referring to the killing of every one man in ten of a mutinous Roman legion.
The current English definition has been generalized to the destruction of some percentage of something.
It is a foolish generalization, and decent-educated people ought to reject it. It is "generalized" by ignorant people (like the guy in the article), who don't even realize, that the dec-prefix in this word is the same as in, for example, decade.
And if you are going to argue, we should accept it because of "common (mis)use", then you may as well accept it as used in the article/summary:
But it's still inappropriately used in the summary.
In order to effectively restrict economic retaliation against free speech, you would have to remove most all freedom from commerce
You are absolutely correct. What people, who complain about employers' "discrimination" and other misbehavior, forget, is that any and all laws and rules, they would like to apply to big "corporationy" corporations, will also apply to themselves.
The ban on racial discrimination, for example, not only makes it illegal for a bank to discourage Blacks from applying for a job, it also makes it illegal for you to consider race, when choosing a babysitter.
Now, I happen to think, that racial discrimination should, indeed, be banned for it is a rather foolish criteria, that spreads a lot of evil without any benefit.
But I certainly would not want any of my money to go to a Communist, or a "union activist", or a terrorism-supporter. So, if I bump into our cleaning lady wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt on the street, or find out, that the clerk in the supermarket supports FARC, I will want to be able to legally fire her, and stop going to that store, until they fire him. See also "boycott".
We are all "employers" — whenever you pay someone, you are being an "employer".
EHR systems come online across the country, what do we have to fear from proprietary databases? It's one thing to find out your social security number was stolen. Now add your mental health and STD results to those records.
The above is an argument for proprietary databases — they are harder to steal from. Well, harder for a layman. And a disclosure by an adverse-minded layman is what the vast majority of people need to fear. Unless you are a prominent politician or a businessmen, you need not fear a team of professional data-thieves capable of:
finding a bug in a proprietary database;
exploiting the bug;
deciphering the proprietary data;
black-mailing with some embarrassing detail from your medical record.
Yes, the "security through obscurity" will keep the laymen out, even if it also makes the job of those professional crooks easier.
The right argument for the open standards is their being far easier to implement. Even though this would also make them easier to break into (the break-in software developers will benefit from the open standards too), the wider variety of implementations, plugins, etc. will be a compelling argument. Being able to switch from one software vendor (open or closed source) to another without re-entering the entire patient-database will calm the doctors' strongest fear...
I'm not sure they're shooting anything. Ripping a CD *is* unauthorized by the copyright holder. Fortunately, copyright law does not require authorization for such things.
A very good point. Normal backing-up is permitted under "fair use". However, if the directory holding all these "backups" is shared with millions over the Internet:
As it actually stands the defendant isn't being sued over CD ripping, but for placing files in a shared directory.
then it is no longer "fair use", and RIAA is right to come guns-a-blazing.
... I am not sure, we benefit from their opinion anyway.
Now, even the smartest people can make an accidental mistake, but there will not be a pattern — a disproportional number of accidental mistakes among supporters of a particular candidate or party.
If, on the other hand, the disqualifying mistakes are due to wider-spread illiteracy, then, maybe, it is a good thing, that those votes aren't counted?..
Yes, I am for discounting the stupid people's votes...
The only problem is, without the system telling a voter upfront: this is incorrect and your vote will be ignored, unless you fix it, the potential for some perfectly valid votes being fraudulently discarded later on increases...
these businesses tried to pass copyright law inside anti-terrorism legislation.
My understanding is, they wanted an exception, that would apply to their activities — to prevent the anti-hacking provisions of the law from applying to their own investigations. But it is not, unfortunately, uncommon to see even completely unrelated bits attached to legislation these days — it is called "pork-barelling".
Jack Valenti testified before the government in an investigation entitled "International Copyright Piracy: Links to Organized Crime and Terrorism". Are you going to tell me that he wasn't there to talk about copyright and ties between piracy and terrorism?
Without reading the transcript, I can't draw conclusions. I'm surprised, you can.
The people in the article are lawyers, who are trying to help those accused by *AA of piracy. Even if you still think, the pirates themselves may be (unduly) labeled "terrorists", the lawyers defending them are perfectly safe from the accusation. The only time, a (real) terrorist's lawyer was herself convicted of crimes, was for very real help she provided her client in communicating with his followers "in the wild". The jury deliberated for 12 days and convicted her on all five counts.
Whatever your opinion of Lynne Stewart, no other lawyer has gotten into this sort of trouble. Even if Jack Valenti would like to portray pirates as terrorists (and I have not seen any evidence of this), insinuating, that the pirates' lawyers will be accused of "terrorism" is completely unfounded.
you asked for examples. i was bored - took ten minutes to find you a couple and you then turn around and say they aren't examples at all.
Indeed, they aren't.
i see in other parts of this thread you've equated violating copyright with murder.
No, I don't. But if such is your understanding of my other posts, I can see, why you are so mistaken on the original challenge.
but the words private lawsuit in quotes is a satisfactory allusion to terrorism.
You should've read the entire post, which tried to substantiate, why those "legal whores" may be seen as terrorists.
google riaa and terrorism. you will find hundreds of hits where people clearly and definitively state that they believe the actions of the riaa are terrorism. you can drop your weak example.
My weak example uses a (highly moderated) Slashdot post — not some left-of-the-wall lunatics' site...
why i'm helping you out with that, i don't know.
Because you are an honest man, who argues in good faith and is ready to accept the other side's argument. Whereas *AA themselves were accused of "terrorism" (wrongly, of course), no examples of them calling a student file-sharer "terrorist" exist. The frosty-pister I responded to made a completely unjustified claim.
When you watch the news, you have to get the impression that under every other bed, a terrorist is lurking, and a splinter cell of Al Quaida is running the laundry on the ground floor.
No, you don't have to get this impression, and I don't know, why you would. Maybe some weaker-minded "sheeple" would get such an idea from flipping through the channels listening to each for no more than a few seconds, but that would not apply to anyone in this conversation, would it?
When you keep plastering people with terror here and terror there, they will first be afraid, then notice that you're crying wolf
Well, here we go. You seem to agree, that somebody somewhere has "cried wolf" a few too many times. If such is, indeed, your opinion, would you, please, substantiate it with a few examples of somebody being publicly suspected of terrorism without a good reason?
That is a perfect illustration of how copyright is positioned, incorrectly, as equivalent to a human right.
The right of the creator to control their creation is — correctly — understood as a human right. There is no (or there should be no) distinction between tangible, material property and the non-tangible intellectual kind. The right to control, of course, implies the right to transfer the ownership, which is how a record label gets to own a song, and I get to control a car.
Antigua and Barbuda has won the right, in an international tribunal, to disregard copyright protection of U.S. recorded performances. If, instead, they won the "right" to kill Americans, that would be different, no?
No. The right to wage war on another country has been granted to the injured countries by various international bodies many times. The remedy simply matches the offense.
Large copyright holders sought this immunity in the counter-terrorism bills that greatly increased penalties for hacking, but the absurdity of equating file sharing to terrorism forced them to withdraw their bid that time.
The purported "equating" is nothing more but a "strawman" attack on the *AA's position. And a lame one at that. *AA wanted to be able to investigate the pirates' computers (so as to be able to present stronger cases in courts), and they wanted to do it legally. The new law was making such investigations (largely) illegal, and so they wanted an exception/immunity. Any "equating" of piracy with terrorism comes purely from the imagination of the author of the article you quoted.
The links were to an mpaa site and they have been pulled, but there has to be a way to track down stuff like Valenti, "International Copyright Piracy: Links to Organized Crime and Terrorism," Testimony before The Subcommittee On Courts
Linking is not equating. But you say, the information was pulled by the *AA site(s)... Could this be a sign, that they are not calling pirates "terrorists" today, even if — as you insist — they once did?
And would not that make the frosty-psster's insinuation invalid anyway?..
The seller has been awarded a market-distorting copyright monopoly.
No, they have not. There are plenty of ways for the creators of the non-tangible intellectual property (be they musicians, movie-makers, or clothing designers) to sell their works. Some of them choose to sell their rights to a middleman such as a record-company, of which there are plenty.
The seller should be free to set a price, but not to prevent sale of properly attributed third-party copies.
There you go. Your mention of "properly attributed" reveals internal inconsistency of your point of view, thus demonstrating it as objectively wrong. If the creator has no right to control their creation, why should anyone bother "properly attributing"? Oops...
If they don't want something copied, they're free not to release in the first place. Screw 'em.
And if you don't want to be killed, you're free to stay indoors. Fortunately, the government is upholding the laws (mostly)...
Interestingly, when I challenged an author of an equally stupid comment to substantiate their insinuation, that "the establishment" would label any opponent "terrorist", one of the replies tried to portray some legal challenges as a form of terrorism:
certain legal whores who allow or act to bring certain types of "private lawsuit"
So, ironically enough, somebody from the "burn the MAFIAA" camp is on record suggesting, legal challenges may be a form of "terrorism" (or something — the post is convoluted).
We are still awaiting the originally-requested examples from the other side — when was the term "terrorist" misused by the *AA (or, indeed, the US-government)?
Why should they be automatically banned, unless they also pose a high fire-risk?
I don't think a fire-risk posed by some lithium batteries justifies a blanket ban on all of them. The more potent ones will store (much) more energy inside and thus there is an even higher chance, that some bureaucrat at TSA will decide to ban them too.
Unfortunately, this sort of decision can be taken by the Executive branch alone without any debate or even any meaningful prior notice. The ban we are discussing goes into effect in 3 days, for example...
I suspect there will be an energy source on the plane you can plug into. So you could store your battery appropriately.
The article talks about limitations on batteries even in checked luggage. Even if I can hook my laptop up to the plain, while flying, I still can't take a spare with me to the trip:( Or so it seems.
And if the new battery is based on nuclear decay or something scary-sounding like that, there is little hope, it will even be allowed into the airport.
When the even more potent energy-storing methods become available — like nuclear decay-based "batteries" or fuel-cells — they will, probably, be banned from aircraft outright.
And that would be even more of a shame, than not being able to have a spare with you:-(
"police law-enforcement" AND certain legal whores who allow or act to bring certain types of "private lawsuit" INTENTIONALLY act in ways to instill terror in individuals they know have done nothing morally wrong with the intent of causing a third party fiducial damage, exposure or discomfort.
However deplorable such tactics are, neither the fiducial damage, nor "exposure", nor — certainly — "discomfort" compare with violence, especially, the deadly violence, which, really, is required to qualify for a terrorist these days.
just because YOU have not been a victim YET
I have, actually. A team of lawyers and the computer-forensics experts they hired were right here in this room searching through my hard-drives... But not for a second was I afraid for my life or limb. May lawyers be your biggest problem ever.
Personally I consider the premeditated, calculated and wanton destruction of the Constitution [...] an act of terrorism
Yawn... There you go, using the term with very specific definition as a general-purpose derogatory word. I'll finish this by calling you a cretin — purely as another example of same.
Tcl is too stable for many who think the bleeding edge is cool, and too different for those who think C is the pinnacle of language design - so it's left to a large number of people who just get on with using it because it works.
My favorite point about Tcl is how easy it is to extend it — in C. Both Perl and Python, and other languages, have similar extendability, but nobody's is as straightforward and, uhm, elegant... In my opinion.
In response to a request for examples of organizations, which have been unduly labeled "terrorist" by the US government, you listed organizations, which have not been so labeled:
I'll name six organizations [...] that have not been named terrorists.
nor should be so labeled, even according to you:
No, I don't think those organizations I named qualify as terrorists.
Why the heck did you even enter the thread remains a mystery, which even the two people, who have already granted you the "Insightful" moderations can't explain. A perfect example of Slashdot illogic...
I've written a wonderful (in my opinion, anyway) plugin for Sybase's backup-server. It allows one to (among other things) send the dumps over to the outside backup-providers immediately — without waiting for the dump to complete. One can also do on-the-fly encryption and not worry about the unencrypted data remaining on disk. Etc, etc.
The price is low (compared to the cost of even a single Sybase installation) and yet I sold less than a handful of licenses in 8 months, plus a few given away to qualified professionals. Inertia rules — there is no other explanation. Well, you may suspect, my plugin just sucks, but I know, it does not...
You seem to have misunderstood my question... Do try again, if you can.
The US federal government under the current Republican administration and current Democrat-controlled Congress, the MPAA, the RIAA, SCOX, Microsoft, and the Software Business Alliance.
So, it is your understanding, that police law-enforcement and private lawsuits are Acts of Terror? Wow...
Slashdot Mirror
It is a foolish generalization, and decent-educated people ought to reject it. It is "generalized" by ignorant people (like the guy in the article), who don't even realize, that the dec-prefix in this word is the same as in, for example, decade.
And if you are going to argue, we should accept it because of "common (mis)use", then you may as well accept it as used in the article/summary:
Indeed...
You are absolutely correct. What people, who complain about employers' "discrimination" and other misbehavior, forget, is that any and all laws and rules, they would like to apply to big "corporationy" corporations, will also apply to themselves.
The ban on racial discrimination, for example, not only makes it illegal for a bank to discourage Blacks from applying for a job, it also makes it illegal for you to consider race, when choosing a babysitter.
Now, I happen to think, that racial discrimination should, indeed, be banned for it is a rather foolish criteria, that spreads a lot of evil without any benefit.
But I certainly would not want any of my money to go to a Communist, or a "union activist", or a terrorism-supporter. So, if I bump into our cleaning lady wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt on the street, or find out, that the clerk in the supermarket supports FARC, I will want to be able to legally fire her, and stop going to that store, until they fire him. See also "boycott".
We are all "employers" — whenever you pay someone, you are being an "employer".
The above is an argument for proprietary databases — they are harder to steal from. Well, harder for a layman. And a disclosure by an adverse-minded layman is what the vast majority of people need to fear. Unless you are a prominent politician or a businessmen, you need not fear a team of professional data-thieves capable of:
Yes, the "security through obscurity" will keep the laymen out, even if it also makes the job of those professional crooks easier.
The right argument for the open standards is their being far easier to implement. Even though this would also make them easier to break into (the break-in software developers will benefit from the open standards too), the wider variety of implementations, plugins, etc. will be a compelling argument. Being able to switch from one software vendor (open or closed source) to another without re-entering the entire patient-database will calm the doctors' strongest fear...
A very good point. Normal backing-up is permitted under "fair use". However, if the directory holding all these "backups" is shared with millions over the Internet:
then it is no longer "fair use", and RIAA is right to come guns-a-blazing.Now, even the smartest people can make an accidental mistake, but there will not be a pattern — a disproportional number of accidental mistakes among supporters of a particular candidate or party.
If, on the other hand, the disqualifying mistakes are due to wider-spread illiteracy, then, maybe, it is a good thing, that those votes aren't counted?..
Yes, I am for discounting the stupid people's votes...
The only problem is, without the system telling a voter upfront: this is incorrect and your vote will be ignored, unless you fix it, the potential for some perfectly valid votes being fraudulently discarded later on increases...
Thank you very much.
That's patents, let's not change the subject.
My understanding is, they wanted an exception, that would apply to their activities — to prevent the anti-hacking provisions of the law from applying to their own investigations. But it is not, unfortunately, uncommon to see even completely unrelated bits attached to legislation these days — it is called "pork-barelling".
Without reading the transcript, I can't draw conclusions. I'm surprised, you can.
The people in the article are lawyers, who are trying to help those accused by *AA of piracy. Even if you still think, the pirates themselves may be (unduly) labeled "terrorists", the lawyers defending them are perfectly safe from the accusation. The only time, a (real) terrorist's lawyer was herself convicted of crimes, was for very real help she provided her client in communicating with his followers "in the wild". The jury deliberated for 12 days and convicted her on all five counts.
Whatever your opinion of Lynne Stewart, no other lawyer has gotten into this sort of trouble. Even if Jack Valenti would like to portray pirates as terrorists (and I have not seen any evidence of this), insinuating, that the pirates' lawyers will be accused of "terrorism" is completely unfounded.
Indeed, they aren't.
No, I don't. But if such is your understanding of my other posts, I can see, why you are so mistaken on the original challenge.
You should've read the entire post, which tried to substantiate, why those "legal whores" may be seen as terrorists.
My weak example uses a (highly moderated) Slashdot post — not some left-of-the-wall lunatics' site...
Because you are an honest man, who argues in good faith and is ready to accept the other side's argument. Whereas *AA themselves were accused of "terrorism" (wrongly, of course), no examples of them calling a student file-sharer "terrorist" exist. The frosty-pister I responded to made a completely unjustified claim.
No, you don't have to get this impression, and I don't know, why you would. Maybe some weaker-minded "sheeple" would get such an idea from flipping through the channels listening to each for no more than a few seconds, but that would not apply to anyone in this conversation, would it?
Well, here we go. You seem to agree, that somebody somewhere has "cried wolf" a few too many times. If such is, indeed, your opinion, would you, please, substantiate it with a few examples of somebody being publicly suspected of terrorism without a good reason?
The right of the creator to control their creation is — correctly — understood as a human right. There is no (or there should be no) distinction between tangible, material property and the non-tangible intellectual kind. The right to control, of course, implies the right to transfer the ownership, which is how a record label gets to own a song, and I get to control a car.
No. The right to wage war on another country has been granted to the injured countries by various international bodies many times. The remedy simply matches the offense.
The purported "equating" is nothing more but a "strawman" attack on the *AA's position. And a lame one at that. *AA wanted to be able to investigate the pirates' computers (so as to be able to present stronger cases in courts), and they wanted to do it legally. The new law was making such investigations (largely) illegal, and so they wanted an exception/immunity. Any "equating" of piracy with terrorism comes purely from the imagination of the author of the article you quoted.
Linking is not equating. But you say, the information was pulled by the *AA site(s)... Could this be a sign, that they are not calling pirates "terrorists" today, even if — as you insist — they once did?
And would not that make the frosty-psster's insinuation invalid anyway?..
So, do you or do you not consider Kevin Mitnick's prosecution an Act of Terror?
No, they have not. There are plenty of ways for the creators of the non-tangible intellectual property (be they musicians, movie-makers, or clothing designers) to sell their works. Some of them choose to sell their rights to a middleman such as a record-company, of which there are plenty.
There you go. Your mention of "properly attributed" reveals internal inconsistency of your point of view, thus demonstrating it as objectively wrong. If the creator has no right to control their creation, why should anyone bother "properly attributing"? Oops...
And if you don't want to be killed, you're free to stay indoors. Fortunately, the government is upholding the laws (mostly)...
Interestingly, when I challenged an author of an equally stupid comment to substantiate their insinuation, that "the establishment" would label any opponent "terrorist", one of the replies tried to portray some legal challenges as a form of terrorism:
So, ironically enough, somebody from the "burn the MAFIAA" camp is on record suggesting, legal challenges may be a form of "terrorism" (or something — the post is convoluted).
We are still awaiting the originally-requested examples from the other side — when was the term "terrorist" misused by the *AA (or, indeed, the US-government)?
False. The price is still set by the seller, who is under no obligation to sell/give away — however saturated the market may be.
I don't think a fire-risk posed by some lithium batteries justifies a blanket ban on all of them. The more potent ones will store (much) more energy inside and thus there is an even higher chance, that some bureaucrat at TSA will decide to ban them too.
Unfortunately, this sort of decision can be taken by the Executive branch alone without any debate or even any meaningful prior notice. The ban we are discussing goes into effect in 3 days, for example...
The article talks about limitations on batteries even in checked luggage. Even if I can hook my laptop up to the plain, while flying, I still can't take a spare with me to the trip :( Or so it seems.
And if the new battery is based on nuclear decay or something scary-sounding like that, there is little hope, it will even be allowed into the airport.
When the even more potent energy-storing methods become available — like nuclear decay-based "batteries" or fuel-cells — they will, probably, be banned from aircraft outright.
And that would be even more of a shame, than not being able to have a spare with you :-(
So, you agree, that an intangible and — some would say — imaginary thing can still be property? Very good. We are making progress...
Theft? Crimes? Does Slashdot now think, an idea can be "property" and/or "stolen"?
However deplorable such tactics are, neither the fiducial damage, nor "exposure", nor — certainly — "discomfort" compare with violence, especially, the deadly violence, which, really, is required to qualify for a terrorist these days.
I have, actually. A team of lawyers and the computer-forensics experts they hired were right here in this room searching through my hard-drives... But not for a second was I afraid for my life or limb. May lawyers be your biggest problem ever.
Yawn... There you go, using the term with very specific definition as a general-purpose derogatory word. I'll finish this by calling you a cretin — purely as another example of same.
My favorite point about Tcl is how easy it is to extend it — in C. Both Perl and Python, and other languages, have similar extendability, but nobody's is as straightforward and, uhm, elegant... In my opinion.
In response to a request for examples of organizations, which have been unduly labeled "terrorist" by the US government, you listed organizations, which have not been so labeled:
nor should be so labeled, even according to you:
Why the heck did you even enter the thread remains a mystery, which even the two people, who have already granted you the "Insightful" moderations can't explain. A perfect example of Slashdot illogic...
The definition I quoted comes from Princeton's WordNet. I don't think, anyone would suspect them of any particular partisanship.
Those people (and they are everywhere, Rosie O'Donnel among them) simply use the word as a derogatory without realizing its meaning.
Yes, motive is particularly important for the definition.
I've written a wonderful (in my opinion, anyway) plugin for Sybase's backup-server. It allows one to (among other things) send the dumps over to the outside backup-providers immediately — without waiting for the dump to complete. One can also do on-the-fly encryption and not worry about the unencrypted data remaining on disk. Etc, etc.
The price is low (compared to the cost of even a single Sybase installation) and yet I sold less than a handful of licenses in 8 months, plus a few given away to qualified professionals. Inertia rules — there is no other explanation. Well, you may suspect, my plugin just sucks, but I know, it does not...
You seem to have misunderstood my question... Do try again, if you can.
So, it is your understanding, that police law-enforcement and private lawsuits are Acts of Terror? Wow...