indirect infringements like giving eminent domain rights, government-sanctioned monopolies, etc. to censors ought to apply too.
Why? I don't see the above as self-evident at all. Unless the censorship was caused by or is otherwise in direct relationship with the government-provided benefits (which it is not in this case), there is no relation...
A large number of Slashdotters reject any right of music- and movie-creators to tell us, what we can do with the music. The licensing of the entertainment media files are rejected by both the vocal minority and the moderating majority. In addition to the juvenile (and Communist) "rob the robbers" (il)logic (applied to the **AA members, who are "large corporations" or "rich and powerful"), all sorts of other arguments are put forward, including how copyrights are a fairly recent (only a few centuries old) fenomenon, and how creators should be encouraged by fame, etc. instead of by keeping full control of their creations.
Why should not the same logic apply to software? Why are we even looking into the intricacies of GPL vs. BSD licenses, instead of denouncing them altogether like we (or most of us, anyway) do with entertainment licenses?
If, as is the prevailing view on Slashdot, any curbs on entertainment are wrong, why are we supporting curbs on software use — by, for example, cheering the GPL-enforcement litigation?
I guess when wire-tapping and CCTV just isn't enough
No, it is when search — the practice long accepted as a legitimate law-enforcement tool — is not enough.
If we allow police to search houses (including safes — demanding keys, when needed), it is only logical to allow them to also decrypt data (demanding keys, when needed).
Each day that passes I am reminded the disgusting state of our society. Thank God for the internet and its ability to deliver raw information. I turn on the TV and all I see is useless reality TV portraying the lives of rich kids and their "complex" love lives or news about Britney Spears.
It comes from the same mentality, that allows phrases like "some peoples just can't live in a Democracy", or "why are we wasting American blood and treasure helping others, when we have such problems at home", etc. Remember people lamenting American military not being here to help the morons, who decided to wait for Katrina to arrive, and the local (mis)government they were and continue electing? Sure, "our own" need to have ice delivered by National Guard's helicopter — and if that means, a tyrant remains in power, than so be it.
Mean while, stories about potentially thousands of protesters being killed go barely mentioned.
There is plenty on my source of news. Both Reuters and Associated Press had continuous coverage including plenty of photographs. According to Yahoo!'s automatic most-popular rating these articles are read and people recommend them to each other. In fact, at the time of this typing the Groups struggle to tally Myanmar's dead is number three on the list of "Most Recommended" — below only the "Why the Amish forgive so quickly" and "Congress wants to curb war contractors".
Being killed for wanting the very thing the most powerful government in the world allegedly spent the last 4 years fighting for! Where is the outrage?
As excited as I was about America going forcibly against the tyrants in 2003, I'm now frustrated unable to decide, whether I hate the post-victory mismanagement of the liberated country more or less than the "pacifist" stand of the war opponents — especially those, who only became opponents, when the going got tougher.
See also my earlier post on whether it is time to rethink NON-INTERVENTION. We got Slobodan Milosevic. We got Saddam Hussein, along with Charles Taylor as a bonus. As another bonus we got Muamar Quaddafi to change (some of) his ways. Then we hit some snags, and now the various MoveOns/Sheehans/ANSWER coalitions are doing their best assuring the remaining set of tyrants (such as Syria, North Korea or, indeed, Myanmar), that America has no more will to come at them...
That is something to be disgusted at. The news-supply is just fine...
The monks could withhold blessings for a better life when someone reincarnated. However while Burma is Buddhist, secularism has gained ground there.
At least in the neighboring Thailand (with identical religion), pretty much every male goes through being a monk in his life. Some decide to stay monks, but most "sign up" for a period ranging from a few months to a few years. The senior "career monks", actually, sided with the regime and tried to convince the younger ones to disperse last week — before the army moved in.
In other words, I doubt they could do anything like denying Communion — the Papacy's favorite weapon of medieval times.
a bunch of low-paid hired goons slouching around looking for excuses to search him and possibly brand him as a terrorist under some obscure, vaguely-defined law.
Please, name one occasion, when this happened... Thanks!
... we'll get to have an optical cortical scan. It takes about an hour, can hurt...
Uhm, no, that's not how the article describes the new computer systems: "Applying this noninvasive, portable imaging technology in new ways, the researchers hope to gain real-time insight into the brain's emotional cues."
A lot of people are stressed out in the airport, so it would not be that useful there. But entrances to government buildings at home or abroad (such as embassies) could benefit...
"That guy is awfully nervous. Let's take another look at his backpack..."
Wow, that's a large chunk of blah-blah-blah. Here is a fairly simple yes-or-no, once again: Should the creators be allowed to control their creations? You seem to lean towards "no", but you aren't quite saying so much. Could you clarify? Just remember, that whatever you say about the creators of music, will also apply to the creators of software... If recorded music can be repeated without limitations (which, you say, is protected by the Free Speech), then, surely, source-code (GPL or not) can be shared likewise.
Someone invented the wheel. Someone discovered how to create and use fire constructively. Should everyone else be perpetually forced to pay them, or their descendants, and to only use those things where we are permitted to do so?
Please, don't change the subject. We were talking about creators, you are switching to inventors.
A better question might be, why must there be a law that gives exclusive rights to speech?
Answering a question with a question is not a way to argue in good faith. Especially if the "counter-question" has no relation to the original one and does not answer the original one.
Try again — and without mentioning "large corporations", the size and the nature of the content owners does not matter. If content can be owned — and fairness demands, that content-creators must be able to own it — it should also be sellable to whoever wishes to buy the ownership of it, and licensable to whoever wants to make some use of it (limited by whatever terms the owner wishes to put into the license).
I'm not arguing about economic benefits here — to me this is the question of fairness: creators must be in full control of their creations, be it music, books, inventions, or food recipies.
You are absolutely correct in that for the larger part of history the authors profited far less from their works than the publishers.
But you fail to demonstrate, why the not-so-recent (400 years) change towards giving the authors more control over their creation is wrong...
Why is it wrong for creators to control their creations — including the ability to sell all or partial rights to others?
Some people have (angrily) asserted, that it harms economy/society somehow — they did not substantiate. But even if it does harm puppies, the creators ought to have that control. Those among them, who don't want it, can release their own works into public domain. It is not for the rest of us to decide.
No, some of us understand the concept of theft just fine, but we also understand the concept of a legal system that favours the rich and powerful, too.
but the government has a role in the setting up of the infrastructure which would otherwise be uneconomical, as a catalyst to further development.
No, it does not. Or, rather, it should not have. This is an age-old argument, really. The government's role should be limited to foreign policy (diplomacy and military) and upholding the law.
The examples of electricity and phone service are not really examples. Government's involvement makes those services worse, than they ought to be — the protected monopoly of AT&T led to infamous abuses and stalled the development of radio/cellular phones for decades, for example. Civilian helicopters today are, pretty much, the same as 50 years ago — because nobody needs them, since the costs of roads are extracted at gunpoint anyway...
The one aspect, which is not universally governmental, provides a perfect example. It is garbage collection — some towns don't do it. That's where private companies compete leading to better service, and where citizens use small garbage-compactors to reduce their own costs.
And another argument for you. The subsidy, that dwellers of large cities pay occupants of small villages to have all these services, encourages "urban sprawl". There is a strong argument, that it really hurts the Earth...
You are most probably right. But this whole discussion is not looking for answers — Slashdot is bashing ??AA, that's all.
The forum was celebrating all accused (guilty or not) getting off on various technicalities, when they did, because most people here don't think, there is anything wrong with copying someone else's work without permission.
One should not need to agree, that such copying amounts to theft, to understand, that it is wrong regardless. But that's where most Slashdotters get lost, unfortunately.
Saying one thing while doing the opposite == hypocrite.
Uhm, no. This must the root of your error. Here is the definition:
hypocrite, dissembler, dissimulator, phony, phoney, pretender -- (a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives)
I find it not only probable, but very likely, that Craig firmly believes in the family values and the marriage vows. Had he ever really strayed, he must be hating himself for it. This happens to all (the majority of married people make for a perfectly relevant example) of us, and does not make us hipocrite.
Unless I was the sole proprietor of a store I'd never care enough about merchandise to detain a shoplifter physically.
You would not care, but you'd have a full right to. That's my point — there is nothing outrageous about the store's policy. That's where I (respectfully) disagree with Michael, who thinks such policies somehow violate Constitution and turn us all into slaves. Or something.
while at the same time trolling men's rooms for dudes to bang.
Sure, an undercover policeman said so — must be true...
It's been a few years since I got married, but I don't remember any of my marriage vows including a loophole for gay sex in the men's room.
First of all, let's dispense with the homosexuality aspect of the allegations — contrary to some heated follow-ups, Craig was never observed gay-bashing.
Second, everybody agrees, that "family values" are a good thing. A number of Democrats have made it part of their platform too.
As for the general marriage vows, not to discourage you, but 50% of marriages end with divorce these days. Some marriages, where one (or both) spouse cheats survive, so the amount of the strict vows-violations is even higher than 50%.
Singling out Republican lawmakers as "hypocrites" over such (alleged) infidelities is simply wrong... Depending on the state of your own marriage (assuming, it is your first one) a few years from now, it may also become hypocritical of you to do so (not that I would wish that to anyone).
Craig, OTOH, is a 'Gay people are all degenerate immorals and we shouldn't be encouraging them by letting them marry' -type Republican.
Uh-oh, after waiting for the entire weekend for a response from you regarding evidence of Craig ever saying anything like the above, I must conclude, you weren't able to find anything. In fact, a number of people responded confirming this much — but not you.
Most regretfully, you found no grace to post your own retraction...
So, I hereby ask you, DavidTC, how you want your crow cooked? Rare, medium, or well done?
He just like to have sex with men
And you know this from?.. An undercover policeman? Wow, how trusting of the Executive Branch has Slashdot become!
Anyone who worked there and didn't know they were working in a significant military target was a moron.
By your definition, every structure is a military target. (Whether it is "significant" or not is not relevant to the definition of terrorism.) I mean, places of worship? Surely — they provide comfort to the enemy, and allow it to rally morale. Houses? Sure, that's where the enemy's workers live — destroying them would keep them less productive. Factories? Certainly, no argument. Businesses — that's what you just said...
Your definition thus allows attacking any structure, which is clearly divergent from today's world's view. (Of course, you also have to deal with the illegitimacy of any attack by anyone other than legitimate armed forces of a state, etc., etc.)
Reminding:
terrorism, act of terrorism, terrorist act -- (the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)
See, even if the attack is on a real military target, it could still be an Act of Terror (its perpetrators — terrorists), if it was intended to threaten civilians with violence in order to achieve the listed goals. For example, the attack on USS Cole could reasonably be considered Terrorist (at least — partially), if (as seems likely) it aimed to threaten all Americans, civilian and otherwise.
I'm certainly allowed to chase someone I suspect of stealing things from me... It may be stupid/dangerous for me to do so, but there is nothing illegal about it. Thieves are caught this way quite often, and nobody blames their victims for chasing them — when their suspicions prove to be correct, of course.
I can chase and tackle them even on the public street — and certainly so on my driveway (store manager caught up with Michael on the store's parking lot).
The guy and the store have different view of the shopping experience. Imagine the following:
Sir, you can't leave without paying.
My name is Michael Righi, and my address is such-and-such. Please, send me the invoice.
No, we can't allow you to leave without paying now.
Are you accusing me, your customer, of planning not to pay?!?!
The above is only slightly less outlandish than what actually happened. If you disagree with a firm's methods, don't do business with them (unless there is no competition, which is not the case here). Doing business under your own rules causes trouble for all concerned...
Police, of course, acted as the dirty scum they have to be to keep order, bogusly invoking a bogus law to cause enough trouble to "a troublemaker" (who has not done anything illegal) to make him less likely to cause (legal) trouble again.
Although exposing the police stupidity and incompetence is a good thing, and I do respect Michael for his stance regarding the police/city on this matter, I disagree with his views on the loss-prevention's right to inspect customers' bags:
Allowing stores to inspect our bags at will might seem like a trivial matter, but it creates an atmosphere of obedience which is a dangerous thing.
No, while you are on their property, they are entitled to inspect stuff. If you don't want them to, don't go into the store — their intent to inspect your bag is prominently posted at the entrance.
Now, you can refuse whatever search you find unreasonable, of course (theirs was not unreasonable, IMO). In that case they can try to prevent you from leaving their property (store, parking lot) — see Citizen Arrest, and take all responsibility for the wrongful arrest.
Or they can call police, who — armed with the probable cause presented by the store — will inspect your bag for them... Upon inspection they can either let you go, or try to inconvenience you for inconveniencing them. There are many laws in their stinky books to do that. The one used by these cops — "interfering with official business" is one example. "Disturbing peace" is another, and it can be topped with "resisting arrest" at the first word of your indignant objection.
Another prominent moral of the story, is don't go on a moral crusade while your family is nearby... To them your high horse is just a stinky farm animal, unfortunately. Siblings will cry, parents will bail you out of jail, but your wife will simply call you an idiot.
Slashdot Mirror
That's simply not true. AT&T's monopoly on phone service ended decades ago. They never had monopoly on Internet service.
Why? I don't see the above as self-evident at all. Unless the censorship was caused by or is otherwise in direct relationship with the government-provided benefits (which it is not in this case), there is no relation...
Here is a juicy flamebait for you all...
A large number of Slashdotters reject any right of music- and movie-creators to tell us, what we can do with the music. The licensing of the entertainment media files are rejected by both the vocal minority and the moderating majority. In addition to the juvenile (and Communist) "rob the robbers" (il)logic (applied to the **AA members, who are "large corporations" or "rich and powerful"), all sorts of other arguments are put forward, including how copyrights are a fairly recent (only a few centuries old) fenomenon, and how creators should be encouraged by fame, etc. instead of by keeping full control of their creations.
Why should not the same logic apply to software? Why are we even looking into the intricacies of GPL vs. BSD licenses, instead of denouncing them altogether like we (or most of us, anyway) do with entertainment licenses?
If, as is the prevailing view on Slashdot, any curbs on entertainment are wrong, why are we supporting curbs on software use — by, for example, cheering the GPL-enforcement litigation?
... I would not do business with you either.
Contrary to the popular opinion, discrimination is not illegal, unless it is on the basis of race, religion, health, or age (with some ifs and buts).
Discriminating on the basis of expression of disagreable opinions (other than religious) is perfectly legal. And it better remain so...
No, it is when search — the practice long accepted as a legitimate law-enforcement tool — is not enough.
If we allow police to search houses (including safes — demanding keys, when needed), it is only logical to allow them to also decrypt data (demanding keys, when needed).
No, I was asking for occasions, when anybody was "named terrorist under some obscure law". Got any examples?
It comes from the same mentality, that allows phrases like "some peoples just can't live in a Democracy", or "why are we wasting American blood and treasure helping others, when we have such problems at home", etc. Remember people lamenting American military not being here to help the morons, who decided to wait for Katrina to arrive, and the local (mis)government they were and continue electing? Sure, "our own" need to have ice delivered by National Guard's helicopter — and if that means, a tyrant remains in power, than so be it.
There is plenty on my source of news. Both Reuters and Associated Press had continuous coverage including plenty of photographs. According to Yahoo!'s automatic most-popular rating these articles are read and people recommend them to each other. In fact, at the time of this typing the Groups struggle to tally Myanmar's dead is number three on the list of "Most Recommended" — below only the "Why the Amish forgive so quickly" and "Congress wants to curb war contractors".
As excited as I was about America going forcibly against the tyrants in 2003, I'm now frustrated unable to decide, whether I hate the post-victory mismanagement of the liberated country more or less than the "pacifist" stand of the war opponents — especially those, who only became opponents, when the going got tougher.
See also my earlier post on whether it is time to rethink NON-INTERVENTION. We got Slobodan Milosevic. We got Saddam Hussein, along with Charles Taylor as a bonus. As another bonus we got Muamar Quaddafi to change (some of) his ways. Then we hit some snags, and now the various MoveOns/Sheehans/ANSWER coalitions are doing their best assuring the remaining set of tyrants (such as Syria, North Korea or, indeed, Myanmar), that America has no more will to come at them...
That is something to be disgusted at. The news-supply is just fine...
At least in the neighboring Thailand (with identical religion), pretty much every male goes through being a monk in his life. Some decide to stay monks, but most "sign up" for a period ranging from a few months to a few years. The senior "career monks", actually, sided with the regime and tried to convince the younger ones to disperse last week — before the army moved in.
In other words, I doubt they could do anything like denying Communion — the Papacy's favorite weapon of medieval times.
Please, name one occasion, when this happened... Thanks!
Uhm, no, that's not how the article describes the new computer systems: "Applying this noninvasive, portable imaging technology in new ways, the researchers hope to gain real-time insight into the brain's emotional cues."
A lot of people are stressed out in the airport, so it would not be that useful there. But entrances to government buildings at home or abroad (such as embassies) could benefit...
"That guy is awfully nervous. Let's take another look at his backpack..."
Wow, that's a large chunk of blah-blah-blah. Here is a fairly simple yes-or-no, once again: Should the creators be allowed to control their creations? You seem to lean towards "no", but you aren't quite saying so much. Could you clarify? Just remember, that whatever you say about the creators of music, will also apply to the creators of software... If recorded music can be repeated without limitations (which, you say, is protected by the Free Speech), then, surely, source-code (GPL or not) can be shared likewise.
Please, don't change the subject. We were talking about creators, you are switching to inventors.
Rrr-ight...
Answering a question with a question is not a way to argue in good faith. Especially if the "counter-question" has no relation to the original one and does not answer the original one.
Try again — and without mentioning "large corporations", the size and the nature of the content owners does not matter. If content can be owned — and fairness demands, that content-creators must be able to own it — it should also be sellable to whoever wishes to buy the ownership of it, and licensable to whoever wants to make some use of it (limited by whatever terms the owner wishes to put into the license).
I'm not arguing about economic benefits here — to me this is the question of fairness: creators must be in full control of their creations, be it music, books, inventions, or food recipies.
You are absolutely correct in that for the larger part of history the authors profited far less from their works than the publishers.
But you fail to demonstrate, why the not-so-recent (400 years) change towards giving the authors more control over their creation is wrong...
Why is it wrong for creators to control their creations — including the ability to sell all or partial rights to others?
Some people have (angrily) asserted, that it harms economy/society somehow — they did not substantiate. But even if it does harm puppies, the creators ought to have that control. Those among them, who don't want it, can release their own works into public domain. It is not for the rest of us to decide.
Oh, look! Class warfare lives on...
With the customary name-calling, as always.
No, it does not. Or, rather, it should not have. This is an age-old argument, really. The government's role should be limited to foreign policy (diplomacy and military) and upholding the law.
The examples of electricity and phone service are not really examples. Government's involvement makes those services worse, than they ought to be — the protected monopoly of AT&T led to infamous abuses and stalled the development of radio/cellular phones for decades, for example. Civilian helicopters today are, pretty much, the same as 50 years ago — because nobody needs them, since the costs of roads are extracted at gunpoint anyway...
The one aspect, which is not universally governmental, provides a perfect example. It is garbage collection — some towns don't do it. That's where private companies compete leading to better service, and where citizens use small garbage-compactors to reduce their own costs.
And another argument for you. The subsidy, that dwellers of large cities pay occupants of small villages to have all these services, encourages "urban sprawl". There is a strong argument, that it really hurts the Earth...
You are most probably right. But this whole discussion is not looking for answers — Slashdot is bashing ??AA, that's all.
The forum was celebrating all accused (guilty or not) getting off on various technicalities, when they did, because most people here don't think, there is anything wrong with copying someone else's work without permission.
One should not need to agree, that such copying amounts to theft, to understand, that it is wrong regardless. But that's where most Slashdotters get lost, unfortunately.
Uhm, no. This must the root of your error. Here is the definition:
I find it not only probable, but very likely, that Craig firmly believes in the family values and the marriage vows. Had he ever really strayed, he must be hating himself for it. This happens to all (the majority of married people make for a perfectly relevant example) of us, and does not make us hipocrite.
You would not care, but you'd have a full right to. That's my point — there is nothing outrageous about the store's policy. That's where I (respectfully) disagree with Michael, who thinks such policies somehow violate Constitution and turn us all into slaves. Or something.
I do to. I think, I was quite explicit about it.
Sure, an undercover policeman said so — must be true...
First of all, let's dispense with the homosexuality aspect of the allegations — contrary to some heated follow-ups, Craig was never observed gay-bashing.
Second, everybody agrees, that "family values" are a good thing. A number of Democrats have made it part of their platform too.
As for the general marriage vows, not to discourage you, but 50% of marriages end with divorce these days. Some marriages, where one (or both) spouse cheats survive, so the amount of the strict vows-violations is even higher than 50%.
Singling out Republican lawmakers as "hypocrites" over such (alleged) infidelities is simply wrong... Depending on the state of your own marriage (assuming, it is your first one) a few years from now, it may also become hypocritical of you to do so (not that I would wish that to anyone).
Going back to homosexualtiy, guess who owns GodHatesFags.com?
Uh-oh, after waiting for the entire weekend for a response from you regarding evidence of Craig ever saying anything like the above, I must conclude, you weren't able to find anything. In fact, a number of people responded confirming this much — but not you.
Most regretfully, you found no grace to post your own retraction...
So, I hereby ask you, DavidTC, how you want your crow cooked? Rare, medium, or well done?
And you know this from?.. An undercover policeman? Wow, how trusting of the Executive Branch has Slashdot become!
You must be new here.
By your definition, every structure is a military target. (Whether it is "significant" or not is not relevant to the definition of terrorism.) I mean, places of worship? Surely — they provide comfort to the enemy, and allow it to rally morale. Houses? Sure, that's where the enemy's workers live — destroying them would keep them less productive. Factories? Certainly, no argument. Businesses — that's what you just said...
Your definition thus allows attacking any structure, which is clearly divergent from today's world's view. (Of course, you also have to deal with the illegitimacy of any attack by anyone other than legitimate armed forces of a state, etc., etc.)
Reminding:
See, even if the attack is on a real military target, it could still be an Act of Terror (its perpetrators — terrorists), if it was intended to threaten civilians with violence in order to achieve the listed goals. For example, the attack on USS Cole could reasonably be considered Terrorist (at least — partially), if (as seems likely) it aimed to threaten all Americans, civilian and otherwise.
Don't look for excuses for the enemy...
I'm certainly allowed to chase someone I suspect of stealing things from me... It may be stupid/dangerous for me to do so, but there is nothing illegal about it. Thieves are caught this way quite often, and nobody blames their victims for chasing them — when their suspicions prove to be correct, of course.
I can chase and tackle them even on the public street — and certainly so on my driveway (store manager caught up with Michael on the store's parking lot).
The guy and the store have different view of the shopping experience. Imagine the following:
The above is only slightly less outlandish than what actually happened. If you disagree with a firm's methods, don't do business with them (unless there is no competition, which is not the case here). Doing business under your own rules causes trouble for all concerned...
Police, of course, acted as the dirty scum they have to be to keep order, bogusly invoking a bogus law to cause enough trouble to "a troublemaker" (who has not done anything illegal) to make him less likely to cause (legal) trouble again.
Could you post a link to a quote or two? Not, where somebody is paraphrasing him, but the actual quotes?
Thanks!
Although exposing the police stupidity and incompetence is a good thing, and I do respect Michael for his stance regarding the police/city on this matter, I disagree with his views on the loss-prevention's right to inspect customers' bags:
No, while you are on their property, they are entitled to inspect stuff. If you don't want them to, don't go into the store — their intent to inspect your bag is prominently posted at the entrance.
Now, you can refuse whatever search you find unreasonable, of course (theirs was not unreasonable, IMO). In that case they can try to prevent you from leaving their property (store, parking lot) — see Citizen Arrest, and take all responsibility for the wrongful arrest.
Or they can call police, who — armed with the probable cause presented by the store — will inspect your bag for them... Upon inspection they can either let you go, or try to inconvenience you for inconveniencing them. There are many laws in their stinky books to do that. The one used by these cops — "interfering with official business" is one example. "Disturbing peace" is another, and it can be topped with "resisting arrest" at the first word of your indignant objection.
Another prominent moral of the story, is don't go on a moral crusade while your family is nearby... To them your high horse is just a stinky farm animal, unfortunately. Siblings will cry, parents will bail you out of jail, but your wife will simply call you an idiot.