It's hard to think how Microsoft can make the next Windows better from Windows 7.
They'll just change a few things and charge over $100 for it (like they did with Windows Vista and 7). Sure, they might be okay operating systems, but I'm sure not going to buy them unless they add something noteworthy (a few features that save some time aren't noteworthy).
As we all know, DRM puts a stop to copyright infringement. If they make it less effective (you have to try to piss off your customers as much as possible when developing a DRM scheme), then they'll surely crack it (completely unheard of)! This was just a bad decision all around. What they need to do is have it so all of their customers must beg for access to the game before they are allowed to play it.
You can't. "But what if you could" isn't a relevant question, then.
Uh, yes it is. You seem to be failing to understand that censorship doesn't become okay just because the government isn't the one who first initiated it (even though they play a large role in the court cases and forcing the people to censor the speech).
If you want to play "what if" I'll just ask what happens if a motivated, well-organized group of people get together and push through a Constitutional amendment (it's happened before -- see the 18th Amendment) repealing freedom of speech?
That would be bad. Seriously, what was I supposed to say here? We're talking about how it suddenly becomes okay to censor speech simply because it isn't the government that first initiates the censorship (even though they're heavily involved).
Do you even know what a court is?
The supreme court has the power to interpret the constitution, not change its meaning to whatever they please.
The Constitution isn't a cut-and-dried "take the literal meaning of the literal text and nothing else" document, and courts can and have upheld punishing people for merely uttering threats.
Well, since it lists no exceptions (it's not like threats and such didn't exist back then), the constitution seems to favor my conclusion.
Though perhaps you can point me to the part of the Constitution which explicitly denies to federal courts the right to rule on cases arising under the Constitution (oh wait, it actually has a part that says exactly the opposite, which is why courts get to determine whether laws are in accord with the Constitution or not).
It says that they can interpret (adapt it to situations that they couldn't have predicted or figure out what it was supposed to mean as closely as possible, not make exceptions to its rules) it, not change its meaning. No interpretation is needed for free speech.
If I make up some posters with your name and address on them, and a warning saying you're a registered sex offender who molested children, and then put them up all around your city, all I've done is "speech" -- I've just strung together some words and published them for all to see.
You're right. It would just be speech. That's why people shouldn't be so naive and idiotic to believe whatever they hear, and instead only believe it if it had evidence to back it up. This isn't difficult to understand.
But since we've already established that you'd flunk first-year Constitutional law, I don't know that it does me any good to try to explain it to you.
How did I flunk it? How is your 'interpretation' better than mine? You'd be absolutely insane to claim that the constitution gives the supreme court the ability to ignore it and make up whatever they wish (as I said, they can interpret it).
When a thief takes a good from the store, the good is no longer there. I could understand people who don't understand what the act of copyright infringement actually involves not knowing the difference, but someone browsing this website (multiple people, no less)? Come on. It's simply not the same thing. The thief is accused of taking the good, not money that never existed in the first place.
And you possess no reading comprehension skills whatsoever, because I pointed out that you can't be sued for saying "something someone disagreed with".
Is it so difficult to understand that I used a "what if" scenario? I was saying that just because the government doesn't take the initiative to censor the speech, that doesn't mean that free speech isn't being censored due to their actions (and it certainly doesn't make it okay). What if you could be sued for saying something that someone disagreed with? Would it be okay (and not be protected by the first amendment) simply because the government wasn't the one that made the first initiative to stop them?
For example, not even the most expansive reading of the First Amendment would protect the sequence of words "give me all your money or I'll shoot you" when uttered to someone you've just walked up to on the street -- in fact, that sequence of words can easily land you in jail.
Of course free speech protects that. Do you even know what free speech is? Speech without limit. The constitution mentions no such limits. Of course, if someone actually acts (or begins acting) upon that threat, then something should be done.
What the First Amendment protects is the expression of beliefs and opinions
Please point out where it explicitly says that it doesn't protect all speech.
or do harm
This is about speech, not actions which actually do harm.
I don't see how it's a waste of time to prevent the theft of potential profit (it's theft even though the copyright holder never had the money in their possession anyway). I just hope they ban competition, the act of a consumer to choose not to buy something, and negative user reviews soon. That way, potential future gain could no longer be stolen!
I can live another day knowing that less potential profit is being stolen (which is totally possible even though it doesn't even exist in the hands of the copyright holder anyway). It's really nice to see that petty things that should be up to the copyright holder to attempt to stop are being handled by the police (who don't have anything better to do).
Fortunately, "I disagree with this" is not grounds for a defamation suit.
You missed my point. I was saying that just because freedom of speech is stripped away or limited with a civil suit, that doesn't mean that it's okay.
it's a civil court
The point is that the government is still involved and your speech is being effectively limited because of it. You can't just say "it's a civil suit, so speech can be limited in whatever ways the government allows people to sue for!" Sorry, but if I could be sued for saying something someone disagreed with, my speech has been effectively limited, in no small part due to the government allowing it.
Why is it that you don't seem to understand that they have more uses than just entertainment? Have you not read the countless comments here of people saying that they actually perform better taking notes with a laptop than if they were to write it all down? That is but a single legitimate use. It's a distraction for very, very few people, and banning it to appease them is not the proper solution.
As I said here, perhaps I did use poor wording, but my point still stands. Useful technology shouldn't be banned simply because a few people can't pay attention.
You're wrong. Amazon is censoring it. While it's true that the government isn't doing it and they can go elsewhere, Amazon is still censoring the material on their end (which they're allowed to do). Technically, it is still censorship.
Probably more of a bad choice of words (I tend to do that sometimes). Anyway, my point was that banning a useful tool because a small handful of students can't pay attention isn't a sensible solution. Unless the people with a laptop are being loud and obnoxious, there's no reason for them to do this (and any 'banning' or 'warning' should be done on an individual basis). Other people also suggested that the people with laptops sit in the back, the people who are easily distracted sit in the front, or both.
Smoking around others harms their health. At most, using a laptop in class will cause some of the weaker-minded students who couldn't concentrate even if laptops were banned to become distracted. Such unmotivated people aren't even worth worrying about, and they're certainly not worth banning a useful tool over. If you want to pay attention to the lecture, then pay attention to it. Unless they're being loud, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to.
That would be a valid line of reasoning if we didn't have 200+ years of interpretation of the constitution to tell us that it isn't a literal interpretation that counts.
Again, that isn't what interpretation means. It doesn't matter how long they've been doing it incorrectly, because it has always been incorrect. It mentions interpretation, not change.
I realize that the right likes to claim that if it isn't literally there under their interpretation that it isn't there, but that's not true.
Right? Left? I don't adhere to such labels or groups.
Except that the government is involved and they're ordering you to censor speech due to the actions of another, correct? I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't support (for example) the ability for someone to sue someone else merely because the other person said something that they disagreed with, all because the lawsuit is started by people and not the government.
You have to stay in touch with him, keep letting him know what you want him to do on particular issues, just like you have to steer a car to keep it moving in a straight line.
That would be nice if it actually worked. The fact of the matter is, however, that in most circumstances, they don't have to listen to the people to get their vote. All they have to do is either pretend that they can't resolve the issue and put on a show, come up with numerous examples about why something can't be resolved, or just lie in general. I don't see how else the same two parties are continuously voted in again and again.
What we need is balance of power between the government and the people. The government shouldn't be able to effectively shut out their voice once they have power, but the people also shouldn't have too much.
It's unbelievably naive to assume that you can always be open and honest in your dealings and expect to survive.
To everyone in the world? Perhaps not. To the people of which the government is supposed to be representing? Certainly. I'd rather take my chances and face any 'danger' that this would supposedly present rather than continue down the path of corruption that we are on right now.
it's constantly under flux throughout all layers of the US legislative branch.
It certainly isn't supposed to be, is it? Would I be incorrect if I stated that the constitution (especially the bill of rights) is supposed to be interpreted, and not changed completely? I believe that is the power (interpretation) that the supreme court has, is it not? It's very clear about freedom of speech. There's really no room for interpretation there (going by what is written in the constitution).
Also, as I said, you can't claim to have free speech without allowing all kinds of speech. Otherwise it should be "mostly free," but that isn't what the constitution states, anyway.
but out of decency it should really point out simple malicious abuse
But, the above isn't to say that I don't believe that they should at least make it clear that the information is false (if it is).
Slashdot Mirror
It's hard to think how Microsoft can make the next Windows better from Windows 7.
They'll just change a few things and charge over $100 for it (like they did with Windows Vista and 7). Sure, they might be okay operating systems, but I'm sure not going to buy them unless they add something noteworthy (a few features that save some time aren't noteworthy).
Well, of course! Why would they want to protect someone who doesn't have massive amounts of money?
He finally realized what a dirty, thieving bastard he was trying to get everybody to be.
As a copyright infringer, I often break into peoples' houses and rob them blind!
As we all know, DRM puts a stop to copyright infringement. If they make it less effective (you have to try to piss off your customers as much as possible when developing a DRM scheme), then they'll surely crack it (completely unheard of)! This was just a bad decision all around. What they need to do is have it so all of their customers must beg for access to the game before they are allowed to play it.
You can't. "But what if you could" isn't a relevant question, then.
Uh, yes it is. You seem to be failing to understand that censorship doesn't become okay just because the government isn't the one who first initiated it (even though they play a large role in the court cases and forcing the people to censor the speech).
If you want to play "what if" I'll just ask what happens if a motivated, well-organized group of people get together and push through a Constitutional amendment (it's happened before -- see the 18th Amendment) repealing freedom of speech?
That would be bad. Seriously, what was I supposed to say here? We're talking about how it suddenly becomes okay to censor speech simply because it isn't the government that first initiates the censorship (even though they're heavily involved).
Do you even know what a court is?
The supreme court has the power to interpret the constitution, not change its meaning to whatever they please.
The Constitution isn't a cut-and-dried "take the literal meaning of the literal text and nothing else" document, and courts can and have upheld punishing people for merely uttering threats.
Well, since it lists no exceptions (it's not like threats and such didn't exist back then), the constitution seems to favor my conclusion.
Though perhaps you can point me to the part of the Constitution which explicitly denies to federal courts the right to rule on cases arising under the Constitution (oh wait, it actually has a part that says exactly the opposite, which is why courts get to determine whether laws are in accord with the Constitution or not).
It says that they can interpret (adapt it to situations that they couldn't have predicted or figure out what it was supposed to mean as closely as possible, not make exceptions to its rules) it, not change its meaning. No interpretation is needed for free speech.
If I make up some posters with your name and address on them, and a warning saying you're a registered sex offender who molested children, and then put them up all around your city, all I've done is "speech" -- I've just strung together some words and published them for all to see.
You're right. It would just be speech. That's why people shouldn't be so naive and idiotic to believe whatever they hear, and instead only believe it if it had evidence to back it up. This isn't difficult to understand.
But since we've already established that you'd flunk first-year Constitutional law, I don't know that it does me any good to try to explain it to you.
How did I flunk it? How is your 'interpretation' better than mine? You'd be absolutely insane to claim that the constitution gives the supreme court the ability to ignore it and make up whatever they wish (as I said, they can interpret it).
When a thief takes a good from the store, the good is no longer there. I could understand people who don't understand what the act of copyright infringement actually involves not knowing the difference, but someone browsing this website (multiple people, no less)? Come on. It's simply not the same thing. The thief is accused of taking the good, not money that never existed in the first place.
And you possess no reading comprehension skills whatsoever, because I pointed out that you can't be sued for saying "something someone disagreed with".
Is it so difficult to understand that I used a "what if" scenario? I was saying that just because the government doesn't take the initiative to censor the speech, that doesn't mean that free speech isn't being censored due to their actions (and it certainly doesn't make it okay). What if you could be sued for saying something that someone disagreed with? Would it be okay (and not be protected by the first amendment) simply because the government wasn't the one that made the first initiative to stop them?
For example, not even the most expansive reading of the First Amendment would protect the sequence of words "give me all your money or I'll shoot you" when uttered to someone you've just walked up to on the street -- in fact, that sequence of words can easily land you in jail.
Of course free speech protects that. Do you even know what free speech is? Speech without limit. The constitution mentions no such limits. Of course, if someone actually acts (or begins acting) upon that threat, then something should be done.
What the First Amendment protects is the expression of beliefs and opinions
Please point out where it explicitly says that it doesn't protect all speech.
or do harm
This is about speech, not actions which actually do harm.
but it's really an ongoing debate
Well, I suppose it is a little bit difficult to steal something that doesn't even exist...
governments take orders from and act on behalf of large corporations
I thought everyone knew this...
I don't see how it's a waste of time to prevent the theft of potential profit (it's theft even though the copyright holder never had the money in their possession anyway). I just hope they ban competition, the act of a consumer to choose not to buy something, and negative user reviews soon. That way, potential future gain could no longer be stolen!
The FBI, then. Or at least, they were involved.
I can live another day knowing that less potential profit is being stolen (which is totally possible even though it doesn't even exist in the hands of the copyright holder anyway). It's really nice to see that petty things that should be up to the copyright holder to attempt to stop are being handled by the police (who don't have anything better to do).
Fortunately, "I disagree with this" is not grounds for a defamation suit.
You missed my point. I was saying that just because freedom of speech is stripped away or limited with a civil suit, that doesn't mean that it's okay.
it's a civil court
The point is that the government is still involved and your speech is being effectively limited because of it. You can't just say "it's a civil suit, so speech can be limited in whatever ways the government allows people to sue for!" Sorry, but if I could be sued for saying something someone disagreed with, my speech has been effectively limited, in no small part due to the government allowing it.
Why is it that you don't seem to understand that they have more uses than just entertainment? Have you not read the countless comments here of people saying that they actually perform better taking notes with a laptop than if they were to write it all down? That is but a single legitimate use. It's a distraction for very, very few people, and banning it to appease them is not the proper solution.
As I said here, perhaps I did use poor wording, but my point still stands. Useful technology shouldn't be banned simply because a few people can't pay attention.
You're wrong. Amazon is censoring it. While it's true that the government isn't doing it and they can go elsewhere, Amazon is still censoring the material on their end (which they're allowed to do). Technically, it is still censorship.
A curious choice of words.
Probably more of a bad choice of words (I tend to do that sometimes). Anyway, my point was that banning a useful tool because a small handful of students can't pay attention isn't a sensible solution. Unless the people with a laptop are being loud and obnoxious, there's no reason for them to do this (and any 'banning' or 'warning' should be done on an individual basis). Other people also suggested that the people with laptops sit in the back, the people who are easily distracted sit in the front, or both.
Also: who cares? If you don't like it, don't shop there.
Great plan! Now all we need to do is rid a majority of the population of its ignorance so that this will actually have some noticeable effect.
Smoking is a choice too.
Smoking around others harms their health. At most, using a laptop in class will cause some of the weaker-minded students who couldn't concentrate even if laptops were banned to become distracted. Such unmotivated people aren't even worth worrying about, and they're certainly not worth banning a useful tool over. If you want to pay attention to the lecture, then pay attention to it. Unless they're being loud, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to.
That would be a valid line of reasoning if we didn't have 200+ years of interpretation of the constitution to tell us that it isn't a literal interpretation that counts.
Again, that isn't what interpretation means. It doesn't matter how long they've been doing it incorrectly, because it has always been incorrect. It mentions interpretation, not change.
I realize that the right likes to claim that if it isn't literally there under their interpretation that it isn't there, but that's not true.
Right? Left? I don't adhere to such labels or groups.
And this isn't government restricting speech
Except that the government is involved and they're ordering you to censor speech due to the actions of another, correct? I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't support (for example) the ability for someone to sue someone else merely because the other person said something that they disagreed with, all because the lawsuit is started by people and not the government.
You have to stay in touch with him, keep letting him know what you want him to do on particular issues, just like you have to steer a car to keep it moving in a straight line.
That would be nice if it actually worked. The fact of the matter is, however, that in most circumstances, they don't have to listen to the people to get their vote. All they have to do is either pretend that they can't resolve the issue and put on a show, come up with numerous examples about why something can't be resolved, or just lie in general. I don't see how else the same two parties are continuously voted in again and again.
What we need is balance of power between the government and the people. The government shouldn't be able to effectively shut out their voice once they have power, but the people also shouldn't have too much.
It's unbelievably naive to assume that you can always be open and honest in your dealings and expect to survive.
To everyone in the world? Perhaps not. To the people of which the government is supposed to be representing? Certainly. I'd rather take my chances and face any 'danger' that this would supposedly present rather than continue down the path of corruption that we are on right now.
it's constantly under flux throughout all layers of the US legislative branch.
It certainly isn't supposed to be, is it? Would I be incorrect if I stated that the constitution (especially the bill of rights) is supposed to be interpreted, and not changed completely? I believe that is the power (interpretation) that the supreme court has, is it not? It's very clear about freedom of speech. There's really no room for interpretation there (going by what is written in the constitution).
Also, as I said, you can't claim to have free speech without allowing all kinds of speech. Otherwise it should be "mostly free," but that isn't what the constitution states, anyway.
but out of decency it should really point out simple malicious abuse
But, the above isn't to say that I don't believe that they should at least make it clear that the information is false (if it is).
Your first paragraph is a logical fallacy.
Which one, and why? I can't improve myself if you neglect to mention such important details.
as such, I did not read your entire post, I recommend others do the same.
You disregarded my entire argument because you believe that I used a logical fallacy instead of just disregarding the actual fallacy?