It's an interesting thought, perhaps someone with some sociology and/or psychology expertise can offer further insight.
My admittedly un-expert thought is that I like the idea of training ourselves to do those things which we generally agree are preferred, and to encourage an aversion to counter-productive behaviors. In fact, much of our "child raising" and "education" and even cultural traditions hinge on doing just that, and generally with measurably effective results.
However, I see at least two problems with carrying this onward to historical revisionism to such an extent.
Firstly, in any statistically significant sample of humanity there will be a range of responses to any given stimulus, including utterly aberrant outliers. So, erasing knowledge of past errors will not prevent recurrence, and in fact, people will invent new ways to screw everything up without any knowledge or assistance at all.
Secondly, extending from the first point, any significant sample of humanity (larger than one) will be unable to agree on precisely what is the most desirable reaction to a given stimulus, thus the best you can hope for is some regional or otherwise cross-sectional compromise.
In fact, looking back at my earlier paragraph, that's what we already have.
"We" (for some value of "we") already employ revisionist history, self-delusion, fables, indoctrination, propaganda, war, and politics to attempt to eliminate behaviors "we" find undesirable. And look at the mess "we" are in...
I think that perhaps the opposite is more desirable as a tonic for what ails "us". Harsh, unflinching realism and measurable data about actions and results in human history. Apply the scientific method to the data, devise hypotheses for improvements, test, measure, lather, rinse, repeat.
But I expect there are plenty who prefer dogma and revisionism, so I guess we'll have to compromise on something in between.
numerous keyboards. I'd like a model M for the daytime, but I'm sure my spouse is happier in the darker hours with the quiet keyboard I currently have plugged in.
My phone has a touchscreen keyboard, which I've gotten a little bit used to, but there's no way I'd program on it. I don't even like programming on a laptop keyboard.
On a real keyboard, my fingers do what my brain thinks, and there it is, on the screen. Haptics or not, I'd still have to look at my fingers without some kind of dimpled surface on the touch screen. Unless they figure out some way to trick my fingers into feeling the dimples when they aren't there.
Politicians only wake up when someone waves money under their noses. The ones with the money want things to stay as they are. So politicians are essentially paid to stir the food around the plate so it looks like we might have eaten some of our vegetables, but actually haven't.
I think what has happened is that while most of us could agree on a goal (prosperity, peace, security) we have become intractably entrenched in our largely foolish and misinformed opinions about how to get there.
And of course, the plutocrats, they be laughing all the way to the bank while the rest of the folk lob grenades at each other from their trenches. Keeps 'em distracted, you know.
While I fear that you are correct about the motivations of politicians and despots (an overlapping set, of course) it's also an unfortunate truth that in the absence of collective action, ANYONE with a gun, or just a big stick, can and will take away all the freedom, prosperity, and peace that you have. The difficult trick, and one we are still far from solving, is how to strike the right balance for peaceful cooperation and maximum quality of life for all. I concur that a government must be limited, and strictly so, but exactly where to set those limits is a matter of considerable debate.
In my experience, the people who complain most loudly about the power of government are the ones who imagine themselves as the ones with the guns and big sticks, who want the 'freedom' to force everyone around them to live according to their own particular and usually selfish and short-sighted desires. Enforcing the sort of equality that allows EVERYONE to have a fair shot at living according to their own wishes requires a significant amount of collective power, and a cultural desire to provide that equality. In the US where I live, and in many other nations, we publicly claim to espouse such a cultural desire, but when it comes down to voting, or individual actions, we often force majority opinions on the minority against their will and in direct rebuttal of our own lofty claims.
Nonetheless, most folks are just trying to do more or less the best they can with the cards they've been dealt. Most see the world through the prism of their cultural upbringing, and have little interest in what goes on outside their own parochial point of view. Some few become political leaders, because frankly, somebody has to do it, and in current scenarios those with self-serving ambitions can use politics to achieve them, and can and do eradicate any opposition serving more altruistic goals. Democracy, though, for all of its ridiculous flaws, is still the best solution we've come up with. Improving on it will be a long and difficult road.
Until that distant future day when we've figured out a way to get people to cooperate more amicably, there will have to be limitations set by the group on the actions of individuals. And there will always be individuals who think there should be more, or fewer, restrictions.
In a corollary, the two judges who have ruled that the 'mandate' portion of the law passes Constitutional muster are Clinton appointees, and the one who ruled otherwise is a Bush appointee.
This whole thing turned into political gaming as soon as it hit Congress in the first place. It has nothing to do with what is best for the citizens of the US.
Being, in general, a pragmatist, my preference would be to look around the world at the different ways of providing health care, and pick some best practices to try, then adjust as the results come in. That, however, wouldn't work in the US, because politics is about defeating the hated enemy on the other side of the aisle, not about good government.
The truth is, I was using a bit of hyperbole to point out that 'personal freedom' is rarely as simple as it seems, and that one's actions often carry consequences not only beyond the obvious, but beyond one's knowledge. Also, I've noticed that the people who make the most noise about personal freedom often are the same ones who complain most loudly about how they are affected by other people's actions. So I turned a common argument from that quarter back on the source, so to speak.
My REAL opinion is that health care should be considered a basic need, and provided to all as equitably as possible. I am utterly dismayed by the fact that in the US we allow more US citizens to die every year due to lack of health insurance than have been killed by acts of terrorism in all of our nation's history. A small fraction of the money we've spent on killing and destroying in the name of the "War on Terror" would have saved more American lives in a month than we've "saved" with years of war. But I digress.
To simplify:
I do not begrudge the health care given to people who need it, even if they caused their own problem through gross stupidity like tobacco use, even though it costs me extra to cover some of them, and even if they whine about me pointing out their idiocy.
I do begrudge every penny spent to prop up the profits of an industry that kills millions and produces no benefit in return, other than to keep certain lawmakers empowered. The jobs produced cannot begin to compensate for the financial and health and life losses induced.
I like having the freedom to smoke cigarettes, and cry baby nanny-staters like DoofusOfDeath make me angry.
Even I, a non-smoker, get angry when people try to impose things on smokers, because an attack on someone's freedom to do something that doesn't harm others is an attack on my freedom to do the same. And no, I'm not talking about restrictions on smoking in public spaces where the smoke affects others; I'm talking about restrictions/taxes on smoking on private property where the smoke doesn't drift on to neighboring property and the property owner is OK with smoking.
How about the increase in the cost of my healthcare due to people with tobacco induced illnesses who can't pay their medical bills?
It's really quite simple. There are people who create and sell an addictive product which kills people. They know it, we know it, the idiots who kill themselves with the product know it, and at least in the US, we subsidize the process with tax breaks for the industry and 'free' emergency room care for the idiots. The manufacturers and sellers of tobacco, and the politicians who accept their campaign bribes, are murderers and thieves.
I'll accept the 'personal freedom' argument when smokers grow their own tobacco without tax subsidies, and are turned away from emergency rooms and allowed to die on their own terms. When that happens, go ahead, knock yourself out. Literally.
(Yes, I just signed up for next year's health insurance plan, which costs more than my mortgage.)
In some parts of the country, cigs go for eight bucks A PACK. Show me an "inspected and cared for" tomato going for 8 bucks...
It's not the cigs that cost that much. It's all the sin-taxes put one them that make them that expensive. Tobacco is relatively cheap.
Actually, it's the health care and lost productivity costs that make them so expensive, both to the user and to society at large. The taxes are just a down payment.
the spirit of the law is that big corporations and corporate are implicitly responsible, good and therefore in the right. When they don't like what a young person does that young person is in the wrong. It's just that simple
What a bunch of whiny bullshit.
I agree that the quoted statement is lacking in demonstrable basis, but it's also obviously opinion and illustrative hyperbole. Your response, however, is hardly raising the level of discourse.
Plenty of large companies get their asses handed to them in court. And plenty of "young people" are, indeed, busy ripping off entertainment so they don't have to spend their Double Skinny Grande Half-Caffe Latte money on the movie they want to see.
I believe you are correct on both counts, though I don't have real data to support my impression.
The funny thing is that you don't even see the irony in making absurd, sweeping generalizations as you complain about being on the recieving end of absurd, sweeping generalizations.
I'm pretty sure that absurd sweeping generalizations are the norm for human discourse, considerably mitigating the ironic impact. Personally, I find it more disheartening than amusing. Also, as I don't know either of you, I won't propose to know whether you are aware of irony or absurdity, in yourselves or in others.
Come back when you have formed a business (you know, incorporated), and have spent some time dealing with the paperwork and legal entanglements. Then create something that a lot of people want, and which is therefore widely ripped off by people who don't think they have any obligation to meet their entertainers in an actual market (nope! entertainment slaves are just fine, right?), and spend some time enjoying that scenario for a while.
I agree that people would understand these issues better with personal experience on the other side of the equation. That's really not a legitimate demand, though, in most cases. You'll have to resort to reason, and some good logical arguments. (As opposed to variations on ad hominem.)
"Young people" who leech off of the creative people whose work they want are in no position to complain when they get spanked for doing so.
Well, it's hard to argue with a strawman, so I'll agree that if we define 'leeching' as a 'spankable' offense, such is the wages of leeching.
Ah, now we get to the part where I present my own opinion. What fun!
Let's start with my credentials: A member of my immediate family works as a professional creative type in the movie business. Just wrapped a project this past week, in fact, which will become one of those infamous MPAA films seen in movie theaters all over the world. So, I have a personal vested interest in the ongoing health of that industry.
Hey, there's the operative goal - health of the industry. Opportunities for people to both make and enjoy films. (or music, or written works, etc. etc.)
I have heard a great deal of sound and fury about the despicable pirates and about the greedy corporations, but I've not yet seen real analysis of the impacts of the situation, using numbers that hold up to scrutiny. Just blustery wild claims and numbers pulled from thin air.
Personally, I don't care a whit whether XYZ corporation goes in the tank because they can't maintain profitability as the market situation changes. (Though I'm sure holders of XYZ stock care.) I care about opportunities for my family member to pursue creative activities as a career.
I am concerned that the various industry organizations are clinging to the past, and will fail to adapt to the reality that people are going to copy and distribute bits. Crying and suing and legislating simply will not stop it. DRM sure as heck won't stop it. If it can be viewed, it can be duplicated.
I would much rather see efforts to adapt to change, rather than this ongoing PR
In that case, you're paying for the materials and effort that went into preparing and printing and distributing the text, and for the physical medium. It's your choice whether you think that's worth the cost. Usually those books are significantly less expensive to buy than books requiring royalties and so forth.
In the case of electronic media distributed via network, the situation is quite different, since what you are purchasing is a sequence of on and off current in a certain pattern. There's a tiny cost to distribute the pattern to an individual, but it's so negligible as to be nearly immeasurable in financial terms. The distributor sends the on/off sequence and you record it on your own medium, usually a magnetic hard disk drive, and perhaps subsequently you may re-copy it onto other media, but therein lies a whole other digression on rights.
The measurable portion of the cost of distributing such patterns lies in financial obligations to the owner or licensee with the rights to that particular pattern of on/off.
In the case in question, it appears that certain patterns of on/off were used without compensation to the owner of said pattern, in disregard of the established statutes and practices.
Hypocrisy? That seems a matter of opinion, frankly.
As to your question... yes, the formatting is enough to make it acceptable, because nobody's rights are being abrogated. If they were to obtain an electronic copy of last week's best seller and format and sell it without permission from or compensation to the rights holder, that would not be acceptable.
I really think that the main interest in this matter is not that someone did something naughty. (pirating, plagiarizing, violating copyrights, etc. etc.)
The interest here is that upon being caught, they not only didn't admit wrongdoing, but made a foolish claim about the legalities involved. It's a humorous interest, in a rubbernecky sort of way.
Of course, some people have a different interest. Some people will use the ruckus as an opportunity to gratify an urge to publicly air an ongoing pet peeve, which may even have developed into a hobby, judging from certain sigs.
I'll admit to a certain degree of a similar tendency - that of responding to such posts with a manufactured air of rationality and detachment. But hey, everyone needs a hobby, right?;)
"Slashdot" is a collection of widely varying opinions.
Many posters criticize existing copyright and patent laws, and many defend them. The extremes are the most memorable, of course, as with most things in life.
I'd appreciate not being lumped in as 'people' and assigned an opinion without my consent.
On the other hand, you are probably correct that 'some' people will side with the author without giving due consideration to all aspects of the matter. That's a common failing in humans.
'Some' people develop prejudices, whether they be against (or for) corporations, operating systems, software licenses, text editors, or Slashdot posters... or, say, ethnic or religious groups. Prejudice is another common failing in humans.
I'd appreciate if you would elaborate your post with more specifics, demographic data, case studies, or even just some links. As it is it feels to me like a set of opinions in a context vacuum, and replete with loaded phrases and unsupported claims. You may well be entirely or largely correct, but somehow it comes across to me as if you are angry about something, and venting your emotions.
Not that emotional venting is necessarily bad, since we all need to find outlets other than clubbing each other with sticks and rocks. Posting on Slashdot might be a good choice.
Slashdot Mirror
How long until the witch hunts begin, and we start removing undesirable thoughts/people/etc?
And when, exactly, did they stop?
Darn you, you made me laugh so hard last week's chocolate milk came out of my nose.
It's an interesting thought, perhaps someone with some sociology and/or psychology expertise can offer further insight.
My admittedly un-expert thought is that I like the idea of training ourselves to do those things which we generally agree are preferred, and to encourage an aversion to counter-productive behaviors. In fact, much of our "child raising" and "education" and even cultural traditions hinge on doing just that, and generally with measurably effective results.
However, I see at least two problems with carrying this onward to historical revisionism to such an extent.
Firstly, in any statistically significant sample of humanity there will be a range of responses to any given stimulus, including utterly aberrant outliers. So, erasing knowledge of past errors will not prevent recurrence, and in fact, people will invent new ways to screw everything up without any knowledge or assistance at all.
Secondly, extending from the first point, any significant sample of humanity (larger than one) will be unable to agree on precisely what is the most desirable reaction to a given stimulus, thus the best you can hope for is some regional or otherwise cross-sectional compromise.
In fact, looking back at my earlier paragraph, that's what we already have.
"We" (for some value of "we") already employ revisionist history, self-delusion, fables, indoctrination, propaganda, war, and politics to attempt to eliminate behaviors "we" find undesirable. And look at the mess "we" are in...
I think that perhaps the opposite is more desirable as a tonic for what ails "us". Harsh, unflinching realism and measurable data about actions and results in human history. Apply the scientific method to the data, devise hypotheses for improvements, test, measure, lather, rinse, repeat.
But I expect there are plenty who prefer dogma and revisionism, so I guess we'll have to compromise on something in between.
numerous keyboards. I'd like a model M for the daytime, but I'm sure my spouse is happier in the darker hours with the quiet keyboard I currently have plugged in.
My phone has a touchscreen keyboard, which I've gotten a little bit used to, but there's no way I'd program on it. I don't even like programming on a laptop keyboard.
On a real keyboard, my fingers do what my brain thinks, and there it is, on the screen. Haptics or not, I'd still have to look at my fingers without some kind of dimpled surface on the touch screen. Unless they figure out some way to trick my fingers into feeling the dimples when they aren't there.
But at that point, why bother?
..to my new desktop background.
I already own every one of their albums, several in multiple physical formats, as well as a good bit of their various individual projects.
Shouldn't everyone have to spend gobs of cash and years (decades) of collecting to enjoy some Floyd?
(I'm tired of having to respond to people who fail the sarcasm detection test... THAT WAS SARCASM)
Politicians only wake up when someone waves money under their noses. The ones with the money want things to stay as they are. So politicians are essentially paid to stir the food around the plate so it looks like we might have eaten some of our vegetables, but actually haven't.
I think what has happened is that while most of us could agree on a goal (prosperity, peace, security) we have become intractably entrenched in our largely foolish and misinformed opinions about how to get there.
And of course, the plutocrats, they be laughing all the way to the bank while the rest of the folk lob grenades at each other from their trenches. Keeps 'em distracted, you know.
While I fear that you are correct about the motivations of politicians and despots (an overlapping set, of course) it's also an unfortunate truth that in the absence of collective action, ANYONE with a gun, or just a big stick, can and will take away all the freedom, prosperity, and peace that you have. The difficult trick, and one we are still far from solving, is how to strike the right balance for peaceful cooperation and maximum quality of life for all. I concur that a government must be limited, and strictly so, but exactly where to set those limits is a matter of considerable debate.
In my experience, the people who complain most loudly about the power of government are the ones who imagine themselves as the ones with the guns and big sticks, who want the 'freedom' to force everyone around them to live according to their own particular and usually selfish and short-sighted desires. Enforcing the sort of equality that allows EVERYONE to have a fair shot at living according to their own wishes requires a significant amount of collective power, and a cultural desire to provide that equality. In the US where I live, and in many other nations, we publicly claim to espouse such a cultural desire, but when it comes down to voting, or individual actions, we often force majority opinions on the minority against their will and in direct rebuttal of our own lofty claims.
Nonetheless, most folks are just trying to do more or less the best they can with the cards they've been dealt. Most see the world through the prism of their cultural upbringing, and have little interest in what goes on outside their own parochial point of view. Some few become political leaders, because frankly, somebody has to do it, and in current scenarios those with self-serving ambitions can use politics to achieve them, and can and do eradicate any opposition serving more altruistic goals. Democracy, though, for all of its ridiculous flaws, is still the best solution we've come up with. Improving on it will be a long and difficult road.
Until that distant future day when we've figured out a way to get people to cooperate more amicably, there will have to be limitations set by the group on the actions of individuals. And there will always be individuals who think there should be more, or fewer, restrictions.
Actually, the word 'makes' carries a significant suggestion of causation.
Perhaps a better title would be "Watching Fox News means you are more likely to be stupid" (er, I mean, 'less informed'.)
Although, "Watching television news means you are more likely to be less informed" is probably more fair and balanced.
In a corollary, the two judges who have ruled that the 'mandate' portion of the law passes Constitutional muster are Clinton appointees, and the one who ruled otherwise is a Bush appointee.
This whole thing turned into political gaming as soon as it hit Congress in the first place. It has nothing to do with what is best for the citizens of the US.
Being, in general, a pragmatist, my preference would be to look around the world at the different ways of providing health care, and pick some best practices to try, then adjust as the results come in. That, however, wouldn't work in the US, because politics is about defeating the hated enemy on the other side of the aisle, not about good government.
Actually, that's a bit off target.
The truth is, I was using a bit of hyperbole to point out that 'personal freedom' is rarely as simple as it seems, and that one's actions often carry consequences not only beyond the obvious, but beyond one's knowledge. Also, I've noticed that the people who make the most noise about personal freedom often are the same ones who complain most loudly about how they are affected by other people's actions. So I turned a common argument from that quarter back on the source, so to speak.
My REAL opinion is that health care should be considered a basic need, and provided to all as equitably as possible. I am utterly dismayed by the fact that in the US we allow more US citizens to die every year due to lack of health insurance than have been killed by acts of terrorism in all of our nation's history. A small fraction of the money we've spent on killing and destroying in the name of the "War on Terror" would have saved more American lives in a month than we've "saved" with years of war. But I digress.
To simplify:
I do not begrudge the health care given to people who need it, even if they caused their own problem through gross stupidity like tobacco use, even though it costs me extra to cover some of them, and even if they whine about me pointing out their idiocy.
I do begrudge every penny spent to prop up the profits of an industry that kills millions and produces no benefit in return, other than to keep certain lawmakers empowered. The jobs produced cannot begin to compensate for the financial and health and life losses induced.
Even I, a non-smoker, get angry when people try to impose things on smokers, because an attack on someone's freedom to do something that doesn't harm others is an attack on my freedom to do the same. And no, I'm not talking about restrictions on smoking in public spaces where the smoke affects others; I'm talking about restrictions/taxes on smoking on private property where the smoke doesn't drift on to neighboring property and the property owner is OK with smoking.
How about the increase in the cost of my healthcare due to people with tobacco induced illnesses who can't pay their medical bills?
It's really quite simple. There are people who create and sell an addictive product which kills people. They know it, we know it, the idiots who kill themselves with the product know it, and at least in the US, we subsidize the process with tax breaks for the industry and 'free' emergency room care for the idiots. The manufacturers and sellers of tobacco, and the politicians who accept their campaign bribes, are murderers and thieves.
I'll accept the 'personal freedom' argument when smokers grow their own tobacco without tax subsidies, and are turned away from emergency rooms and allowed to die on their own terms. When that happens, go ahead, knock yourself out. Literally.
(Yes, I just signed up for next year's health insurance plan, which costs more than my mortgage.)
In some parts of the country, cigs go for eight bucks A PACK. Show me an "inspected and cared for" tomato going for 8 bucks...
It's not the cigs that cost that much. It's all the sin-taxes put one them that make them that expensive. Tobacco is relatively cheap.
Actually, it's the health care and lost productivity costs that make them so expensive, both to the user and to society at large. The taxes are just a down payment.
Everyone who plays WoW knows rouges are overpowdered.
Ding ding, we have a winner. May your karma increase.
I think there may be some gaps in your cause-effect chain. Perhaps some chalkboard circles would clear things up, yes?
The image gallery is linked right after the first paragraph of the article.
Remember that sentiment when the Vogons arrive to create their galactic bypass.
who said it was impossible..?
In the fine Gizmodo article, author Jesus Diaz states, "...this bacteria is made of arsenic, something that was thought to be completely impossible."
Then in the next sentence he contradicts that assertion.
... she is actually a supporter of ongoing government waste and corruption.
This is old news, sorry.
... all bills before Congress should be made publicly available before they are voted on...
They are.
You seem to have been operating on misinformation.
the spirit of the law is that big corporations and corporate are implicitly responsible, good and therefore in the right. When they don't like what a young person does that young person is in the wrong. It's just that simple
What a bunch of whiny bullshit.
I agree that the quoted statement is lacking in demonstrable basis, but it's also obviously opinion and illustrative hyperbole. Your response, however, is hardly raising the level of discourse.
Plenty of large companies get their asses handed to them in court. And plenty of "young people" are, indeed, busy ripping off entertainment so they don't have to spend their Double Skinny Grande Half-Caffe Latte money on the movie they want to see.
I believe you are correct on both counts, though I don't have real data to support my impression.
The funny thing is that you don't even see the irony in making absurd, sweeping generalizations as you complain about being on the recieving end of absurd, sweeping generalizations.
I'm pretty sure that absurd sweeping generalizations are the norm for human discourse, considerably mitigating the ironic impact. Personally, I find it more disheartening than amusing. Also, as I don't know either of you, I won't propose to know whether you are aware of irony or absurdity, in yourselves or in others.
Come back when you have formed a business (you know, incorporated), and have spent some time dealing with the paperwork and legal entanglements. Then create something that a lot of people want, and which is therefore widely ripped off by people who don't think they have any obligation to meet their entertainers in an actual market (nope! entertainment slaves are just fine, right?), and spend some time enjoying that scenario for a while.
I agree that people would understand these issues better with personal experience on the other side of the equation. That's really not a legitimate demand, though, in most cases. You'll have to resort to reason, and some good logical arguments. (As opposed to variations on ad hominem.)
"Young people" who leech off of the creative people whose work they want are in no position to complain when they get spanked for doing so.
Well, it's hard to argue with a strawman, so I'll agree that if we define 'leeching' as a 'spankable' offense, such is the wages of leeching.
Ah, now we get to the part where I present my own opinion. What fun!
Let's start with my credentials: A member of my immediate family works as a professional creative type in the movie business. Just wrapped a project this past week, in fact, which will become one of those infamous MPAA films seen in movie theaters all over the world. So, I have a personal vested interest in the ongoing health of that industry.
Hey, there's the operative goal - health of the industry. Opportunities for people to both make and enjoy films. (or music, or written works, etc. etc.)
I have heard a great deal of sound and fury about the despicable pirates and about the greedy corporations, but I've not yet seen real analysis of the impacts of the situation, using numbers that hold up to scrutiny. Just blustery wild claims and numbers pulled from thin air.
Personally, I don't care a whit whether XYZ corporation goes in the tank because they can't maintain profitability as the market situation changes. (Though I'm sure holders of XYZ stock care.) I care about opportunities for my family member to pursue creative activities as a career.
I am concerned that the various industry organizations are clinging to the past, and will fail to adapt to the reality that people are going to copy and distribute bits. Crying and suing and legislating simply will not stop it. DRM sure as heck won't stop it. If it can be viewed, it can be duplicated.
I would much rather see efforts to adapt to change, rather than this ongoing PR
In that case, you're paying for the materials and effort that went into preparing and printing and distributing the text, and for the physical medium. It's your choice whether you think that's worth the cost. Usually those books are significantly less expensive to buy than books requiring royalties and so forth.
In the case of electronic media distributed via network, the situation is quite different, since what you are purchasing is a sequence of on and off current in a certain pattern. There's a tiny cost to distribute the pattern to an individual, but it's so negligible as to be nearly immeasurable in financial terms. The distributor sends the on/off sequence and you record it on your own medium, usually a magnetic hard disk drive, and perhaps subsequently you may re-copy it onto other media, but therein lies a whole other digression on rights.
The measurable portion of the cost of distributing such patterns lies in financial obligations to the owner or licensee with the rights to that particular pattern of on/off.
In the case in question, it appears that certain patterns of on/off were used without compensation to the owner of said pattern, in disregard of the established statutes and practices.
Hypocrisy? That seems a matter of opinion, frankly.
As to your question... yes, the formatting is enough to make it acceptable, because nobody's rights are being abrogated. If they were to obtain an electronic copy of last week's best seller and format and sell it without permission from or compensation to the rights holder, that would not be acceptable.
I really think that the main interest in this matter is not that someone did something naughty. (pirating, plagiarizing, violating copyrights, etc. etc.)
The interest here is that upon being caught, they not only didn't admit wrongdoing, but made a foolish claim about the legalities involved. It's a humorous interest, in a rubbernecky sort of way.
Of course, some people have a different interest. Some people will use the ruckus as an opportunity to gratify an urge to publicly air an ongoing pet peeve, which may even have developed into a hobby, judging from certain sigs.
I'll admit to a certain degree of a similar tendency - that of responding to such posts with a manufactured air of rationality and detachment. But hey, everyone needs a hobby, right? ;)
"Slashdot" is a collection of widely varying opinions.
Many posters criticize existing copyright and patent laws, and many defend them. The extremes are the most memorable, of course, as with most things in life.
I'd appreciate not being lumped in as 'people' and assigned an opinion without my consent.
On the other hand, you are probably correct that 'some' people will side with the author without giving due consideration to all aspects of the matter. That's a common failing in humans.
'Some' people develop prejudices, whether they be against (or for) corporations, operating systems, software licenses, text editors, or Slashdot posters... or, say, ethnic or religious groups. Prejudice is another common failing in humans.
I'd appreciate if you would elaborate your post with more specifics, demographic data, case studies, or even just some links. As it is it feels to me like a set of opinions in a context vacuum, and replete with loaded phrases and unsupported claims. You may well be entirely or largely correct, but somehow it comes across to me as if you are angry about something, and venting your emotions.
Not that emotional venting is necessarily bad, since we all need to find outlets other than clubbing each other with sticks and rocks. Posting on Slashdot might be a good choice.
Or, possibly, I might just be full of it.
So now we're saying it's okay to pirate but not sell what you pirate? Why is one act okay but the other not?
Nope. One is illegal. The other is illegal, and stupid, and naughty, and socially unacceptable on Slashdot.
"Okay" does not apply.
demonbug's post is supposition, and implies certain values without verbalizing them, but in context is easily interpreted as I have suggested.
Your opinion may vary.