Well, we know, the victim really was a drug-dealer too now.
because we know who the bad guys are
We — the readers and viewers — know (sort of). The policeman doing the illegal deed in fiction knows just as much as the real cops in TFA knew.
There should be no difference in our condemnation (or lack of it) of their actions. And yet, the difference is vast, proving most of the society as either hypocrites or tools of the manipulators ready to whip-up public outrage for their own purposes.
Your plan would cost more than what the utilities are already doing. Doing it your way would mean they would have to charge more at night and during the day.
Whoever is doing it, if it makes sense for anybody to store power generated at off-peak times for usage at peak times, it makes more sense for the generating companies to do it: because they can afford bigger storage with dedicated personnel and manage the generation-storage combination finer.
But, of course, this begs the question of whether it makes sense to do it for anyone at all — though TFA seems to suggest, it does...
Few people have the space for so many panels to run their house on them — even if the problem of storing it were solved. From MIT:
Imagine that your house uses 48 kWh of electricity per day (about average). If you live in Arizona, where the average solar insolation per year is around 6 kWh/meters squared/day, you’ll need 53 square meters (574 sq ft) of 15% efficient solar panels. If you spend the extra money for 21% efficient solar panels, then you’ll only need 38 square meters (409 sq ft) of solar panels. But if you try to power the same sized house in Vermont, where the average solar insolation per year is around 4 kWh/meters squared/day, you’ll need 80 square meters (861 sq ft) of 15% efficient solar panels and 57 square meters (615 sq ft) of the 21% efficient ones.
And 48kWh, which is cited above as "about average", means, no home-servers running 24x7 (about 200Watts*24h=4.8kWh — or 10% more than the estimate — per server), no super-duper Christmas lights, and other limitations...
No, electricity companies are better positioned to produce electricity. And, truth be told, they should be using these wonder-batteries to store electricity during the night so they wouldn't have to charge more during the day. If only we had them properly competing with each other...
In the below context, the qualifier "more" is implied and does not need to be explicitly mentioned to convey the implication:
The problem is that in real life, often the people who think they are right and good actually aren't,
Because people make all sorts of mistakes "often" — and that is not worth mentioning. So, if you mention it, you are implying, that a particular mistake happens more often than others.
some cops wanting their boots licked.
Neah, they are all busy chasing you over your truancy.
What would you consider to be an acceptable error rate in this situation?
I did not express any opinion of my own on the "acceptable" rates or actions in this thread. I'm just pointing out the discrepancy between our condemnation of fictitious vs. real police (and military).
A discrepancy, that, strangely enough, does not exist (or is not as big) in our disapproval of other things — like on-screen sexism or racism.
Three Stooges are not offered as role-models. Viewer is invited to laugh at them, not be inspired by them.
And Tom and Jerry? My god!
Actually, my collection of Looney Tunes came with a video-clip by Woopy Goldberg apologizing on behalf of Warner Brothers for the "racism" and "stereotypes", which, according to her, "were wrong then and are wrong now", but, nevertheless, "are part of Americana"...
Funny, how Django had no such disclaimers and apologies over portraying the two good guys as head-hunters sniping from afar at innocent people for money. (Kinda vindicates our Dear Leader's policies, but I digress...)
The problem is that in real life, often the people who think they are right and good actually aren't, they torture the wrong person, and there are unintended consequences.
But not in the case described in TFA — the threatened man really was a drug-dealer, and they did get the necessary info out of him.
Now, do you have statistics to back up your implication, that in real life police are more often wrong than right?
Note, that I am not saying, it justifies the miscreants in TFA. But you seem to...
They get away with lots of things in movies that are not acceptable in real life.
Sorry, I fail to see, how mere racism or sexism can lead to a boycott, while abuse of a suspect gets a pass. And not just once either!
Likewise, if Captain Steven Hiller — Will Smith's character in Independence Day — can be a hero despite beating and otherwise abusing a prisoner, the morons of Abu Ghraib have their excuse...
The real life vs. fiction may explain the legal responsibility, but the moral condemnation of such actions should not be any different between the real and imaginary worlds.
Drug him and beat him with a $5 wrench until he tells us the password
XKCD did not invent it — the method is known as rubberhose cryptoanalis for ages — unlike wrench, a hose is less likely to leave visible marks.
But beating is for wussies — and drugging is completely gratuitous. The real men of the wonderful entity lovingly referred to as "Russkiy Mir" (Pax Russiana) use the swifter variation known as thermorectal cryptanalysis.
It does not have to involve any beating and requires a $5 soldering iron. I'll leave the details to your imagination...
I remember it being done in a few movies — by the good guys — without anybody in the audience cringing. Nor do I remember any calls to boycott a movie over such things.
So, if popular culture approves of and encourages it, can't blame the cops too much for doing it despite it being merely illegal...
Your copy(the lamp) is yours. The smoke/light is not.
Nonsense. Both are mine.
Your demand for control over it once it is released is immoral, unethical, and just plain wrong.
I explained the ethical theory, which makes the theft of intellectual property indistinguishable from that of tangible kind — in short, such copying is equal to theft, because the victim suffers the same kind of loss.
I await your explanation for why my "demand for control" is "immoral, unethical, and just plain wrong".
the copyrighters are the robbers/pirates who steal from society.
And just what is it, that they steal, may I inquire to ask?
We've established you to be a Communist-sympathizer before.
You have?? When was that?
Right here. But, just in case I made a mistake — would you mind stating your opinion on Communism for the record? And on whether it is Ok to steal from "rent-seekers or speculators"?
Judging if one song sounds sufficiently like another is an endless opportunity for debate.
Except you aren't solving this problem by making copyrights last 5 years instead of 50. Not at all — because if it did, there would've been no new musical genres (Jazz, Blues, Rock-n-Roll, Rap) appearing at all.
Which makes the argument of "strealing vs. being inspired" irrelevant to the conversation of copyrights.
The taking of real, physical property involves real, involuntary displacement or separation.
Distinction without difference. You copying my drawings, notes, or recording without my approval is still theft — even if I still hold on to my copies of same.
And not because FBI says so, but because it is indistinguishable in its effect from the theft of tangible things — the victim (inventor, creator, or whoever bought the invention/creation) still suffers real tangible losses.
Careful that what you are calling plagiarism really is plagiarism.
I have not called it that — I merely asked for evidence, copyright stifles art. What was offered as evidence was a list of cases, where works deemed plagiarization were sued for copyright violations. That, in my opinion, is a good thing — and I asked, whether the "informative" Mr. Slippery disagrees.
The entertainment industry would love, just love to turn the clock back to 1985
Irrelevant. The talk is about copyright, not "entertainment industry".
They would throw 90% of all our wealth away, their own included, if that increased their control
Though they are welcome to treat their money however they wanted, I fail to see, how they could possibly get mine. Or yours... If you disapprove of their practices, the solution is very simple: do not buy from them.
Most everything is derivative. It's not possible to be uninfluenced by copyrighted material.
Unless you can demonstrate, how copyright makes such influence illegal — and the development of various music genres proves the opposite — then your above sentence is irrelevant and does a disservice to the argument.
Also, how is it remotely fair that the IP owners can perpetually reap income from work that was performed even 10 years ago let alone 70?
As long as people still want to hear it, read it, or otherwise use it, then the creation was particularly useful and you (or your ancestors) should continue to be rewarded for it. Seems just as fair as your ability to live in the same house or swim in the same (privately-owned) lake for many years.
Most of us get paid once for the work we do.
Because most of us work for somebody else. We sell the results of our labors in advance to the willing buyer (employer) — and do not own it. Now, what we do own, we get to use (and profit from) for ever.
IP does not exist. It's a figment of our collective imagination.
All property rights are a social construct — and some even consider it to be "theft". If you aren't going to advocate thatself-denying point of view, then your whining about Intellectual property is just as irrelevant...
Prepare for another culture-shock, my dear passport-less American. Tokyo has competing privately-owned subway lines. Japan's wonderful highspeed trains are privately-owned too.
Now, if a country introduced to free market capitalism (at gun-point) by America does not need socialized transit, why must America herself suffer it?
setting up your urban environment in such a way that the poor need to drive expensive-to-maintain, expensive-to-fuel vehicles a long distance is not a necessity
A strawman. Nobody claimed it to be a necessity. Good job scoring an imaginary point.
Smart urban planning
If a government is doing it, it can not be smart...
Because no lender in their right mind would loan students money to begin with.
If there has been a "bold-faced lie" in this thread, you are it. Banks were making them and even continue making them today, despite government competition. Here is one example — from a credit-card issuer — and a simple Google-search returns many more.
No lender would take that kind of risk, especially at a measly 7% interest rate - typical unsecured loans are closer to 20-30% (you know them as credit cards).
That this is bovine excrement is already established. Here is why... Unlike those "typical unsecured loans", which are spent on quickly-depreciating merchandize or completely worthless vacations, education usually increases the person's money-earning abilities. They earn and they do pay back — a large enough portion to keep lenders in the green.
Government's student loans is the solution searching for problem at best. At worst it is the first step towards nationalizing higher education the way schools are nationalized already — while affording the government better control over citizens by attaching various strings to the approvals (you can't get a loan without registering for Selective Service, for example).
It is (or can quickly become) an instrument of oppression and needs to be rejected and ridiculed, not celebrated...
So? Does it mean, their children need to breath the noxious exhaust of the cheap cars? Is that somehow acceptable to you, 1-percenter, simply because they would not have to be poisoned quite so much?
Why do you hate poor children? Typical RethugliKKKan Nazi...
Slashdot Mirror
Well, we know, the victim really was a drug-dealer too now.
We — the readers and viewers — know (sort of). The policeman doing the illegal deed in fiction knows just as much as the real cops in TFA knew.
There should be no difference in our condemnation (or lack of it) of their actions. And yet, the difference is vast, proving most of the society as either hypocrites or tools of the manipulators ready to whip-up public outrage for their own purposes.
Whoever is doing it, if it makes sense for anybody to store power generated at off-peak times for usage at peak times, it makes more sense for the generating companies to do it: because they can afford bigger storage with dedicated personnel and manage the generation-storage combination finer.
But, of course, this begs the question of whether it makes sense to do it for anyone at all — though TFA seems to suggest, it does...
Few people have the space for so many panels to run their house on them — even if the problem of storing it were solved. From MIT:
And 48kWh, which is cited above as "about average", means, no home-servers running 24x7 (about 200Watts*24h=4.8kWh — or 10% more than the estimate — per server), no super-duper Christmas lights, and other limitations...
No, electricity companies are better positioned to produce electricity. And, truth be told, they should be using these wonder-batteries to store electricity during the night so they wouldn't have to charge more during the day. If only we had them properly competing with each other...
In the below context, the qualifier "more" is implied and does not need to be explicitly mentioned to convey the implication:
Because people make all sorts of mistakes "often" — and that is not worth mentioning. So, if you mention it, you are implying, that a particular mistake happens more often than others.
Neah, they are all busy chasing you over your truancy.
I did not express any opinion of my own on the "acceptable" rates or actions in this thread. I'm just pointing out the discrepancy between our condemnation of fictitious vs. real police (and military).
A discrepancy, that, strangely enough, does not exist (or is not as big) in our disapproval of other things — like on-screen sexism or racism.
Depends even on more on whether "fracking" could be blamed for the disaster...
Three Stooges are not offered as role-models. Viewer is invited to laugh at them, not be inspired by them.
Actually, my collection of Looney Tunes came with a video-clip by Woopy Goldberg apologizing on behalf of Warner Brothers for the "racism" and "stereotypes", which, according to her, "were wrong then and are wrong now", but, nevertheless, "are part of Americana"...
Funny, how Django had no such disclaimers and apologies over portraying the two good guys as head-hunters sniping from afar at innocent people for money. (Kinda vindicates our Dear Leader's policies, but I digress...)
But not in the case described in TFA — the threatened man really was a drug-dealer, and they did get the necessary info out of him.
Now, do you have statistics to back up your implication, that in real life police are more often wrong than right?
Note, that I am not saying, it justifies the miscreants in TFA. But you seem to...
Sorry, I fail to see, how mere racism or sexism can lead to a boycott, while abuse of a suspect gets a pass. And not just once either!
Likewise, if Captain Steven Hiller — Will Smith's character in Independence Day — can be a hero despite beating and otherwise abusing a prisoner, the morons of Abu Ghraib have their excuse...
The real life vs. fiction may explain the legal responsibility, but the moral condemnation of such actions should not be any different between the real and imaginary worlds.
XKCD did not invent it — the method is known as rubberhose cryptoanalis for ages — unlike wrench, a hose is less likely to leave visible marks.
But beating is for wussies — and drugging is completely gratuitous. The real men of the wonderful entity lovingly referred to as "Russkiy Mir" (Pax Russiana) use the swifter variation known as thermorectal cryptanalysis.
It does not have to involve any beating and requires a $5 soldering iron. I'll leave the details to your imagination...
I remember it being done in a few movies — by the good guys — without anybody in the audience cringing. Nor do I remember any calls to boycott a movie over such things.
So, if popular culture approves of and encourages it, can't blame the cops too much for doing it despite it being merely illegal...
Nonsense. Both are mine.
I explained the ethical theory, which makes the theft of intellectual property indistinguishable from that of tangible kind — in short, such copying is equal to theft, because the victim suffers the same kind of loss.
I await your explanation for why my "demand for control" is "immoral, unethical, and just plain wrong".
And just what is it, that they steal, may I inquire to ask?
Right here. But, just in case I made a mistake — would you mind stating your opinion on Communism for the record? And on whether it is Ok to steal from "rent-seekers or speculators"?
Except you aren't solving this problem by making copyrights last 5 years instead of 50. Not at all — because if it did, there would've been no new musical genres (Jazz, Blues, Rock-n-Roll, Rap) appearing at all.
Which makes the argument of "strealing vs. being inspired" irrelevant to the conversation of copyrights.
I am talking about morality. A song I wrote is just as mine as a car I purchased or a house I built.
I see, that your morality allows you to rob some people.
But mine does not. We've established you to be a Communist-sympathizer before. Nothing new here, hop along.
And "property" is not a physical thing either.
Distinction without difference. You copying my drawings, notes, or recording without my approval is still theft — even if I still hold on to my copies of same.
And not because FBI says so, but because it is indistinguishable in its effect from the theft of tangible things — the victim (inventor, creator, or whoever bought the invention/creation) still suffers real tangible losses.
I have not called it that — I merely asked for evidence, copyright stifles art. What was offered as evidence was a list of cases, where works deemed plagiarization were sued for copyright violations. That, in my opinion, is a good thing — and I asked, whether the "informative" Mr. Slippery disagrees.
Irrelevant. The talk is about copyright, not "entertainment industry".
Though they are welcome to treat their money however they wanted, I fail to see, how they could possibly get mine. Or yours... If you disapprove of their practices, the solution is very simple: do not buy from them.
So, are you arguing, it should be easier to engage in plagiarism?
Then it is that action is what should be discussed, rather than extension of copyrights.
Unless you can demonstrate, how copyright makes such influence illegal — and the development of various music genres proves the opposite — then your above sentence is irrelevant and does a disservice to the argument.
As long as people still want to hear it, read it, or otherwise use it, then the creation was particularly useful and you (or your ancestors) should continue to be rewarded for it. Seems just as fair as your ability to live in the same house or swim in the same (privately-owned) lake for many years.
Because most of us work for somebody else. We sell the results of our labors in advance to the willing buyer (employer) — and do not own it. Now, what we do own, we get to use (and profit from) for ever.
All property rights are a social construct — and some even consider it to be "theft". If you aren't going to advocate that self-denying point of view, then your whining about Intellectual property is just as irrelevant...
So, are you ready to demonstrate, how copyrights have sniffled the development of Jazz, Rock-n-Roll, or Rap, for example?
If not, then your "concerns" about sniffling are nothing but attempts to spread FUD.
Prepare for another culture-shock, my dear passport-less American. Tokyo has competing privately-owned subway lines. Japan's wonderful highspeed trains are privately-owned too.
Now, if a country introduced to free market capitalism (at gun-point) by America does not need socialized transit, why must America herself suffer it?
A strawman. Nobody claimed it to be a necessity. Good job scoring an imaginary point.
If a government is doing it, it can not be smart...
It is great, that the Fourth Amendment still means something.
Now, how about the Second?
Yeah, yeah — and reduce Global Warming, right.
Except electric cars still need energy — so, instead of burning something inside the vehicle, we now have to burn something somewhere else — often enough losing overall. And instead of depending on our own oil, we now need the Chinese to make those wonder-batteries — so our dependence on the potential military rival only grows with each Tesla sold.
But a great idea otherwise — as great as any to come up from the so-called "progressives"... Keep at it.
All oligarchies are "of the rich and powerful". If you can not make your point without tautologies, it is probably invalid to begin with.
If there has been a "bold-faced lie" in this thread, you are it. Banks were making them and even continue making them today, despite government competition. Here is one example — from a credit-card issuer — and a simple Google-search returns many more.
That this is bovine excrement is already established. Here is why... Unlike those "typical unsecured loans", which are spent on quickly-depreciating merchandize or completely worthless vacations, education usually increases the person's money-earning abilities. They earn and they do pay back — a large enough portion to keep lenders in the green.
Government's student loans is the solution searching for problem at best. At worst it is the first step towards nationalizing higher education the way schools are nationalized already — while affording the government better control over citizens by attaching various strings to the approvals (you can't get a loan without registering for Selective Service, for example).
It is (or can quickly become) an instrument of oppression and needs to be rejected and ridiculed, not celebrated...
So? Does it mean, their children need to breath the noxious exhaust of the cheap cars? Is that somehow acceptable to you, 1-percenter, simply because they would not have to be poisoned quite so much?
Why do you hate poor children? Typical RethugliKKKan Nazi...