually, I just don't believe that advertisements/signs/posters send out magical brainwashing waves at all. Well, if they do, they must have erased my memory of buying any of their products (and erased my memory of the products). Because I sure didn't buy anything from them.
including not picking a criminal entity like Megaupload and Kim Schmitz [wikipedia.org] as our poster case
Even if he was/is a criminal, that doesn't mean that they can do whatever they want to him. I don't see where defending him is any less 'legitimate' than anything else. Or are 'they' just looking for a quick, irrelevant detail to discredit their opponents in the eyes of those that I would call ignorant?
How is that at all comparable to websites being held responsible for their users' intentions (typically unknown intentions, as well)? Google analogies don't usually apply, but I think they do here.
But, really, I don't care if someone did do what you said. And if someone truly did not know what would happen in the private rooms, then I guess it would be a somewhat on-topic analogy.
I wasn't talking about this specific instance, but in general.
They ignored takedown requests that they knew to be legitimate on hugely popular files (ie. the latest scene releases) because they were making tons of money.
Really? They didn't even remove the "links"?
They may very well be guilty, but that remains to be seen.
If giving someone money is speech, then I guess punching someone in the face is also speech. They're both actions that don't actually involve speech, after all.
The intentions of their users are quite irrelevant. My point was that they're not selling copyrighted material at all. People view their ads and they make money. People buy premium accounts and they make money. Nowhere does copyright infringement come into this. Nowhere did they specifically sell copyrighted material (that I know of). It's as if they can't have ads on their website because some of their users may be doing illegal (in some places) things.
In short, having ads/premium accounts isn't the same thing as selling copyrighted material.
The twist is that they (allegedly) knowingly paid uploaders who were violating copyright.
What I find strange is that they weren't even profiting off of copyright infringement, but off of people viewing ads and buying premium accounts. It had nothing to do with copyrighted material specifically, yet they're seemingly trying to claim that they profited off of copyright infringement. In order to do that, it seems like they'd have to... sell copyrighted material that they don't have the copyrights to.
They may not be covered by the DMCA safe harbor, but jail time? Really? I find it hard to believe that anyone believes that this is anything more severe than running a red stoplight. Yet it's treated as if it's some sort of national security issue. Nice.
who have profited to the tune of many, many millions of dollars from piracy?
How so? Show me where they were withholding links to copyrighted material specifically and forcing people to pay to download the files. If they did that, then I would agree that they profited from 'piracy'.
However, they merely provided a service. They didn't profit directly from piracy. They profited from people viewing their ads, and from premium accounts. Neither are directly related to piracy. Their users' intentions are irrelevant here.
Slashdot Mirror
so that no copy of the song would ever reside on your computer
So basically, you couldn't even listen to it...
They have to send you the data at some point.
If you support the concept of reselling digital content, they you are embracing DRM.
No. I'm saying that I think that DRM is awful and that I think the fact that some people may be dishonest in some people's eyes shouldn't prevent someone from reselling a digital good.
If you do you're just lying to yourself.
"If you disagree with me, you're just lying to yourself! I know this because I can read minds."
I always find it so ironic when slashdot users express outrage at censorship, then turn around and ban their fellow users from posting and do their very best to hide and prevent dissenting views from being posted or viewed.
How do you know they aren't talking about mandatory government censorship? I'd say it's likely that they are.
life is not black and white
I'd say that's subjective.
only idealists can't make peace with the messiness of how justice actually works in this world
Doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to improve it.
Why should we wait until this person has actually killed potentially hundreds of people with a bomb or some similar device or act before acting against him?
Because I care more about protecting innocents from being arrested than I do stopping criminals (even if the criminals are 'dangerous').
you don't go actively looking for such information
Why not? I think they should have to prove that he was indeed going to use this to commit a crime.
can't own guns because you might shoot someone, can't have alcohol in the car because you might drink some (and being impaired you might hit someone), can't own drugs because you might sell/use them.
And I disagree with those laws, too.
There is absolutely nothing wrong
I disagree. If they wanted to arrest him, then it should be completely up to them to prove he was going to do something.
Because anyone or anything that isn't "normal" must be eliminated. Why? Because I said so.
Everyone must enjoy chatting about 'pointless' things.
All I've got is Comcast. That's all I've ever had, too. So if Comcast treats people where I live poorly, there's nothing that can be done (outside of canceling Comcast and getting awful satellite or dial-up).
They can all learn to program.
Not from what I've seen. I've seen people who struggled and struggled and still were only able to learn the most basic concepts. I don't know why, and I don't know about eight year olds, but they were unable to learn it.
And EVERYBODY would benefit from a little basic programming.
Not from what I've seen, no. I know people who would have nothing to gain from such classes.
Not to mention and introduction to logic and breaking tasks down into simple parts. EVERYONE can make use of those skills.
I honestly doubt it has that great of an effect for people who don't have the aptitude/desire (I'd say the majority) to learn it. I honestly doubt it even has that great of an effect on people who want to learn it. At least in terms of teaching people logic. In the real world, I honestly doubt it would do much.
The majority of people won't use a foreign language?
Depends on the country. And different countries have different school systems.
would miss out on an enormous amount of useful information.
Probably wouldn't amount to much, honestly.
As for geography, as a participant in a democracy you get to influence the (foreign) policy of your country by voting. I don't think knowing where a couple of countries are is too much to ask from someone who can influence war.
I'm not seeing the connection here. None of this sounds like it would make that much of a difference for the average person. It would be nice if this knowledge made everyone super intelligent, but from the way things are now, it's clear (to me, at least) that forcing these subjects on people isn't really doing all that much.
You can't have a working democracy without an educated populace.
I wouldn't exactly call them "educated" right now, either. They seem to be "test and forget" people.
As others have said, who makes the choice about what is useful and and what isn't?
The person themselves.
Sometimes you have to realise children are poor decision makers, and until they are begin to pick their own subjects, they need a wide range of topics to be delivered to them and sometimes forced.
Teach them the basics until high school, and then let them choose. If, as high school students, they fail to pick the classes that they'll need, then too bad for them. They can, of course, find another way to acquire the necessary knowledge.
I don't think forcing subjects on people is efficient unless a majority of people will actually use the knowledge. If they don't use the knowledge and don't care about it, it is unlikely that they'll even remember (as far as I've seen). Thus, even if they need to use it in the future, they'll probably already have mostly forgotten it (and will thus need to relearn it). I'd rather people spend their time on subjects that they'll need.
Sorry, but I don't see that happening. The ability to read has been proven to be a very useful skill. The ability to program, while sometimes useful, will probably not be nearly as vital to the population at large at this current point in time (and likely in the near future).
I simply don't see any reason that the majority of people will need to learn how to program. You can use past examples all you want, but that doesn't mean they'll hold true here.
From this it follows that most of what is taught to children most of them won't need so might as well not nether teaching them anything
"Anything"? Teach them things that a majority are likely to use, and leave the rest optional (unless teaching it to them will benefit the majority greatly).
Don't aim so low.
I'm simply saying that forcibly teaching them things that they most likely won't use probably isn't very efficient. It takes time away from learning things that they will use and, at least in some people's eyes, is a waste of time. The classes would still be there, but optional.
Not everyone has the aptitude to do maths or geography or a foreign language or ...
And after that: "and a majority probably don't need to"
As for your examples, if the majority of people likely won't use them, then I think they should be optional (basic math will likely be used by everyone).
But I don't think it should ever be forced. Not everyone has the aptitude or desire to learn how to program, and a majority probably don't need to (although, if it turns out that they're somewhat decent at it, it may be able to make some things easier for them).
Every person believes they are not swayed by signs, posters, and advertisements and that every other person is.
Actually, I just don't believe that advertisements/signs/posters send out magical brainwashing waves at all. Well, if they do, they must have erased my memory of buying any of their products (and erased my memory of the products). Because I sure didn't buy anything from them.
including not picking a criminal entity like Megaupload and Kim Schmitz [wikipedia.org] as our poster case
Even if he was/is a criminal, that doesn't mean that they can do whatever they want to him. I don't see where defending him is any less 'legitimate' than anything else. Or are 'they' just looking for a quick, irrelevant detail to discredit their opponents in the eyes of those that I would call ignorant?
How is that at all comparable to websites being held responsible for their users' intentions (typically unknown intentions, as well)? Google analogies don't usually apply, but I think they do here.
But, really, I don't care if someone did do what you said. And if someone truly did not know what would happen in the private rooms, then I guess it would be a somewhat on-topic analogy.
You've read the indictment, right?
I wasn't talking about this specific instance, but in general.
They ignored takedown requests that they knew to be legitimate on hugely popular files (ie. the latest scene releases) because they were making tons of money.
Really? They didn't even remove the "links"?
They may very well be guilty, but that remains to be seen.
If giving someone money is speech, then I guess punching someone in the face is also speech. They're both actions that don't actually involve speech, after all.
The intentions of their users are quite irrelevant. My point was that they're not selling copyrighted material at all. People view their ads and they make money. People buy premium accounts and they make money. Nowhere does copyright infringement come into this. Nowhere did they specifically sell copyrighted material (that I know of). It's as if they can't have ads on their website because some of their users may be doing illegal (in some places) things.
In short, having ads/premium accounts isn't the same thing as selling copyrighted material.
The twist is that they (allegedly) knowingly paid uploaders who were violating copyright.
What I find strange is that they weren't even profiting off of copyright infringement, but off of people viewing ads and buying premium accounts. It had nothing to do with copyrighted material specifically, yet they're seemingly trying to claim that they profited off of copyright infringement. In order to do that, it seems like they'd have to... sell copyrighted material that they don't have the copyrights to.
They may not be covered by the DMCA safe harbor, but jail time? Really? I find it hard to believe that anyone believes that this is anything more severe than running a red stoplight. Yet it's treated as if it's some sort of national security issue. Nice.
twist the concept of morality
What does that even mean?
who have profited to the tune of many, many millions of dollars from piracy?
How so? Show me where they were withholding links to copyrighted material specifically and forcing people to pay to download the files. If they did that, then I would agree that they profited from 'piracy'.
However, they merely provided a service. They didn't profit directly from piracy. They profited from people viewing their ads, and from premium accounts. Neither are directly related to piracy. Their users' intentions are irrelevant here.
Does "sticking it to the man" forgive all?
No, and that's just a straw man.