A cute joke, but it only demonstrates the difference between stopping and slowing down.
I have successfully avoided being penalized for running red lights in the past in the wee hours of the morning by explaining that there was no traffic on the road, and just sitting waiting for a light to change was only a waste of time. Of course, I didn't just fly through the intersection, but I prudently made sure that there were no other cars on the road when I did. If the cop doesn't like the sound of that explanation and gives you a ticket anyway, just tell the judge that you will be explaining it to a jury, and the charges are likely to be dropped.
Sorry, maybe my choice of words in the underlying statement was incorrect.
That's ok, there are many people who don't bother to distinguish between test and tempt, and it's one of the things I'm used to pointing out.
I agree with you wholeheartedly on what you mean by trying and testing and how that relates to divine explanations. Believing in God is a matter of faith, but that doesn't include believing in all the dogma surrounding it.
"The bible says so" is no explanation for a scientist, because the root of scientific proof is repeatability.
Agreed, it's not even a good explanation of a critical thinking scholar, scientist or not. This is the point where many, otherwise intelligent people, stop thinking and wondering about stuff, and it is here that cattle is made of men.
Different subject, I agree. Basically that's one of the reasons why I started reading the bible. It makes discussions with some people fairly easy when you contradict them with their own material.
I live smack in the heart of the bible belt. I found that being well versed in the bible helps me to interact with a lot of people here. This is the main reason that I told you that I wasn't trying to "thump the bible" on you, but to give you a tool to be used wisely. I can see that you have already learned this.:)
Forgive me. I honestly thought that commercial artists were a subset of artists as a whole.
They are, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I was being really general, perhaps too general when I said that "An artist is driven to create..". That does seem to imply that it's many or most, when it could be some or few. I really don't know how to calculate that, and I'm not really interested in trying to. Besides, later on you get closer to what I'm talking about and I'll respond to it in a minute.
No-one doubted that certain people will create certain things without income, but it is truly absurd to think that there won't be an adverse effect from dismantling the industry that we rely on so heavily today.
I never tried to imply that there wouldn't be an adverse effect, only that it would not be as drastic as you seemed to imply. What I was meaning to imply is that life goes on, and so does civilization, and so does art. For many years, there have been enough books to keep a person reading for a lifetime, and we are reaching a point where there is enough modern media to do the same. More so movies, and less so TV, but still, there's enough of it to keep people busy while things sort themselves out. I will agree that certain forms of creation will be limited, but it remains to be seen just how limited, and how adverse of an effect that it will have on our culture. It may be that it only has a very temporary limited adverse effect on part of our culture, but has a more pronounced and dramatic beneficial effect over the duration of it.
OK, just so you realise, you have shifted your argument (or so it seems) subtly from an absurd, but very relevant argument ("most artists will create") to a very sensible, but irrelevant argument ("some artists will create").
I haven't really been shifting my argument. Perhaps I'm unable to communicate what it is very well. I suppose it's nice to be perceived as sensibly irrelevant, rather than absurdly relevant.;) What I've been trying to say is that there is a large number of people (regardless of whether it's most, or just a few, I can't really estimate which) that will create for reasons other than monetary compensation. I have tried to display instances where people will create works that are easy and difficult to distribute. Here, I'd say that there are more artists creating difficult to distribute (or copy and distribute widely) works than there are creating easily distributable(sp?) works. But the gist of this is that I'm trying to point out that we're not really in any danger of losing this since there is a lot that is already here, and there are people continuing to create.
Penetration is more than distribution; it's also about creation.
Agreed. In my example that you quoted, although I didn't come out and say it, production (i.e. creation) of native artifacts rose when the distribution expanded. Same with the spices, but that's not really art with respect to the producers, although it increased the creation of culinary artwork. You may note that the creation of native artifacts (or trinkets would maybe be a better term) is still pretty strong in places with a large amount of tourism.
The issue mostly relies on artists continuing to create.
Yes, and thanks newest penetration tool (lol, it sounds like I'm starting to describe the internet as a sex toy! Your comment must've influenced me:) ), we have created an incentive for more people to create. Even the people who aren't skilled enough to create are driven to pay somebody else to create a web site.
That's not to say that effective, cheap internet distribution is not possible, but it does make the lesser known and less popular works are harder to get a hold of.
This can be the case, whether copyright is involved or not. This is just a fact of natu
There should be a mechanism by which it is possible to make money from information, but don't confuse the issue by calling it a right.
There is already a mechanism that's been in practice for ages. They're called contracts. Don't distribute your work until you've made a contract that compensates you and keeps the other party from redistributing.
I do have the right to make copies of the information in my possesion, as that information is mine and I can do with it as I please, as long as I'm not infringing on somebody else's right. So I can't play the stereo too loud, I can't fling cd's through people's windows, but I can and will give somebody a copy of something if that person wants the copy. I'm well within my rights to do that. I'm not one to try and confuse the issue, but rather to clear it up.
*note that "I want to be a leech and get everything for free" isn't going to be a very convincing argument for most sane people, who recognise the value of their own and others' time/work.
From a certain point of view, freedom can be just as scary as slavery.
Fear is the most effective tool of the tyrant.
They can be taken away at a moment's notice by almost anyone, they are only inherent so long as the majority of a culture agrees upon them.
This is an effective tool of the socialists. Besides, they are inherent upon recognition, and they aren't taken away, but denied assertion. Suppose the majority of people think that you don't need to breathe anymore since you are too ugly? Do you think that this is acceptable because the majority of a culture has demonstrated their agreement on this? Would you walk to the guillotine willingly on your own, or would you have to be guided there by force? Would it ever occur to you that you have an inherent right to breathe, regardless of how ugly you are? (please don't think I'm calling you ugly, I'm just trying to show how a culture can act unreasonably. I could use race or religion, but those are used too many times as examples).
In actuality, you do not have inherent rights as they are not some form of magical protection.
So to have inherent rights, they need to be in some form of magical protection?
When a truly "free" person tries to kill you, do your inherent rights stop him?
I would hope that my assertion and exercise of my right to defend myself would stop him, but who knows, I may be too weak or unlucky. But like I said earlier, inherent rights come from recognition. If I couldn't stop him, I'd hope that somebody else recognizing those inherent rights would recognize that they've been infringed and stop the killer from doing it again.
Absolutely. But it's not a freedom (unless you conflate the meaning of "freedom" with "right").
I never said it(murder) was either a right or a freedom, I was merely explaining why the activity is legislated against. You were the one that said "thinking about it, murder is freedom for the murderer".
I'll need proof that there are no commercial artists who would stop creating once they stop being compensated.
I probably can't give you proof of that, since you modified artists with commercial. When I used the word artist in the statement you quoted, I backed it up by the next statement referring to people planting flowers in their yard. Perhaps you don't consider that artwork, but as they say "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". I can however give you proof of artists creating because they are driven to do so, regardless of monetary compensation, but I shouldn't have to, as a quick perusal of many websites across the internet should make that very clear. If not, take a look up and down the street while you are out one day and see all the cars with aftermarket products that enhance their looks. I'll admit that some look tacky, as do the plastic pink flamingos, but you can see that people create art all the time. In fact, I'm willing to bet that most people create art in some form or another, even if it's just a simple arrangement of furniture. Before we had TV, many people spent their time doing crafts such as quilting, knitting, woodwork, making bird houses out of gourds, etc. In fact, there are so many examples of people creating art for the pleasure of doing so, instead of making a living doing this, that I have a hard time understanding how we will run out of new artworks to share, as our civilization is built around this simple fact. As I said earlier, we are only in danger of running low on high budget artwork, but we will only run just so low on that. The money that is saved by not having to support such art as that will bring it back to a more sustainable level where more people are happy.
Current art creation rates have been dependent, for years, on culture penetration.
We have just the created the most valuable tool that allows for the deepest culture penetration known to mankind. The internet and ability to share files are having a larger impact on our culture than the spice trade and trade in native artifacts across the world ever did.
Again, I'll need some evidence.
Have a child. Raise him or her. Will you hang his/her drawings on the refrigerator? Will you take a picture of it to share with your friends?
Art, and the human desire to create will die when the last man dies. We are never in danger of losing this, as this is why we live. I pulled most of those links from a quick browsing at http://happypenguin.org/ , but you can look around more places for more things. I for one would be willing to pay an ISP to maintain access to these works. If others are willing to pay for access to the works then we'll not be in danger of losing them. We are only in danger of losing what we don't want, presuming that we don't lose our civilization to some catastrophe. We have nothing to fear by the removal of these monopolies that inhibit our creativity. This is what these people who control those works and regulate the creation of new works have done their best to make you believe.
Agreed. I thought about mentioning tea made from stems when I was mentioning the dandelion tea, but I wanted to keep my examples pertaining to activities that hadn't been outlawed yet. I thought that it would be the best way to get my point across.
It saddens me that people who engage in these activities feel that they need to think like a criminal and hide or deceive when it should be unnecessary. I've known people who've gone to jail and felt like they've done something wrong because they've been to jail. I feel that having these laws the persecute people for harmless behavior that others feel is undesirable severely warps the conscience of a society to a point that it can't be reasoned with in terms of right and wrong as the society has been guided to delegate its conscience to the legislatures since birth.
My friend and I thought about doing this in the early part of 2001 by setting our friends up with little soekris boxes that would be hung on trees or the roofs of their houses, but we never actually got around to doing it. We got mired in trying to build a good antennae, then I lost interest, as I had other things I wanted to spend time with. On top of that, we couldn't figure out how to allocate access to the internet between the different peers. I still think that the general idea still has merit, and your post certainly verifies that.
I was writing from personal experience myself, as I just found out the hard way about Comcast's new policy on "excessive use". Their approach is also pretty heavy handed as you get only one warning, and the next time, your account is terminated for an entire year. There is no way to pay for the excess, and there is no system in place where you can track your usage, leaving customers in the dark about how much they use.
As far as legitimate uses, try keeping debian sid (source, i386, and amd64) up to date, and ubuntu also. Just making the initial mirror is enough to break the cap, and keeping it up to date can put you in danger of it.
Keeping a mirror of wikipedia is also another activity that's heavy in bandwidth, especially for the initial mirror. Yet, families have been encouraged for a long time to keep a copy of an encyclopedia available at home so their kids can use them when the library is closed.
Thinking about it, murder is freedom for the murderer, but we all seem to agree that it's not evil to legislate against it
This is probably because murder infringes upon another person's right to live.
Until we have a practical alternative to copyright, there is no point granting ourselves the freedom to share artworks, because we may run out of new artworks to share.
First, we don't have to grant ourselves freedoms, as they are already inherent. Second, an artist is driven to create, regardless of whether or not he is compensated with money. Many people don't make money by planting flowers in their yard, but they enjoy how their yard looks in the springtime as a result of their efforts. We will never run out of new artworks to share, unless civilization as we know it collapses, and then that's only temporary. It's more likely that we will run out of artwork that requires very large budgets to implement, but even then, we won't run out entirely. It will just be cut back to what people would be willing to pay to garnish their environment.
Perhaps what you said above about there being a law that "takes away" your right is inaccurate, and may be better phrased as "penalizes my exercise of my right" or "denies my ability to exercise my right" or something similar. This way that right is still presumed, and not taken away, but refused to be allowed to be put into practice. I'm not trying to be a grammar nazi, but I am trying to help put things back into a better perspective. I feel that it is likely the media monopoly (or cartel, whichever fits best) that populates our mentality with phrases that help them cripple us when we don't take a step back and try to evaluate those phrases.
BTW, isn't it funny how it's called copyright, when it's actually only a limited monopoly (or supposed to be) that denies the exercise of the rights of others?
I certainly feel free in redistributing many of the files that I have obtained from others who felt like sharing them in the first place. Fortunately, I haven't yet experienced any limitations to that freedom, at least from any government. I've been taught how to copy records, tapes, and software from a very early age, and have grown up in an environment where this was encouraged. It saddens me to hear about people who are jailed for such activity, as it goes against the values that I was raised on.
Perhaps drinking coffee isn't worth going to jail for. It's not like fighting for freedom or anything. What happens if it's outlawed tomorrow? Does that make it worth going to jail for. Is the fact that it's likely that it won't be outlawed due to the fact that a large number of people drink it? Maybe instead of using coffee as an example, I could try using tea from dandelion leaves. What if it was outlawed tomorrow? Outlawing that would be a lot less likely to cause the same sort of disruption. Would that be worth going to jail over? It's not like drinking it is like fighting for freedom or anything.
How many insignificant freedoms have to be whittled away until they break the skin and strike a nerve?
The proceeds from the fine will go to the corporations responsible for bringing the charges against them in the first place. Are you really advocating that we should be funding them?
I wouldn't say that it's not relevant, or out of context, and I didn't think that mine was out of context either. The fact that Cor10 preaches to people who have already heard the word is exactly the reason I chose it, as I felt it was a good response to your post, as it demonstrates that once you hear the word, you should know that you shouldn't turn back to ignorance, which is pretty much what you just said in this post. Of the three verses you referred to, they are stating that you shouldn't tempt the Lord, not test the Lord. I'm aware that you can test by using temptation, but you don't have to. From these verses, I can't determine how you come to the conclusion "How am I supposed to learn if I cannot try?". I agree with the sense of that question, but I'm not able to figure out how you interpreted where it was wrong to try and learn, or that an attempt to learn would be frowned upon.
It's not a long way from blind faith to ignorance.
I believe that they only differ by an infinitesimal amount. In fact, it's probably true that blind faith is a common and possibly the most observable symptom of ignorance.
Anyway, In my original post, I was merely trying to point out that if you can spot ignorance in a group of church-going Christians, it's likely that they have lost or forgotten one of the more important lessons. At least I consider the gaining of knowledge and wisdom to be one of the most important activities in a person's life, and I was only trying to demonstrate that the attempt to gather wisdom shouldn't be frowned upon by a group of people who are ignorant and willing to reward each other for the maintenance of the collective ignorance, and that there is support for this view in the scripture that is most likely being ignored by the people you were talking about.
BTW, I wasn't really trying to "thump the bible" at you, but trying to trying to give you an effective tool that can be used when having to deal with people of the mentality that you were admonishing. I don't know if you got the wrong impression or not by my terse response, so I'm trying to be a bit more verbose about it now.
Thanks! I appreciate the info, and I had suspected that this was a uuid or hash of sorts, but I didn't know what it was a uuid of. My problem is not really the uuid, per se, but knowing what a particular uuid represents. Regardless, you've given me enough info to where I might be able to google up an answer.:)
I have yet to try wpkg, but I've been messing with unattended off and on for a while now, and it's pretty good. There are scripts that will automatically download most of the open source applications and place them in the "repository" you create on a samba share that also contains scripts that help install them automatically. The hard part is actually configuring windows from a script. For example:
I run into similar problems when trying to make "details" the default view for directories in explorer. I don't have time to look that one up right now, but I had to create it by setting it manually, then doing a diff on the registry, but the config option was for "local user" and I still haven't found where to place it in the "local machine" section.
But anyway, this is about the closest that I've seen to something that is similar to apt for windows. BTW, even though unattended is for installing windows, you can use it to just install applications, bypassing the installation routine.
Slashdot Mirror
(yes, I've heard all the arguments)
I've heard them, too. I hope your experiences were better than mine.
BTW, that was a good response. :)
A cute joke, but it only demonstrates the difference between stopping and slowing down.
I have successfully avoided being penalized for running red lights in the past in the wee hours of the morning by explaining that there was no traffic on the road, and just sitting waiting for a light to change was only a waste of time. Of course, I didn't just fly through the intersection, but I prudently made sure that there were no other cars on the road when I did. If the cop doesn't like the sound of that explanation and gives you a ticket anyway, just tell the judge that you will be explaining it to a jury, and the charges are likely to be dropped.
Sorry, maybe my choice of words in the underlying statement was incorrect.
That's ok, there are many people who don't bother to distinguish between test and tempt, and it's one of the things I'm used to pointing out.
I agree with you wholeheartedly on what you mean by trying and testing and how that relates to divine explanations. Believing in God is a matter of faith, but that doesn't include believing in all the dogma surrounding it.
"The bible says so" is no explanation for a scientist, because the root of scientific proof is repeatability.
Agreed, it's not even a good explanation of a critical thinking scholar, scientist or not. This is the point where many, otherwise intelligent people, stop thinking and wondering about stuff, and it is here that cattle is made of men.
Different subject, I agree. Basically that's one of the reasons why I started reading the bible. It makes discussions with some people fairly easy when you contradict them with their own material.
I live smack in the heart of the bible belt. I found that being well versed in the bible helps me to interact with a lot of people here. This is the main reason that I told you that I wasn't trying to "thump the bible" on you, but to give you a tool to be used wisely. I can see that you have already learned this. :)
Forgive me. I honestly thought that commercial artists were a subset of artists as a whole.
They are, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I was being really general, perhaps too general when I said that "An artist is driven to create..". That does seem to imply that it's many or most, when it could be some or few. I really don't know how to calculate that, and I'm not really interested in trying to. Besides, later on you get closer to what I'm talking about and I'll respond to it in a minute.
No-one doubted that certain people will create certain things without income, but it is truly absurd to think that there won't be an adverse effect from dismantling the industry that we rely on so heavily today.
I never tried to imply that there wouldn't be an adverse effect, only that it would not be as drastic as you seemed to imply. What I was meaning to imply is that life goes on, and so does civilization, and so does art. For many years, there have been enough books to keep a person reading for a lifetime, and we are reaching a point where there is enough modern media to do the same. More so movies, and less so TV, but still, there's enough of it to keep people busy while things sort themselves out. I will agree that certain forms of creation will be limited, but it remains to be seen just how limited, and how adverse of an effect that it will have on our culture. It may be that it only has a very temporary limited adverse effect on part of our culture, but has a more pronounced and dramatic beneficial effect over the duration of it.
OK, just so you realise, you have shifted your argument (or so it seems) subtly from an absurd, but very relevant argument ("most artists will create") to a very sensible, but irrelevant argument ("some artists will create").
I haven't really been shifting my argument. Perhaps I'm unable to communicate what it is very well. I suppose it's nice to be perceived as sensibly irrelevant, rather than absurdly relevant. ;) What I've been trying to say is that there is a large number of people (regardless of whether it's most, or just a few, I can't really estimate which) that will create for reasons other than monetary compensation. I have tried to display instances where people will create works that are easy and difficult to distribute. Here, I'd say that there are more artists creating difficult to distribute (or copy and distribute widely) works than there are creating easily distributable(sp?) works. But the gist of this is that I'm trying to point out that we're not really in any danger of losing this since there is a lot that is already here, and there are people continuing to create.
Penetration is more than distribution; it's also about creation.
Agreed. In my example that you quoted, although I didn't come out and say it, production (i.e. creation) of native artifacts rose when the distribution expanded. Same with the spices, but that's not really art with respect to the producers, although it increased the creation of culinary artwork. You may note that the creation of native artifacts (or trinkets would maybe be a better term) is still pretty strong in places with a large amount of tourism.
The issue mostly relies on artists continuing to create.
Yes, and thanks newest penetration tool (lol, it sounds like I'm starting to describe the internet as a sex toy! Your comment must've influenced me :) ), we have created an incentive for more people to create. Even the people who aren't skilled enough to create are driven to pay somebody else to create a web site.
That's not to say that effective, cheap internet distribution is not possible, but it does make the lesser known and less popular works are harder to get a hold of.
This can be the case, whether copyright is involved or not. This is just a fact of natu
There should be a mechanism by which it is possible to make money from information, but don't confuse the issue by calling it a right.
There is already a mechanism that's been in practice for ages. They're called contracts. Don't distribute your work until you've made a contract that compensates you and keeps the other party from redistributing.
I do have the right to make copies of the information in my possesion, as that information is mine and I can do with it as I please, as long as I'm not infringing on somebody else's right. So I can't play the stereo too loud, I can't fling cd's through people's windows, but I can and will give somebody a copy of something if that person wants the copy. I'm well within my rights to do that. I'm not one to try and confuse the issue, but rather to clear it up.
*note that "I want to be a leech and get everything for free" isn't going to be a very convincing argument for most sane people, who recognise the value of their own and others' time/work.
Agreed, that's why I seed as well as leech.
Hopefully Jack won't fall on it and break it, as he may need it to help build his house one day. :)
From a certain point of view, freedom can be just as scary as slavery.
Fear is the most effective tool of the tyrant.
They can be taken away at a moment's notice by almost anyone, they are only inherent so long as the majority of a culture agrees upon them.
This is an effective tool of the socialists. Besides, they are inherent upon recognition, and they aren't taken away, but denied assertion. Suppose the majority of people think that you don't need to breathe anymore since you are too ugly? Do you think that this is acceptable because the majority of a culture has demonstrated their agreement on this? Would you walk to the guillotine willingly on your own, or would you have to be guided there by force? Would it ever occur to you that you have an inherent right to breathe, regardless of how ugly you are? (please don't think I'm calling you ugly, I'm just trying to show how a culture can act unreasonably. I could use race or religion, but those are used too many times as examples).
In actuality, you do not have inherent rights as they are not some form of magical protection.
So to have inherent rights, they need to be in some form of magical protection?
When a truly "free" person tries to kill you, do your inherent rights stop him?
I would hope that my assertion and exercise of my right to defend myself would stop him, but who knows, I may be too weak or unlucky. But like I said earlier, inherent rights come from recognition. If I couldn't stop him, I'd hope that somebody else recognizing those inherent rights would recognize that they've been infringed and stop the killer from doing it again.
You seem to understand what's at stake by imposing artificial limits. :)
Absolutely. But it's not a freedom (unless you conflate the meaning of "freedom" with "right").
I never said it(murder) was either a right or a freedom, I was merely explaining why the activity is legislated against. You were the one that said "thinking about it, murder is freedom for the murderer".
I'll need proof that there are no commercial artists who would stop creating once they stop being compensated.
I probably can't give you proof of that, since you modified artists with commercial. When I used the word artist in the statement you quoted, I backed it up by the next statement referring to people planting flowers in their yard. Perhaps you don't consider that artwork, but as they say "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". I can however give you proof of artists creating because they are driven to do so, regardless of monetary compensation, but I shouldn't have to, as a quick perusal of many websites across the internet should make that very clear. If not, take a look up and down the street while you are out one day and see all the cars with aftermarket products that enhance their looks. I'll admit that some look tacky, as do the plastic pink flamingos, but you can see that people create art all the time. In fact, I'm willing to bet that most people create art in some form or another, even if it's just a simple arrangement of furniture. Before we had TV, many people spent their time doing crafts such as quilting, knitting, woodwork, making bird houses out of gourds, etc. In fact, there are so many examples of people creating art for the pleasure of doing so, instead of making a living doing this, that I have a hard time understanding how we will run out of new artworks to share, as our civilization is built around this simple fact. As I said earlier, we are only in danger of running low on high budget artwork, but we will only run just so low on that. The money that is saved by not having to support such art as that will bring it back to a more sustainable level where more people are happy.
Current art creation rates have been dependent, for years, on culture penetration.
We have just the created the most valuable tool that allows for the deepest culture penetration known to mankind. The internet and ability to share files are having a larger impact on our culture than the spice trade and trade in native artifacts across the world ever did.
Again, I'll need some evidence.
Have a child. Raise him or her. Will you hang his/her drawings on the refrigerator? Will you take a picture of it to share with your friends?
To top all of this off, take a look at this:
http://wesnoth.org/ ;))
http://freeciv.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page (cause civilization should be free
http://www.simutrans.com/
http://www.globulation2.org/
Art, and the human desire to create will die when the last man dies. We are never in danger of losing this, as this is why we live. I pulled most of those links from a quick browsing at http://happypenguin.org/ , but you can look around more places for more things. I for one would be willing to pay an ISP to maintain access to these works. If others are willing to pay for access to the works then we'll not be in danger of losing them. We are only in danger of losing what we don't want, presuming that we don't lose our civilization to some catastrophe. We have nothing to fear by the removal of these monopolies that inhibit our creativity. This is what these people who control those works and regulate the creation of new works have done their best to make you believe.
Agreed. I thought about mentioning tea made from stems when I was mentioning the dandelion tea, but I wanted to keep my examples pertaining to activities that hadn't been outlawed yet. I thought that it would be the best way to get my point across.
It saddens me that people who engage in these activities feel that they need to think like a criminal and hide or deceive when it should be unnecessary. I've known people who've gone to jail and felt like they've done something wrong because they've been to jail. I feel that having these laws the persecute people for harmless behavior that others feel is undesirable severely warps the conscience of a society to a point that it can't be reasoned with in terms of right and wrong as the society has been guided to delegate its conscience to the legislatures since birth.
My friend and I thought about doing this in the early part of 2001 by setting our friends up with little soekris boxes that would be hung on trees or the roofs of their houses, but we never actually got around to doing it. We got mired in trying to build a good antennae, then I lost interest, as I had other things I wanted to spend time with. On top of that, we couldn't figure out how to allocate access to the internet between the different peers. I still think that the general idea still has merit, and your post certainly verifies that.
I was writing from personal experience myself, as I just found out the hard way about Comcast's new policy on "excessive use". Their approach is also pretty heavy handed as you get only one warning, and the next time, your account is terminated for an entire year. There is no way to pay for the excess, and there is no system in place where you can track your usage, leaving customers in the dark about how much they use.
As far as legitimate uses, try keeping debian sid (source, i386, and amd64) up to date, and ubuntu also. Just making the initial mirror is enough to break the cap, and keeping it up to date can put you in danger of it.
Keeping a mirror of wikipedia is also another activity that's heavy in bandwidth, especially for the initial mirror. Yet, families have been encouraged for a long time to keep a copy of an encyclopedia available at home so their kids can use them when the library is closed.
Thinking about it, murder is freedom for the murderer, but we all seem to agree that it's not evil to legislate against it
This is probably because murder infringes upon another person's right to live.
Until we have a practical alternative to copyright, there is no point granting ourselves the freedom to share artworks, because we may run out of new artworks to share.
First, we don't have to grant ourselves freedoms, as they are already inherent. Second, an artist is driven to create, regardless of whether or not he is compensated with money. Many people don't make money by planting flowers in their yard, but they enjoy how their yard looks in the springtime as a result of their efforts. We will never run out of new artworks to share, unless civilization as we know it collapses, and then that's only temporary. It's more likely that we will run out of artwork that requires very large budgets to implement, but even then, we won't run out entirely. It will just be cut back to what people would be willing to pay to garnish their environment.
Perhaps what you said above about there being a law that "takes away" your right is inaccurate, and may be better phrased as "penalizes my exercise of my right" or "denies my ability to exercise my right" or something similar. This way that right is still presumed, and not taken away, but refused to be allowed to be put into practice. I'm not trying to be a grammar nazi, but I am trying to help put things back into a better perspective. I feel that it is likely the media monopoly (or cartel, whichever fits best) that populates our mentality with phrases that help them cripple us when we don't take a step back and try to evaluate those phrases.
BTW, isn't it funny how it's called copyright, when it's actually only a limited monopoly (or supposed to be) that denies the exercise of the rights of others?
The aggravating part is that we foot the bill for this system, as it's about the only way that we can talk to one another in this manner.
I certainly feel free in redistributing many of the files that I have obtained from others who felt like sharing them in the first place. Fortunately, I haven't yet experienced any limitations to that freedom, at least from any government. I've been taught how to copy records, tapes, and software from a very early age, and have grown up in an environment where this was encouraged. It saddens me to hear about people who are jailed for such activity, as it goes against the values that I was raised on.
Perhaps drinking coffee isn't worth going to jail for. It's not like fighting for freedom or anything. What happens if it's outlawed tomorrow? Does that make it worth going to jail for. Is the fact that it's likely that it won't be outlawed due to the fact that a large number of people drink it? Maybe instead of using coffee as an example, I could try using tea from dandelion leaves. What if it was outlawed tomorrow? Outlawing that would be a lot less likely to cause the same sort of disruption. Would that be worth going to jail over? It's not like drinking it is like fighting for freedom or anything.
How many insignificant freedoms have to be whittled away until they break the skin and strike a nerve?
The proceeds from the fine will go to the corporations responsible for bringing the charges against them in the first place. Are you really advocating that we should be funding them?
No, I expect that ISP's placing caps on the volume of transfers will do more to limit filesharing than the legal system is able to accomplish.
I wouldn't say that it's not relevant, or out of context, and I didn't think that mine was out of context either. The fact that Cor10 preaches to people who have already heard the word is exactly the reason I chose it, as I felt it was a good response to your post, as it demonstrates that once you hear the word, you should know that you shouldn't turn back to ignorance, which is pretty much what you just said in this post. Of the three verses you referred to, they are stating that you shouldn't tempt the Lord, not test the Lord. I'm aware that you can test by using temptation, but you don't have to. From these verses, I can't determine how you come to the conclusion "How am I supposed to learn if I cannot try?". I agree with the sense of that question, but I'm not able to figure out how you interpreted where it was wrong to try and learn, or that an attempt to learn would be frowned upon.
It's not a long way from blind faith to ignorance.
I believe that they only differ by an infinitesimal amount. In fact, it's probably true that blind faith is a common and possibly the most observable symptom of ignorance.
Anyway, In my original post, I was merely trying to point out that if you can spot ignorance in a group of church-going Christians, it's likely that they have lost or forgotten one of the more important lessons. At least I consider the gaining of knowledge and wisdom to be one of the most important activities in a person's life, and I was only trying to demonstrate that the attempt to gather wisdom shouldn't be frowned upon by a group of people who are ignorant and willing to reward each other for the maintenance of the collective ignorance, and that there is support for this view in the scripture that is most likely being ignored by the people you were talking about.
BTW, I wasn't really trying to "thump the bible" at you, but trying to trying to give you an effective tool that can be used when having to deal with people of the mentality that you were admonishing. I don't know if you got the wrong impression or not by my terse response, so I'm trying to be a bit more verbose about it now.
The stop sign is merely a suggestion. Failing to heed the suggestion could result in a failure to yield right of way, which is the real crime.
I dunno if I want to spend eternity with people beliving in a religion that rewards ignorance.
umeboshi@bard:~$ bible 1cor10:1
1 Corinthians 10
1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all
our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
Christianity doesn't reward ignorance.
Thanks! I appreciate the info, and I had suspected that this was a uuid or hash of sorts, but I didn't know what it was a uuid of. My problem is not really the uuid, per se, but knowing what a particular uuid represents. Regardless, you've given me enough info to where I might be able to google up an answer. :)
For just installing software:
http://wpkg.org/
For installing windows over a network with applications and drivers preinstalled:
http://unattended.sourceforge.net/
I have yet to try wpkg, but I've been messing with unattended off and on for a while now, and it's pretty good. There are scripts that will automatically download most of the open source applications and place them in the "repository" you create on a samba share that also contains scripts that help install them automatically. The hard part is actually configuring windows from a script. For example:
Enable Status and Address Bar In Explorer
http://unattended.msfn.org/unattended.xp/view/registry/57/
Change My Computer Name
http://unattended.msfn.org/unattended.xp/view/registry/35/
(here I can "read" the ascii, but I don't know where "20D04FE0-3AEA-1069-A2D8-08002B30309D" is coming from.
I run into similar problems when trying to make "details" the default view for directories in explorer. I don't have time to look that one up right now, but I had to create it by setting it manually, then doing a diff on the registry, but the config option was for "local user" and I still haven't found where to place it in the "local machine" section.
But anyway, this is about the closest that I've seen to something that is similar to apt for windows. BTW, even though unattended is for installing windows, you can use it to just install applications, bypassing the installation routine.
Thanks! :) I was too busy to look for the correct spelling. :)