...or perhaps we reject Microsoft because we disagree with its corporate goals, and find its products to be substandard, while agreeing with Google's, and find its offering to be exactly what we want?
My personal method of resistance? Don't buy shit I don't want/need. Nobody is putting a gun to my head and telling me to spend money, and if I'm gullible enough to part with some of it because I've been "enticed" into it? Wah.
The downside of having freedom, in a libertarian sense of the word, is having the liberty to make mistakes. I'd rather that people with the talent to do so be allowed to "shake even more money" from those who can be shaken (especially considering that I can observe that behavior and modify my own as I see fit) than live in a world where draconian "protection" is granted from the evils of being intelligent and crafty.
You cannot argue for jury nullification, but you do have a number of other options if you hope to sway the jury. Primarily, you can plead guilty and make a statement explaining why it is the law and not your actions which is reprehensible. Alternatively, you could plead not guilty, and argue that you violated no law because you didn't deny anyone their property, etc. -- depending on what you were charged with.
Of course, I'm not a legal expert -- my degree is in philosophy, not law. The technical steps needed to oppose a law on moral grounds are something I'd leave to my lawyer; I know only what my position is.
Somehow, bringing in examples of law in other countries doesn't quite defeat my argument about the intent behind American law. The intent of my first point was that certain laws protect against the deprivation of life, liberty, and property -- such as laws that don't let you go 90mph in a residential neighborhood; these laws are inherently different from laws that prohibit certain behaviors that don't result in that sort of deprivation.
The counter-argument to my position is, at least so far as I can tell, that file-sharing DOES represent a tangible loss of property in the form of money not spent. I haven't heard a particularly convincing argument to that effect yet, however. On the other hand, I have seen reports showing that since the introduction of wide-scale P2P software (and to a lesser extent, easy access to file-sharing), media creation companies have seen a tangible -increase- in profits. Granted, that doesn't mitigate the illegality of stealing; if someone can prove that file-sharing is theft in some other way, the profit margins of the **AAs don't really matter.
When you look down for a second and crash into me, you'd be even more out of your mind to claim that the laws prohibiting speeding make no sense. Ultimately, if you cause an accident at those speeds, you will take someone's life. That's a pretty hefty thing to gamble with.
File sharing, on the other hand, is not "theft" in the traditional sense. When I download a song, for example, I have no deprived anyone of anything. The law protects a theoretical amount of money from -not- going to a music company, but a pretty strong argument can and has been made that shows that were I not to have downloaded the file, I wouldn't have shrugged my shoulders and walked to a record store to buy it. In fact, I may be MORE motivated to spend money on albums that I've heard some of than not.
It's certainly illegal to trade in copyrighted files online. The debate is not over that; it's over whether or not the illegality is sensible. I view P2P file-sharing as a form of civil disobediance. Coupled with a firm belief in the rule of law, were I brought before a jury, I would argue against the law as opposed to the deed. That's the beauty of having jury nullification on the books.
Unless you're properly trained in how to wield a katana, I doubt you'll be doing a lot of cutting with it. The act of drawing a live blade can be dangerous to someone who doesn't know what they're doing; merely swinging one around like a baseball bat is just apt to sever your own arm.
I'd reccomend using a wakizashi, anyways. They're substantially shorter, and far more suited to indoor use. The katana is the Japanese version of the longsword, and like its European counterpart, it wasn't meant to be used in close indoor combat as much as on the open battlefield.
"Choice is not freedom." -- Huh? Let's get definitional, then. First, there is the freedom the is inherently ours, and cannot be taken from us. I term this existential freedom -- it is the freedom to take any action not impossible by the laws of nature. Given its universiality, this is a rather vulgar description, but it is an absolute freedom, and not contingent upon the benevolence of anyone else.
Secondly, there is the freedom to act and have the coercion of others be reduced as much as possible in society. Following Friedrich Hayek, I'll call this liberty. I have the essential existential freedom to keep slaves, but should I be found out, the government will coerce me into not doing that. My -liberty- is being infringed upon, even if my freedom is there.
My claim is that liberty-maximization (or a policy of freedom) is the best policy that a society can adopt. Liberty can be measured by the number of choices available to an individual; the more choices that are available sans the arbitrary will of others, the more liberty that individual has. In essence, choice -is- freedom.
Now, you seem to see the ability to vote as an important liberty, and I agree -- it's the ability to decide who the "others" who will ultimately impose their wills upon oneself will be. I agree. However, by making voting compulsory, you are eliminating one viable choice -- not voting. I can, as you pointed out, act in a vulgarly free sense and accept a penalty for not voting, but my coercion-free choice to do so has been eliminated. I have been made -less- free, not more free, at least in the second sense of the word.
My earlier point about the founding principles of the United States' government was that our Declaration of Independence essentially talked about liberty maximization. Compelling someone to do something (like vote) is liberty restriction, and contradictory to our declared intentions. We do, of course, put boundaries on liberty maximization, but in theory, those boundaries are the "life" and "pursuit of happiness" parts -- they form litmus tests for whether or not one's liberty should be restricted.
As far as free speech goes, businesses are not allowed to say that their hair dryer cures cancer. Is this an abridgement of free speech.
No. A business is not afforded the rights granted to citizens, despite the legal fictions that are sometimes used in considering corporations.
Why don't I have absolute freedom? There are consequences for my actions, certainly -- but I am free, with the legal boundaries of my freedom (generally) being the freedom of others. I cannot walk down the street and strike someone without being fined or imprisioned, but I do have the ability to make that choice. Similarly with voting -- I am free to vote or not vote according to preference.
The question seems to be, "should the government impose a motivating factor (a fine) to encourage people to vote?" I argue that it should not, for two reasons: (1) a belief that the role of government should be to promote liberty, not to constrain it. The philosophical foundations of the United States of America lie in the promotion of the ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, rather than the promotion of nationalist sentiment. The freedom to opt out of deciding the government is actually a subset of a larger freedom: the freedom to determine one's own ends and means, and to actualize them as one sees fit.
(2) Although the state-citizen contract is a useful model, it does not exist, and I did not willingly enter into any agreement with my government. I may, out of convinience, take advantage of some of the services offered, and I may also pay my taxes and not break the law for similar reasons. However, my ability to protest against that government, or even to not participate at all, is left to my discretion. While there may be benefit to high voter turnout, it is outweighed by the benefit of freedom-maximization.
In a few more: the determination of a leader for a world power is a great responsibility. Liberty and responsibility are inseparable -- an action that one is compelled to do carries less weight than an action which one embarks upon voluntarily, accepting at the outset to not only act in a certain manner, but to accept the consequences of that action. To do something that is meaningful in any sense of the word precludes the idea that the action is determined by the actor, rather than by an external force.
My goodness. I was reading the BBS for the game, and there is one individual who purchased the Sims, found it to be inoperable on the system that he uses to do photo editing and digital video work, and returned it to the store with an explanation. He then posted, trying to get Maxis to do -something- -- he is apparently a longtime customer as well as a polite, well-spoken fellow.
Here's the Maxis represenative's response: "There is no conspiracy of silence. I've seen posts from people running Nero and CloneCD who aren't having problems with the game and those that are. We can look into it, but I don't have any answers for you today.
And murronrose, since you returned your game, that means that you are no longer a product-registered owner of the game. Which means you shouldn't even be using this BBS... I'm most likely going to have to remove your posting priveledges if you don't cancel your account yourself.
-MaxoidLucky"
That's unbelievable. You don't threaten your fucking customers when they're justifiably angry because you released a ridiculously broken product. Fuck you, Maxis.
The Greer/Geer was a typo. As far as the size, I may have been misinformed; Chris was still the CEO when I left, and I was chatting about the organizational size with one of the guys who was heading out to London. It could well have been a discussion regarding how large he -thought- the company was going to become.
@stake was never the l0pht guys. The l0pht was the heart of @stake's R&D department, but there are many more people involved with that company than just the 10 or so guys who make up what's left of the hacker group. The whole "shut down the internet" thing was also part of a testimony to Congress, when they were discussing the lack of appropriate security for critical networks and systems. It wasn't just a Usenet boast.:)
However, @stake has been 'big business' for a long time. I worked there in 2000, and they were just topping the 400-person mark when I left, spread across 2 continents.
They also let a lot of "non-business-compatible" people go; Space Rogue for not toeing the line with the rest of the l0pht guys, Daniel Greer for openly criticizing Microsoft in a paper he published on his own time, etc.
If and only if the patch directly relates to the online play experience. This probably falls under that umbrella definition, but Microsoft -has- been funky in the past about allowing patches.
Slashdot Mirror
...or perhaps we reject Microsoft because we disagree with its corporate goals, and find its products to be substandard, while agreeing with Google's, and find its offering to be exactly what we want?
My personal method of resistance? Don't buy shit I don't want/need. Nobody is putting a gun to my head and telling me to spend money, and if I'm gullible enough to part with some of it because I've been "enticed" into it? Wah.
The downside of having freedom, in a libertarian sense of the word, is having the liberty to make mistakes. I'd rather that people with the talent to do so be allowed to "shake even more money" from those who can be shaken (especially considering that I can observe that behavior and modify my own as I see fit) than live in a world where draconian "protection" is granted from the evils of being intelligent and crafty.
AC/DC, Sin City. But why would I want a phone call?
Yeah. Or we could just execute him, for if people can freely send emails, the terrorists have won.
No, seriously -- her nether regions are -frightening-. Just look.
Gotta look out for those software-sharing homosexuals!
He could stop being a fucking yuppie and carry a metal harp in his pocket?
I don't know, dawg. Vim opens pretty fucking quickly on my 2ghz laptop.
Of course, I'm not a legal expert -- my degree is in philosophy, not law. The technical steps needed to oppose a law on moral grounds are something I'd leave to my lawyer; I know only what my position is.
The counter-argument to my position is, at least so far as I can tell, that file-sharing DOES represent a tangible loss of property in the form of money not spent. I haven't heard a particularly convincing argument to that effect yet, however. On the other hand, I have seen reports showing that since the introduction of wide-scale P2P software (and to a lesser extent, easy access to file-sharing), media creation companies have seen a tangible -increase- in profits. Granted, that doesn't mitigate the illegality of stealing; if someone can prove that file-sharing is theft in some other way, the profit margins of the **AAs don't really matter.
File sharing, on the other hand, is not "theft" in the traditional sense. When I download a song, for example, I have no deprived anyone of anything. The law protects a theoretical amount of money from -not- going to a music company, but a pretty strong argument can and has been made that shows that were I not to have downloaded the file, I wouldn't have shrugged my shoulders and walked to a record store to buy it. In fact, I may be MORE motivated to spend money on albums that I've heard some of than not.
It's certainly illegal to trade in copyrighted files online. The debate is not over that; it's over whether or not the illegality is sensible. I view P2P file-sharing as a form of civil disobediance. Coupled with a firm belief in the rule of law, were I brought before a jury, I would argue against the law as opposed to the deed. That's the beauty of having jury nullification on the books.
That's "queues", cowboy.
I'd reccomend using a wakizashi, anyways. They're substantially shorter, and far more suited to indoor use. The katana is the Japanese version of the longsword, and like its European counterpart, it wasn't meant to be used in close indoor combat as much as on the open battlefield.
Yeah! The most meaningful analyses are always the knee-jerk ones!
Secondly, there is the freedom to act and have the coercion of others be reduced as much as possible in society. Following Friedrich Hayek, I'll call this liberty. I have the essential existential freedom to keep slaves, but should I be found out, the government will coerce me into not doing that. My -liberty- is being infringed upon, even if my freedom is there.
My claim is that liberty-maximization (or a policy of freedom) is the best policy that a society can adopt. Liberty can be measured by the number of choices available to an individual; the more choices that are available sans the arbitrary will of others, the more liberty that individual has. In essence, choice -is- freedom.
Now, you seem to see the ability to vote as an important liberty, and I agree -- it's the ability to decide who the "others" who will ultimately impose their wills upon oneself will be. I agree. However, by making voting compulsory, you are eliminating one viable choice -- not voting. I can, as you pointed out, act in a vulgarly free sense and accept a penalty for not voting, but my coercion-free choice to do so has been eliminated. I have been made -less- free, not more free, at least in the second sense of the word.
My earlier point about the founding principles of the United States' government was that our Declaration of Independence essentially talked about liberty maximization. Compelling someone to do something (like vote) is liberty restriction, and contradictory to our declared intentions. We do, of course, put boundaries on liberty maximization, but in theory, those boundaries are the "life" and "pursuit of happiness" parts -- they form litmus tests for whether or not one's liberty should be restricted.
As far as free speech goes, businesses are not allowed to say that their hair dryer cures cancer. Is this an abridgement of free speech. No. A business is not afforded the rights granted to citizens, despite the legal fictions that are sometimes used in considering corporations.
The question seems to be, "should the government impose a motivating factor (a fine) to encourage people to vote?" I argue that it should not, for two reasons: (1) a belief that the role of government should be to promote liberty, not to constrain it. The philosophical foundations of the United States of America lie in the promotion of the ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, rather than the promotion of nationalist sentiment. The freedom to opt out of deciding the government is actually a subset of a larger freedom: the freedom to determine one's own ends and means, and to actualize them as one sees fit.
(2) Although the state-citizen contract is a useful model, it does not exist, and I did not willingly enter into any agreement with my government. I may, out of convinience, take advantage of some of the services offered, and I may also pay my taxes and not break the law for similar reasons. However, my ability to protest against that government, or even to not participate at all, is left to my discretion. While there may be benefit to high voter turnout, it is outweighed by the benefit of freedom-maximization.
In a few more: the determination of a leader for a world power is a great responsibility. Liberty and responsibility are inseparable -- an action that one is compelled to do carries less weight than an action which one embarks upon voluntarily, accepting at the outset to not only act in a certain manner, but to accept the consequences of that action. To do something that is meaningful in any sense of the word precludes the idea that the action is determined by the actor, rather than by an external force.
You clearly mean, "if Bush wins in November". "Again" would imply that he won the first time.
Here's the Maxis represenative's response: "There is no conspiracy of silence. I've seen posts from people running Nero and CloneCD who aren't having problems with the game and those that are. We can look into it, but I don't have any answers for you today. And murronrose, since you returned your game, that means that you are no longer a product-registered owner of the game. Which means you shouldn't even be using this BBS... I'm most likely going to have to remove your posting priveledges if you don't cancel your account yourself. -MaxoidLucky"
That's unbelievable. You don't threaten your fucking customers when they're justifiably angry because you released a ridiculously broken product. Fuck you, Maxis.
The Greer/Geer was a typo. As far as the size, I may have been misinformed; Chris was still the CEO when I left, and I was chatting about the organizational size with one of the guys who was heading out to London. It could well have been a discussion regarding how large he -thought- the company was going to become.
Oh, and say hello to Halsey for me.
@stake was never the l0pht guys. The l0pht was the heart of @stake's R&D department, but there are many more people involved with that company than just the 10 or so guys who make up what's left of the hacker group. The whole "shut down the internet" thing was also part of a testimony to Congress, when they were discussing the lack of appropriate security for critical networks and systems. It wasn't just a Usenet boast. :)
They also let a lot of "non-business-compatible" people go; Space Rogue for not toeing the line with the rest of the l0pht guys, Daniel Greer for openly criticizing Microsoft in a paper he published on his own time, etc.
If and only if the patch directly relates to the online play experience. This probably falls under that umbrella definition, but Microsoft -has- been funky in the past about allowing patches.
Maybe you should find something better to hate than a video game console. Seems like a lot of wasted energy.