That's not what I said and not what I meant. I can still accept that there is a difference between real and "intellectual"(more like imaginary) property. So your "analogy" is nonsense.
It's not an analogy--it was you making a statement, and from that statement making a conclusion. I merely removed "intellectual" property from your statement (statement is still true--property IS about control), and kept the same conclusion.
And I think you're getting off-topic again...are you talking about the music industry? I'm not--I'm talking about publishing companies...last I heard, books aren't released on DAT, and there's no reason for them to be.
>>Who's going to pay your rent while you sit around all day and gaze at your navel?
Make sensible comments, or don't comment.
In case you weren't able to understand the english, to contemplate/gaze at one's navel is a common English expression basically meaning to think / do nothing--it comes from stereotypical interpretation of Indian gurus and holy men meditating and looking as if they were contemplating their navels.
You might not realize you've been robbed before you signed the exclusive contract. I shouldn't have to pay a lawyer to check if the publisher is a crook or not. That's just another industry I don't want to feed. A creator should just go out, do his/her work, get paid, and move on, just like everyone else. They should not get special privileges.
Like I said--nothing is stopping ANYBODY from not using a publisher right now. You can easily hire an editor, typesetters, designers, get your own printing contract, marketing firm etc--surely you don't think that ALL these companies are worthless? Because these are all things that publishing companies do. You really don't seem to understand what exactly a publishing company is, or what it does, and your ignorance makes you make these ridiculous arguments. Your analogy is so flawed as to be completely irrelevant.
All IP is about control. Who can posess...who can distribute...It robs the public at large to protect the profits of a select few.
Let me put it another way for you:
All propertyu is about control. Who can posess...who can distribute...It robs the public at large to protect the profits of a select few.
Surely you're not advocating the complete abolition of private property--because I have to tell you--the worldwide track record for such lunacy is not looking good.
We're shocked that it's legal to refuse a person medical treatment because they can't afford to pay for it. And I could go on.
Actually this isn't true AFAIK--if you show up at an emergency room, the hospital by law has to treat you.
I think your last sentence is very revealing. Fundamentally, the American concept of "rights" is inseparable from the constitution.
Not sure I would agree with that--we view the constitution as being the ultimate defender of rights yes, but the constitution has been amended many timesm often to positively enumerate more rights.
If the right isn't listed in a 200-year-old document -- or if the constitution doesn't apply (Guantanamo, Iraq) -- then apparently people have no rights.
That's a complete misinterpretation of America and popular views on rights. For one thing, there ARE legal battles being waged over guantanamo bay, and I don't think anyone supports what we have seen come out of Iraq in these recent weeks. The wheels of justice might grind slowly, but grind they do.
It's as if for Americans, rights are a fundamentalist religion with the constitution for scripture: inalienable, yes, but also inflexible and with no application to unbelievers.
Totally disagree. Constitution is very flexible, try taking a constitutional law course for instance--you'd be shocked by examples of how the constitution is unchanging, but interpretations change. Likewise, the constitution has 26 amendments. You must also understand about the constitution--it describes a minimum. The writers deliberately avoided a huge complex constitution (such as those being suggested for the EU) in favor of a simple one.
As a result, America assumes that any other concept of rights is incorrect and inferior. Perhaps others in the west have a more inclusive notion - that a person's rights derive from his dignity as a human being, not his citizenship, and that the substance of those rights should reflect the society in which he lives, and not mimic those created 200 years ago for a far-away country
I would agree with you here on one pont--yes, most Americans DO think that the American way is best. I do. I'm not saying the European social-democracy path is without merits, but on a philosophical, ideological, and moral level, I prefer the American way.
no country, not even European ones, are without humans rights violations--as I'm sure you know every example can be turned on its. America wants to liberate Iraq, France wanted to support Saddam. Support a dictator who killed thousands? How does that respect the dignity of human life? Likewise, a contrary argument is quite evident from the recemt torture mess.
I just want to make clear, I tried to do so in my last post--I'm very definitely NOT trying to make value calls here--I'm just pointing out that there are substantial differences between Euro/American views of rights. And hey, I'll freely admit--I think the American way is the best way--but neither am I neocon.
I definitely agree with you when you say that these values are definitely hyped in American and seen as uniquely America. I also agree when you say that the Western world as a whole, widely respects the same issues.
But I would actually have to say that to a degree, they ARE uniquelly american--We are shocked by the French banning veils in schools. We are shocked that in Germany nazi paraphanelia cannot be sold or bought, and we are shocked by some of the speech codes that forbid racist, anti-religious, etc speech. That's not to say that we in America are RIGHT, or that such laws wouldn't actually be beneficial here, but we still maintain these rights (mostly from the bill of rights) as fundamental the "Right" thing to do. And I do believe that that is a signifigant difference.
Now that copying IS so cheap proves that the copies are worthless.
If they're worthless, than why are you or others interested in acquiring them? Basic economics, common sense--exceptional to ask for these on slashdot I know, but still..
...the law of 1710 you cite was the first parliamentary act, however common law had been dealing with these issues for at least 200 years.
Uh, 200 years ago? Or 200 years before 1710?
My statement which you quoted explains it quite well--200 years before 1710. You might want to read about some of the early preses, and the English great, Caxton. Interesting stuff, and would probably help clear up some of your misconceptions.
Well, there you go. Trying to protect an obsolete industry. To bring up the tired old analogy, You're making buggy whips. We no longer need buggy whips. Well, maybe the sex shops can sell 'em, but that's another thread.
That's easy for you to say, and if you think that me, as someone who interned doing Quark Xpress one summer now has a vested interest in protecting the publishing industry, you're quite frankly more daft than your senseless comments lead me to believe. Publishers do many things you probably have never thought about, and many of the people who work in the industries are creative artists in their own right. I'd highly recommend you try working for a publishing company for a short period, I think you'd be amazed by what you would find.
And incidentally--the best thing about publishing--no one is forcing anyone to do anything. You don't like one publishing company, find another--there are plenty! you don't like any of them? do it yourself!
Publishing is by no means a "buggy whip," and is still in high demand--if publishers were really as evil and useless as you seem to think (vote nader! yay!) no one would use them, that simple.
Just so we're clear, pirates CAN use windowsupdate--no, you can't install SP1 at the moment, and updates that SP1 depends on, but other, namely security updates, you can install. I used Wup last week to install the security fix for Sasser on a Pre-SP1 pirated box.
Maybe because authors didn't have their own press like they do now. The whole issue never came up before Gutenburg.
I think you're looking at this issue wrong--you're right in what you say here, but the REASON the problem didn't exist is because copying/producing copies was expensive as hell PERIOD.
U.S. didn't care much about enforcing IP until it had acquired a significant amount of its own. The pirates and "criminals" of yesterday's societies are what gave us today's freedoms.
don't get what your point is at all--last I checked, the constitution and the basis for the entire american system of govt began in the 1770's and 80's. If you have any evidence that the constitution was originally intended to deny the possibility of IP, please enlighten me.
By the way, the first copyright law came about in 1710.
That's not really true--If we're talking British legal system (and ergo, the highly derivative american system) the law of 1710 you cite was the first parliamentary act, however common law had been dealing with these issues for at least 200 years. Common law doesn't mean illegitimate.
Right now, copyright is being used to protect the publishing middle man more than anyone else. This is necessary to insure that creators will be dependant on them (requiring that they sign over their rights, etc,) forever if possible.
this is of course your interpretation, and not one that I agree with, having worked in the publishing industry. I will say that I don't like the current copyright laws, where rights can be extended 76 or whatever numbers of years past death. personally I think 30 years is probably a pretty good number.
Also let it be said that IP goes MUCH farther than just copyrights, so it's rather limiting to only discuss copyright.
It's quite simple--publishers made less money, authors/writers made less money, pirates made more money. And before anyone goes off on a rant about how pirates is a misleading term, this is a very established etymology, that is not at all recent.
If you're interested in the matter, the modern era of copyrights basically was entered around the 1880's. Specifically, the first work was Gilbert and Sullivan's _The Pirates of Penzance_. Before that point the US and England had no copyright agreement, so G&S operettas (and others) would appear on the NY streets within days of opening in London, by people who merely copied Gilbert's dialogues and Sullivan's composing.
But I guess in your world view that's not a problem--"collecting rent" and what not doesn't sound good? I just hope, for your sake, that you never get a world without IP--and then ever feel like creating anything.
You assume that all Europe uses free software and all america uses commercial software, and that free software ALWAYS provides a cost advantage over commercial software.
I would be interested to see a comparative study of private and public sector IT spending, and adoption of OSS vs commercial software in NA and in Europe.
Why does every post advocating a "get off your lazy ass and fork it" point of view get modded up? Yes, that CAN be a strength of opensource, but it is also a WEAKNESS.
Companies survive on the strength of their products--many take user feedback VERY seriously. Photoshop is such a program that has evolved over the years to the highly polished program it is.
I would go so far as to say that the "No, we're not listening to your suggestions, do it yourself" is a severe WEAKNESS in OSS, as has been reiterated by this article and the comments here, designers and users are not the same.
Um, how about the PATRIOT act? According to the American Library Association's website, the law now permits the FBI to compel libraries to produce library Internet use records without a warrant.
this is a COMPLETELY different issue, as I'll explain below.
While it doesn't directly close down those library terminals, it is certainly comparable to the Chinese practice of requiring video surveillance of cybercafe patrons. And that goes a long way toward discouraging use of the internet for anything that the government doesn't like.
The difference is PUBLIC and PRIVATE. A library funded by the government is PUBLIC. A cybercafe is PRIVATE.
Now, the reason I think you're confused is, that while a cybercafe is open to the public, it is a private institution--this can be a tricky concept, but I think if you reason it through it'll make sense. Now, having understood the issue, would you like to restate your position?
Believe me, if the government were requiring PRIVATE cafes or ISPs to keep records, etc, I would be up in arms, but that simply isn't the case. THe beauty of the American system versus the Chinese (or any socialist) system is that no corporation can have as much power as the government can. What is the recourse if the government wrongs you? There is none. Are you going to sue the govt? Sue the FDA? etc? of course not...
Beyond which, we can of course get into a discussion of intent. The intent of the PATRIOT act is to stop terrorist--which we can all agree is a good thing. Getting library records without a warrant? Not so much of a good thing. I'd love ot see whether this has been abused. Let's also be clear--browsing records are still largely anonymous--at least at all the public libraries I've used computers at--maybe you have a different experience?
I went all through public schools--we did it in 2nd or 3rd grade--only one, and as I remember, it was the teacher, not the school. I can't really remember doing it at any other time.
Besides which, the pledge is a pretty innocuous thing (sans 'God' reference..). liberty and justice for all? I'm ok with that.
A couple points: You can't have faith-based belief AND a theory. A theory is an explanation based on facts (tests, observations) while faith is complete belief in something without question with NO EVIDENCE. So you either believe this conspiracy of yours or you entertain it as a theory based on pure speculation (which makes for a lousy theory).
Incorrect. I've already quite well explain in my other post to you how you are using an incorrect understanding of the word "faith." Check out a real dictionary if you don't believe me.
Secondly, we ALL take things on faith. If you can honestly tell me that EVERY single thing you believe is based 100% on proven--scientifically proven--fact, well, that's impossible.
Again, why do you feel the need to belittle the beliefs of others? The poster wasn't being obnoxious nor was he trying to force his beliefs on you. The truth of the matter is you are no "better" than any missionary--after all, you're trying to convert people to your belief system.
Oh yeah, can I hazard a guess that you're a socialist-leaning leftist, or a leftist-leaning libertarian? I'm just curious..
Actually I think it is you who are trying to play semantic games. Let's check a worthwhile dictionary. Oxford English Dictionary says for faith:
I. Belief, trust, confidence
1. a. Confidence, reliance, trust (in the ability, goodness, etc., of a person; in the efficacy or worth of a thing; or in the truth of a statement or doctrine). Const. in, of. In early use, only with reference to religious objects; this is still the prevalent application, and often colours the wider use.
b. Belief proceeding from reliance on testimony or authority.
3. Theol. in various specific applications. a. Belief in the truths of religion; belief in the authenticity of divine revelation (whether viewed as contained in Holy Scripture or in the teaching of the Church), and acceptance of the revealed doctrines. b. That kind of faith (distinctively called saving or justifying faith) by which, in the teaching of the N.T., a sinner is justified in the sight of God. This is very variously defined by theologians (see quots.), but there is general agreement in regarding it as a conviction practically operative on the character and will, and thus opposed to the mere intellectual assent to religious truth (sometimes called speculative faith). c. The spiritual apprehension of divine truths, or of realities beyond the reach of sensible experience or logical proof. By Christian writers often identified with the preceding; but not exclusively confined to Christian use. Often viewed as the exercise of a special faculty in the soul of man, or as the result of supernatural illumination.
4. That which is or should be believed. a. A system of religious belief, e.g. the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc., faith. Also, confession, rule of faith, for which see those words.
Followed by about 40 more definitions and nuances.
If you know Latin or Greek, which I doubt you do, else you wouldn't have made such an ignorant post, you'll understand why your definition is, at best, woefully incomplete and at worse wrong.
I've never understood why people feel the need to go bash the beliefs of others such as you are doing--so the poster is religious and has faith--big deal, what makes you have the need to belittle that?
Yes Safari is based on the same HTML rendering engine as Konquerer, but the user interface is completely different. On the surface, Safari is far more similar to Firefox than Konquerer.
And where exactly do you think the bulk of the code in Mozilla goes? The rendering engine IS the single biggest component of any browser.
Besides--what's so different about the interface of say Konq and Mozilla? I like Konq because it's faster in my experience--what makes the UI's so different?
Half-assed browsers like Konq?! It may be hard for you to believe, but some of us actually find Konq better to use than Mozilla.
That's certaintly true for APPLE, as Safari is based on kparts as well. Because of that alone, it wouldn't seriously surprise me if KParts browsers have a higher marketshare than mozilla.
Yeah, I suppose all those penniless students studying in fields that are gonna require AutoCAD skills really have the option to buy AutoCAD for the low, low price of $3,470. Which, I might add, is more than most students pay for a car, a computer and all the software on it-- combined.
Ok, I want to be a race car driver, but I don't have a car, by your logic I should just go steal a car. Right?
You can't really be so stupid to forget that not all software costs $99.95 or less...
Indeed not. What made you think I did--all the extensive evidence you presented to dispute my point?
I know quite a few graphical art students that have pirated Photoshop simply because they couldn't afford it. Did they want to buy it? Yes, it's their tool of choice. Could they afford it? No, their art students
What the hell is this supposed to mean? I want a car, I'm a student, I don't have a car. By your logic I should go steal a car. Is that seriously what you are saying?? I have a hard believing that even the most deluded person on slashdot would say that.
Silly statement. Go look on any warez site, anywhere. What are you going to find? Adobe photoshop. Adobe photoshop. Maya, some video editing packages, Adobe photoshop...
Yes, you'll find them, along with every other piece of software. Check out the infamous suprnova site if you don't believe me.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not what I said and not what I meant. I can still accept that there is a difference between real and "intellectual"(more like imaginary) property. So your "analogy" is nonsense.
It's not an analogy--it was you making a statement, and from that statement making a conclusion. I merely removed "intellectual" property from your statement (statement is still true--property IS about control), and kept the same conclusion.
And I think you're getting off-topic again...are you talking about the music industry? I'm not--I'm talking about publishing companies...last I heard, books aren't released on DAT, and there's no reason for them to be.
I'm a student, therefore I've already paid for my time :) or at least my parents have--in the form of tuition!
Sorry if I angered you, didn't realize the fact that things cost money would make you irritable.
Oh, forgive me--I thought he was making the point that, forgive the expression, time is money.
>>Who's going to pay your rent while you sit around all day and gaze at your navel?
Make sensible comments, or don't comment.
In case you weren't able to understand the english, to contemplate/gaze at one's navel is a common English expression basically meaning to think / do nothing--it comes from stereotypical interpretation of Indian gurus and holy men meditating and looking as if they were contemplating their navels.
Hope that helps.
You might not realize you've been robbed before you signed the exclusive contract. I shouldn't have to pay a lawyer to check if the publisher is a crook or not. That's just another industry I don't want to feed. A creator should just go out, do his/her work, get paid, and move on, just like everyone else. They should not get special privileges.
Like I said--nothing is stopping ANYBODY from not using a publisher right now. You can easily hire an editor, typesetters, designers, get your own printing contract, marketing firm etc--surely you don't think that ALL these companies are worthless? Because these are all things that publishing companies do. You really don't seem to understand what exactly a publishing company is, or what it does, and your ignorance makes you make these ridiculous arguments. Your analogy is so flawed as to be completely irrelevant.
All IP is about control. Who can posess...who can distribute...It robs the public at large to protect the profits of a select few.
Let me put it another way for you:
All propertyu is about control. Who can posess...who can distribute...It robs the public at large to protect the profits of a select few.
Surely you're not advocating the complete abolition of private property--because I have to tell you--the worldwide track record for such lunacy is not looking good.
We're shocked that it's legal to refuse a person medical treatment because they can't afford to pay for it. And I could go on.
Actually this isn't true AFAIK--if you show up at an emergency room, the hospital by law has to treat you.
I think your last sentence is very revealing. Fundamentally, the American concept of "rights" is inseparable from the constitution.
Not sure I would agree with that--we view the constitution as being the ultimate defender of rights yes, but the constitution has been amended many timesm often to positively enumerate more rights.
If the right isn't listed in a 200-year-old document -- or if the constitution doesn't apply (Guantanamo, Iraq) -- then apparently people have no rights.
That's a complete misinterpretation of America and popular views on rights. For one thing, there ARE legal battles being waged over guantanamo bay, and I don't think anyone supports what we have seen come out of Iraq in these recent weeks. The wheels of justice might grind slowly, but grind they do.
It's as if for Americans, rights are a fundamentalist religion with the constitution for scripture: inalienable, yes, but also inflexible and with no application to unbelievers.
Totally disagree. Constitution is very flexible, try taking a constitutional law course for instance--you'd be shocked by examples of how the constitution is unchanging, but interpretations change. Likewise, the constitution has 26 amendments. You must also understand about the constitution--it describes a minimum. The writers deliberately avoided a huge complex constitution (such as those being suggested for the EU) in favor of a simple one.
As a result, America assumes that any other concept of rights is incorrect and inferior. Perhaps others in the west have a more inclusive notion - that a person's rights derive from his dignity as a human being, not his citizenship, and that the substance of those rights should reflect the society in which he lives, and not mimic those created 200 years ago for a far-away country
I would agree with you here on one pont--yes, most Americans DO think that the American way is best. I do. I'm not saying the European social-democracy path is without merits, but on a philosophical, ideological, and moral level, I prefer the American way.
no country, not even European ones, are without humans rights violations--as I'm sure you know every example can be turned on its. America wants to liberate Iraq, France wanted to support Saddam. Support a dictator who killed thousands? How does that respect the dignity of human life? Likewise, a contrary argument is quite evident from the recemt torture mess.
I just want to make clear, I tried to do so in my last post--I'm very definitely NOT trying to make value calls here--I'm just pointing out that there are substantial differences between Euro/American views of rights. And hey, I'll freely admit--I think the American way is the best way--but neither am I neocon.
I definitely agree with you when you say that these values are definitely hyped in American and seen as uniquely America. I also agree when you say that the Western world as a whole, widely respects the same issues.
But I would actually have to say that to a degree, they ARE uniquelly american--We are shocked by the French banning veils in schools. We are shocked that in Germany nazi paraphanelia cannot be sold or bought, and we are shocked by some of the speech codes that forbid racist, anti-religious, etc speech. That's not to say that we in America are RIGHT, or that such laws wouldn't actually be beneficial here, but we still maintain these rights (mostly from the bill of rights) as fundamental the "Right" thing to do. And I do believe that that is a signifigant difference.
Now that copying IS so cheap proves that the copies are worthless.
If they're worthless, than why are you or others interested in acquiring them? Basic economics, common sense--exceptional to ask for these on slashdot I know, but still..
Uh, 200 years ago? Or 200 years before 1710?
My statement which you quoted explains it quite well--200 years before 1710. You might want to read about some of the early preses, and the English great, Caxton. Interesting stuff, and would probably help clear up some of your misconceptions.
Well, there you go. Trying to protect an obsolete industry. To bring up the tired old analogy, You're making buggy whips. We no longer need buggy whips. Well, maybe the sex shops can sell 'em, but that's another thread.
That's easy for you to say, and if you think that me, as someone who interned doing Quark Xpress one summer now has a vested interest in protecting the publishing industry, you're quite frankly more daft than your senseless comments lead me to believe. Publishers do many things you probably have never thought about, and many of the people who work in the industries are creative artists in their own right. I'd highly recommend you try working for a publishing company for a short period, I think you'd be amazed by what you would find.
And incidentally--the best thing about publishing--no one is forcing anyone to do anything. You don't like one publishing company, find another--there are plenty! you don't like any of them? do it yourself!
Publishing is by no means a "buggy whip," and is still in high demand--if publishers were really as evil and useless as you seem to think (vote nader! yay!) no one would use them, that simple.
Just so we're clear, pirates CAN use windowsupdate--no, you can't install SP1 at the moment, and updates that SP1 depends on, but other, namely security updates, you can install. I used Wup last week to install the security fix for Sasser on a Pre-SP1 pirated box.
Please don't forget that commercial != microsoft. Solaris, etc are still players.
Maybe because authors didn't have their own press like they do now. The whole issue never came up before Gutenburg.
I think you're looking at this issue wrong--you're right in what you say here, but the REASON the problem didn't exist is because copying/producing copies was expensive as hell PERIOD.
U.S. didn't care much about enforcing IP until it had acquired a significant amount of its own. The pirates and "criminals" of yesterday's societies are what gave us today's freedoms.
don't get what your point is at all--last I checked, the constitution and the basis for the entire american system of govt began in the 1770's and 80's. If you have any evidence that the constitution was originally intended to deny the possibility of IP, please enlighten me.
By the way, the first copyright law came about in 1710.
That's not really true--If we're talking British legal system (and ergo, the highly derivative american system) the law of 1710 you cite was the first parliamentary act, however common law had been dealing with these issues for at least 200 years. Common law doesn't mean illegitimate.
Right now, copyright is being used to protect the publishing middle man more than anyone else. This is necessary to insure that creators will be dependant on them (requiring that they sign over their rights, etc,) forever if possible.
this is of course your interpretation, and not one that I agree with, having worked in the publishing industry. I will say that I don't like the current copyright laws, where rights can be extended 76 or whatever numbers of years past death. personally I think 30 years is probably a pretty good number.
Also let it be said that IP goes MUCH farther than just copyrights, so it's rather limiting to only discuss copyright.
It's quite simple--publishers made less money, authors/writers made less money, pirates made more money. And before anyone goes off on a rant about how pirates is a misleading term, this is a very established etymology, that is not at all recent.
If you're interested in the matter, the modern era of copyrights basically was entered around the 1880's. Specifically, the first work was Gilbert and Sullivan's _The Pirates of Penzance_. Before that point the US and England had no copyright agreement, so G&S operettas (and others) would appear on the NY streets within days of opening in London, by people who merely copied Gilbert's dialogues and Sullivan's composing.
But I guess in your world view that's not a problem--"collecting rent" and what not doesn't sound good? I just hope, for your sake, that you never get a world without IP--and then ever feel like creating anything.
You assume that all Europe uses free software and all america uses commercial software, and that free software ALWAYS provides a cost advantage over commercial software.
I would be interested to see a comparative study of private and public sector IT spending, and adoption of OSS vs commercial software in NA and in Europe.
You can get your name put on anything for the right price anymore.
And this is different from any period in human history, anywhere in the world, how?
Why does every post advocating a "get off your lazy ass and fork it" point of view get modded up? Yes, that CAN be a strength of opensource, but it is also a WEAKNESS.
Companies survive on the strength of their products--many take user feedback VERY seriously. Photoshop is such a program that has evolved over the years to the highly polished program it is.
I would go so far as to say that the "No, we're not listening to your suggestions, do it yourself" is a severe WEAKNESS in OSS, as has been reiterated by this article and the comments here, designers and users are not the same.
Um, how about the PATRIOT act? According to the American Library Association's website, the law now permits the FBI to compel libraries to produce library Internet use records without a warrant.
this is a COMPLETELY different issue, as I'll explain below.
While it doesn't directly close down those library terminals, it is certainly comparable to the Chinese practice of requiring video surveillance of cybercafe patrons. And that goes a long way toward discouraging use of the internet for anything that the government doesn't like.
The difference is PUBLIC and PRIVATE. A library funded by the government is PUBLIC. A cybercafe is PRIVATE.
Now, the reason I think you're confused is, that while a cybercafe is open to the public, it is a private institution--this can be a tricky concept, but I think if you reason it through it'll make sense. Now, having understood the issue, would you like to restate your position?
Believe me, if the government were requiring PRIVATE cafes or ISPs to keep records, etc, I would be up in arms, but that simply isn't the case. THe beauty of the American system versus the Chinese (or any socialist) system is that no corporation can have as much power as the government can. What is the recourse if the government wrongs you? There is none. Are you going to sue the govt? Sue the FDA? etc? of course not...
Beyond which, we can of course get into a discussion of intent. The intent of the PATRIOT act is to stop terrorist--which we can all agree is a good thing. Getting library records without a warrant? Not so much of a good thing. I'd love ot see whether this has been abused. Let's also be clear--browsing records are still largely anonymous--at least at all the public libraries I've used computers at--maybe you have a different experience?
How many times have you pledged your allegiance?
I went all through public schools--we did it in 2nd or 3rd grade--only one, and as I remember, it was the teacher, not the school. I can't really remember doing it at any other time.
Besides which, the pledge is a pretty innocuous thing (sans 'God' reference..). liberty and justice for all? I'm ok with that.
Yeah, and in america they call it 'securing your freedom'
What does this mean? Have their been any actions take in the US to limit internet access, public or otherwise? I'd love to hear a single example.
A couple points: You can't have faith-based belief AND a theory. A theory is an explanation based on facts (tests, observations) while faith is complete belief in something without question with NO EVIDENCE. So you either believe this conspiracy of yours or you entertain it as a theory based on pure speculation (which makes for a lousy theory).
Incorrect. I've already quite well explain in my other post to you how you are using an incorrect understanding of the word "faith." Check out a real dictionary if you don't believe me.
Secondly, we ALL take things on faith. If you can honestly tell me that EVERY single thing you believe is based 100% on proven--scientifically proven--fact, well, that's impossible.
Again, why do you feel the need to belittle the beliefs of others? The poster wasn't being obnoxious nor was he trying to force his beliefs on you. The truth of the matter is you are no "better" than any missionary--after all, you're trying to convert people to your belief system.
Oh yeah, can I hazard a guess that you're a socialist-leaning leftist, or a leftist-leaning libertarian? I'm just curious..
Actually I think it is you who are trying to play semantic games. Let's check a worthwhile dictionary. Oxford English Dictionary says for faith:
I. Belief, trust, confidence
1. a. Confidence, reliance, trust (in the ability, goodness, etc., of a person; in the efficacy or worth of a thing; or in the truth of a statement or doctrine). Const. in, of. In early use, only with reference to religious objects; this is still the prevalent application, and often colours the wider use.
b. Belief proceeding from reliance on testimony or authority.
3. Theol. in various specific applications. a. Belief in the truths of religion; belief in the authenticity of divine revelation (whether viewed as contained in Holy Scripture or in the teaching of the Church), and acceptance of the revealed doctrines. b. That kind of faith (distinctively called saving or justifying faith) by which, in the teaching of the N.T., a sinner is justified in the sight of God. This is very variously defined by theologians (see quots.), but there is general agreement in regarding it as a conviction practically operative on the character and will, and thus opposed to the mere intellectual assent to religious truth (sometimes called speculative faith). c. The spiritual apprehension of divine truths, or of realities beyond the reach of sensible experience or logical proof. By Christian writers often identified with the preceding; but not exclusively confined to Christian use. Often viewed as the exercise of a special faculty in the soul of man, or as the result of supernatural illumination.
4. That which is or should be believed. a. A system of religious belief, e.g. the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc., faith. Also, confession, rule of faith, for which see those words.
Followed by about 40 more definitions and nuances.
If you know Latin or Greek, which I doubt you do, else you wouldn't have made such an ignorant post, you'll understand why your definition is, at best, woefully incomplete and at worse wrong.
I've never understood why people feel the need to go bash the beliefs of others such as you are doing--so the poster is religious and has faith--big deal, what makes you have the need to belittle that?
Yes Safari is based on the same HTML rendering engine as Konquerer, but the user interface is completely different. On the surface, Safari is far more similar to Firefox than Konquerer.
And where exactly do you think the bulk of the code in Mozilla goes? The rendering engine IS the single biggest component of any browser.
Besides--what's so different about the interface of say Konq and Mozilla? I like Konq because it's faster in my experience--what makes the UI's so different?
That's certaintly true for APPLE, as Safari is based on kparts as well. Because of that alone, it wouldn't seriously surprise me if KParts browsers have a higher marketshare than mozilla.
Yeah, I suppose all those penniless students studying in fields that are gonna require AutoCAD skills really have the option to buy AutoCAD for the low, low price of $3,470. Which, I might add, is more than most students pay for a car, a computer and all the software on it-- combined.
Ok, I want to be a race car driver, but I don't have a car, by your logic I should just go steal a car. Right?
You can't really be so stupid to forget that not all software costs $99.95 or less...
Indeed not. What made you think I did--all the extensive evidence you presented to dispute my point?
I know quite a few graphical art students that have pirated Photoshop simply because they couldn't afford it. Did they want to buy it? Yes, it's their tool of choice. Could they afford it? No, their art students
What the hell is this supposed to mean? I want a car, I'm a student, I don't have a car. By your logic I should go steal a car. Is that seriously what you are saying?? I have a hard believing that even the most deluded person on slashdot would say that.
Silly statement. Go look on any warez site, anywhere. What are you going to find? Adobe photoshop. Adobe photoshop. Maya, some video editing packages, Adobe photoshop...
Yes, you'll find them, along with every other piece of software. Check out the infamous suprnova site if you don't believe me.