I was trying to find the bright side to this, but couldn't really. But I did wonder what conlusions or new hypothesis you could develop.
The kid expected find out that people were biased due to skin colour. She finds out that the kids are, but the adults aren't, instead going by the nicest dress. But then the project gets pulled for no good reason by the school. She could develop the following opinions:
As a child, people naively may exhibit prejudice, but they can learn to lose them.
8 year olds have no dress sense but it becomes far more important later on.
Then the realisation that other people's appearance is still important, just not as making sure that you look as good as possible.
People in authority can be identified by their dress sense.
Which still doesn't mean that their decisions make any sense.
And so the child can be prepared for the change in prejudice as she ages, into subtler forms, and also to question authority. Maybe the influences will combine to produce a new, visionary kind of authority figure (with, nonetheless, good dress sense).
In a philosophical/ religious/ spritual/ humanitarian etc type of forum, you can start with the premise that all people are created equally and share the same fundamental rights. There's a lot of ways to put this, but I think the phrasing, "We hold these rights to be self-evident," is pretty good. (I'm Scots, forgive me if I've got the exact wording wrong). It's not entirely scientific, and though that may weaken it in some eyes, it's strength and simplicity are, well, self-evident.
While in a scientific forum, for all the reasons you have given, there's the danger of hurtful theories - there's certainly been several of those e.g. such and such a race are genetically disposed to be less intelligent than this other race. It takes a lot of experience - or more insight than most of us are blessed with - to learn how to deal with these arguments on a logical level, let alone emotional. The "self-evident" argument, for example, would be really tough to defend scientifically.
Certainly with young kids, I would agree that a scientific forum is not the best place.
Simple, the tune is a wee piece of artistic expression. The program is just the instrument by which it is performed. Now if you'd written the tune yourself, we might have something here.
You have a fixed set of tools and must create something from those limitations.
There's two ways to respond to this: one, pretty much every human activity has a fixed set of tools with which to perform any given act, or two, there is no human activity with fundamentally fixed tools, as you're free to create any new tools you can think of to help you out. Either way, this doesn't exclude anything from being defined as art, so it's an empty argument. You've got to provide some differentiation, unless you want to argue that art, engineering and the natural evolution of my girlfriend are all one and the same thing (note: if confronted by girlfriend I would hypocritically change my argument, rather than try and explain why she isn't a work of art)
The other classic logical error above is the implied, "Lindsey is a programmer, and Lindsey is an artist. Therefore programming is art."
Art is about things like intention and effect, not the tools or the media employed. You can't justify a work of art by its rarity or difficulty, or even its beauty. I might state that a creative, elegant circuit design is a work of art, but I wouldn't mean it literally. Likewise my girlfriend. But conversely, due to appreciation of the elegance involved, I might say that both are literally beautiful to me, for beauty is in the eye of the beholder. (Again, if confronted by girlfriend, I will quickly turn hyprocrite, rather than try and explain why she has just been compared to a PCB).
Oh, please. Walking and talking are learned skills, but hailing a cab to ease your aching feet is hardly an artistic statement of the state of your soul.
Animals in general are multi-skilled creatures, humans particularly so, the ability to be both artist and programmer does not make them the same thing. A program may be creative, non-intuitive, elegant and unique, but that still don't make it art. It may just be a superbly crafted tool in response to a need. The fact that someone or something is praiseworthy does not mean that the praise should include claims that it is art (with the exception of the not-always-literally-intended, "That, my friend, is a work of art."). "Art" is considered a desirable thing, and the word is used as a result as a form of superlative. But that doesn't hold up in discussion.
Of course, if someone has some artistic idea (I'm going to cowardly chicken out and not attempt to define that) and programming happens to be the tool by which it is expressed, then great. It forms part of the craftsmanship that is involved in creating art. If the program is well written, the artwork is well executed. If the program embodies the entire work, then it is the artistic medium. And the programmer and the artist may be one and the same.
Don't be misled by the flexibility of the English language, there may be an art to good programming, but programming ain't art.
For the most part, I would say that's true. But you have to make sure you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater - engravings and the like are valid artworks even if the medium happens to be a sword blade.
Likewise, a "weapon" that is ornamental rather than functional in intention (even if it does happen to be razor sharp) might be considered artwork; an area where the word "craft" often comes into play.
No need to feel sorry for yourself, if you're offering condolences to those affected by stupidity. You'll know you have plenty of company.
If you read the article, you'll notice that the ISP, the carrier, the host, all are not responsible. If they're not responsible, they don't need to filter.
Seeing as insults seem to the order of the day, how on earth did small-brained eejits who can't read or apply logic develop the self-impression that they were more intelligent than the government? They may not be able to understand the technology, but you seem to have trouble reading a newspaper.
As for sensible ways to implement it, there is one. If there is a complaint that an individual is posting illegal content to the internet, and investigation shows that this is true, then arrest and charge them. Note there are many ways to do this, that don't all involve the Internet. Or are you too affected by stupidity to think of alternatives?
As the mass media is such an important part of a country's identity, I'm afraid that to a large extent there isn't any choice. It may only be one factor, but it's an important one.
But that wasn't really my point; it's more that free speech doesn't exist anywhere in practice. Further, I am not of the opinion that free speech is a defendable principle unless you are willing to put clauses upon it. Things such as slander and obscenity shouldn't be allowed - and indeed they're not - and the real debate is, how do we apply restrictions?
Although I disagree with what appears to be a rather large blanket definition in the case of South Australia, it seems that holding people responsible for what they post, and not the ISP, carrier, or host site, is the correct approach. The burden of proof would lie with the prosecution like in any other case.
There are related issues such as privacy, but all other things being equal, I have no problem with the concept that it should be illegal to post illegal material onto the web
Seeing as people are as usual flying off the handle and making statements without basis in fact, but merely derived from their own stereotypical opinions (an accusation fairly similar to that often aimed at the legislators), it's worthwhile pointing out a few facts about the article:
There is no mention of software. There is no mention of filtering. There is no mention of thought control. There is no mention of enforcement by ISPs.
A lot of the posts are along the lines of, "Automatic filtering is impossible. Those idiots don't understand the technology." While going purely on the facts in the linked article, a fair reply to this would be, "There's no mention of filtering, and ISPs, carriers and hosts are specifically not targeted by the new laws - that's stated in black and white. You idiots can't even read - where do you get off insulting our lack of understanding!" Besides, it's seems clear to me that technology does not have as great effect on principles and law as tech-heads might think. Just because you've found a method whereby you won't be caught doesn't make it legal or ethical.
It's also worth mentioning that freedom of speech is not a right that Australians have, or for that matter anyone outside of the US (and of the evidence of the average bland, conservative mainstream output of the American media, it could be argued that they drastically fail to appreciate the principle anyway).
People are blindly assuming that the definition of what is obscene is going to be automatically decided by some algorithm somewhere. Well, maybe it is, but it's not stated anywhere. And the fact that ISPs and hosts will not be held responsible tends to suggest that this in unlikely to be the case. Australia has always struck me as pretty reasonable about such things - it will be the courts who decide what is and isn't obscene, which is the way it has always been.
Sorry for being a reactionary conservative prick, but I think that there is such a thing as obscene material, and would not have a particularly high opinion of anyone that thought pictures of, say, an 8 year old orphan being forced to have anal sex should be defended on some pathetic "free speech" principle. I'm willing to bet that was not what the writers of the US Constitution had in mind.
On the premise that some material should therefore be made illegal, how do you stop it? You say, and I agree, that filtering software doesn't work. But if someone is proven to have posted such material, then they should be convicted. In principle at least, this can be passed into law. Further more, such proof is a very different matter to automatic and fail safe filtering.
It remains consistent and practical to acknowledge the fact that the Internet/cyberspace changes the rules, therefore posting to host on the internet can just as easily be treated as an export situation. Anyone within the territory concerned therefore posts at their own risk - they are clearly breaking the law. Tax havens and permanent exiles have been around for centuries, so it really isn't anything new for people to move somewhere that their acts are not liable to prosecution.
There are points to worry about in the article - there is no clear definition of what is "permissable" material. For example, pornography Playboy/Playgirl style is to my mind difficult to criticise, in the sense that it's above board, and the abuses (there must be some) are likely to be no worse than you might get in some sweat shop with an abusive boss - i.e. individual people might get prosecuted but you can't ban pictures of naked people. Those cases involving genuine abuse are more questionable, and the you've got child porn which is completely unacceptable. So there are lines to be drawn, especially when the law as it seems to be outlined in the article then throws even more things under the "banned" label, such as this post for discussing such material.
But if you're only argument is mindless bleatings of "thought control" and "you just don't understand the technology" you're not going to get anywhere. You only appear hysterical and illogical - and remarkably biased. Going by the theory, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem," then by failing to make relevant arguments you're as much to blame as the people that pass the law.
True, the availability of guns doesn't drive people to use them. But everyone is fully aware that there are many, many motives for wanting to kill people, and that is normally a link of some kind between a killer and the deceased i.e. usually they know each other. So whatever the motive for vengeance might be, it is likely to remain present over a period of time and there is a reasonable probability that an opportunity for the desire to hurt to be expressed. In consequence, if firearms are freely available, the result is going to be a lot of death and injury through the use of guns.
One of the services the United States performs for the rest of the world is providing a practical example of the above logic for examination. Shame they're willing to sacrifice so many of their own in the process.
The problem with this line of argument is basically it has so many holes, it would never stand up in a court of law.
For starters, information is valuable, a fact which is fundamental to copyright laws. Giving people directions is therefore giving people something of value, and in Napster's case, they attempt to profit from doing so - they're engaging in a commercial activity. That is of major importance in the area of copyright.
If you were to charge for information on where to purchase illegal drugs, you would quickly find, I suspect, that this is considered illegal. (IANAL, but the law is littered with terms such as "conspiracy to commit..", "accessory to.." - they'll get you somewhere!). Maybe once or twice is excusable, but by setting up a public busiess to do so? Were you to write a book on making pipe bombs that happens to be remarkably similar to someone else's, you're infringing on copywright. Last time you checked, I don't think you checked very hard.
A common mistake here is assuming that because you know how the technology works, you also understand the legal implications. A classic, "I am an expert in this field, therefore I am an expert in those areas which overlap with yours." While for some strange reason, the converse is not held to true. From my limited (i.e. non-existent) knowledge of the law, the appropriate defence in a situation like is, "You can't prove [beyond reasonable doubt] that my income derives from this activity." Unfortunately, like them or not, Metallica were able to prove a significant amount of illegal trade was taking place. (Incidentally, Napster's assumption this couldn't be done implies that Metallica, the RIAA et al have a better understanding of the technology than people are willing to grant them.)
Saying that, "Napster still just provides information, and no actual files," is a rather disingenuous way of dodging the issue. To claim, "I only put the two parties in contact each other, knowing that they were planning to break the law, and charged a small fee for the privelege. I fail to see why that is illegal," and actually believe it is one of those either-stupid-or-nieve beliefs. That is Napster's original business model, and can be paraphrased as, "I helped two parties break the law, and charged for my part in the process. But because I myself did not touch the illegal substances, I am innocent." Yeah, right.
Napster helps people break copyright, and charges people for the privilege. They do this in the full knowledge that this is how they are making their money. They contradict their supposed philosophy by taking others to court, contesting intellectual property issues. Personally I find it hard to have sympathy for profiteering hypocrites.
Dear oh dear. The most worrying thing about this ridiculously short-sighted and self-centred post is that someone else has actually modded it up. There is nothing to prevent "serious" computer users from running only from the command line. If that's all you want, fine. I very much doubt, however, that sensible proponents of the open source and free software movement include a clause like, "but only if you have sufficient skills to recompile the kernel."
I personally think the idea of people having a handy tool for balancing their cheque book is a good thing (you imply that this is fun by relegating the computer to the status of toy at this point - you must serious fun at a party). A lot of people get into trouble by failing to manage their finances, to further suggest they shouldn't use a computer to help with this because either they or their intended use of a computer isn't serious enough is pathetic.
I also think writing to Grandma is a good thing. If you've got handwriting like mine, a computer is a fine tool. As for games, if that's what somebody wants, what's your problem? If you can't maintain focus, and simply ignore developments that are irrelevant to your own field, I don't hold much hope for achieving much in your research.
Linux is a general purpose operating system. As such it is not intended for any particular use, nor to restrict people from the same. Serious researchers had programmed games onto UNIX mainframes well before Linux came along, so I would say the precedent for frivolous use of serious equipment was well set and quite possibly taken for granted by the creators of Linux. I'm fairly sure it was set before you started working professionally with computers. In fact, it's hard to take your opinions seriously.
Your idea of accountablility strangely leaves the person who actually performed the offense unaccountable. The American way seems to be, "It's not my fault - and I'll prove it in court." Why not think for yourself and take responsibility for your own actions?
The student was given the idea that because the teacher told him to do so, he had the right. That's not a wrong assumption...
Erm, it is a wrong assumption. Just because you consider it an understandable assumption does not make it correct. And if someone has reached the age of 15 without figuring out that even figures of authority get it wrong, he's either naive or stupid.
Sorry, it's not clear to me they don't make much money from their albums, I've never seen their accounts. Using gross figures is a ridiculous way to measure the money the performers actually made. I've also not seen the Grateful Dead live, but then they didn't play Scotland that much. I _have_ seen their albums in many, many retail outlets. I presume that the shops have the CD's in stock because they can sell them. So I would have thought that global album sales might themselves bring in a bit of cash.
You also say they "subsist" on playing live, and many a musician can tell you that constant touring can play havoc with your personal life, especially if you want to raise a family. And this for a band with world-wide recognition. If you can reach the top of your game and still have to work constantly at what you imply is the _most_ profitable part of the business, then that would suggest to me that you are rather selfish in not being willing to pay for their official products.
As for the Dave Matthews Band, I know that at least the drummer, Carter Beaufort, makes money out of instructional videos and sponsorship by some pretty major companies. Most tours also get sponsored, otherwise most tours would lose money. And don't forget all the merchandise etc.
But what if you were a new, little known artist? Noone wants to buy your merchandis, the money you make from a gig will barely pay for the hotel fees, fuel bills, equipment costs and so on. Maybe there's several bands on in a night, you're not headlining, maybe even less money to be had. You're new, so Budwiser and Coke ain't exactly beating a path to your door with a sponsorship deal. Meanwhile, all the cash you put into recording an album (which maybe you earned waiting tables between practising, recording and promotional work), you can't get that back because, hey, music is supposed to be free.
Bands like the Dead and (one of my favourites) Widespread Panic might encourage bootlegs, but they also derive significant income from album sales. If they make so much money that this is only a small proportion of their income, great. But there have always been more people struggling to make a living out of music, film or whatever than there are superstars. Maybe people should give these people a break and try to find a new business model where they can get paid. For the few who get rich, all the best to 'em, hope they enjoy it. Just don't use them as a typical example of an artist.
I reckon that, just as it doesn't take much thought to figure out how the form works, it doesn't take much to figure out that it's a bad design.
The box for any one candidate lines up with THREE holes. Yes, I know there's an arrow. It also makes sense to go for the middle one, and further by looking at the top and bottom boxes it's patently obvious what to do.
BUT mistakes can happen, and people can get confused. We all do the stupidest things on occasion, and a good design is one that does it's best to stop us from doing so at that one crucial moment. It would be a simple thing to have only one hole that corresponds in any way to each candidate. How could a good design offer anything else? What possible justification is there to have three holes that line up - even if only 50% - to each candidate?
It's clear that the design is the way it is for technical reasons - a classic case of expecting people to work the machines do, rather than getting the machines to work the way people do. This is such a well known pitfall that anything that exhibits such a flaw has got to be considered bad design (think "BLINK" tags - so terrible Slashdot won't even let me stick one in Plain Old Text, which is a shame cause "think {BLINK}" had a ring to it).
Despite all that - the form was approved. You can't change your mind afterwards, otherwise the whole process becomes open to question. In fact, a system that allowed for such changes of mind would also be a bad design, so the Democrats are trying to make a right from two wrongs there.
By the way, regarding technological solutions, I am reminded of the space race (it's a bit of a stretch, but I'm going to bring Russia into a discussion on democracy;) ). The US spent millions on developing a pen that would work reliably in zero gravity.
Artists have also struggled throughout history unless they dedicated their working lives to their "sponsor" - witness people like Bach having to produce regular works; say a new piece for each weekly service for the Church. In doing so, a fair degree of freedom is given up. Hardly an ideal situation. Ownership via copyright is only a recent invention if you use the timescale of a thousand years or so, it goes way back to Victorian times.
"Discoveries in nature" - the great extent of historical science - are not patentable so that situation is the same now as it ever was. That individuals or companies might break the law in this regard is a matter of applying the law; it makes little sense to change it (or at least the underlying principle).
The concept of fair use covers the issue of our common heritage, while the extension of copyright past death was originally intended so that an artist could leave behind a form of estate for inheritance, as royalties provide cash flow rather than lump sums. From the artist's point of view, this gives them a far better negotiating position with a publisher than if the product they were offering to sell had only half the shelf life.
That copyrights get transferred to publisher's is a case of getting better contracts as standard practise in the arts in general.
Most copyright principles have a good basis. I would say that the law might get reviewed - the posthumous thing is strange me too - but should be kept. It gets weird when people sell and transfer their rights; but intellectual property is what an artist produces and so they should be allowed to sell it in a market economy. When someone records a song, the words, notes and techniques used to create it are freely available for anyone to do the same. If you feel it's too much effort, too difficult or too time consuming to write and record your own song, anyone who does should be allowed to profit from it.
If they choose to give it away free, that's their choice. But not yours or anyone else's.
European Parliamentary elections take place across all the nations in the EC - so the the time zones issue would crop up. But more than that, votes may take place on different days to take national arrangements/customs/elections into account. We still manage to treat the democratic process with at least a minimal degree of respect.
Maybe we just have more patience - you haven't even taken time to read your own post (you include a quote refering to the days of delay):)
Well, seeing as this is an article in the British press, you should take into account that we have a National Health Service where everyone - without exception - will be cared for whether they pay insurance or not.
The whole issue of private vs public healthcare gets complicated, but at the basic level we believe that everyone has a right to healthcare. I fail to see how any country could consider itself on the road to becoming civilised without taking the basic step of looking after its citizens.
"The most banned books from US schools over the whole of the 1990's to present are the Harry Potter series because it is believed they promote Satanism, Devil Worship and general un Christian unacceptable thinking. "
"In a recent poll by USAToday 45% of those polled would support the elimination of the separation of church and state as long as the church was Protestant/Fundamentalist."
I thought that the US held itself to believe in freedom of speech and religion. Based on these statistics, are there any Americans willing to admit that their country ain't half as wonderful, democratic and free as they think it is?
More interestingly, if the US and its consitution can't do it, will any country manage to get it right? You know, Denmark is pretty cool about most things and they have a monarchy *and* a strong socialist element to their government.
I thought that if someone shattered your world-view, it was your right and duty to reappraise that view with an open mind. Then take appropriate steps - which could include acknowledging your error and agreeing with your supposed enemy.
To feel compelled to shatter anything and everything they have done, at any cost and to whatever ends would, for example, give credence to Hitler's Holocaust. Or the Spanish Inquisition.
And let's face it, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
I guess there's two problems here. One, if you're not hired due to refusal to sign an NDA, it would be like trying to prove discrimination - very difficult without other cases to back you up, and how many people are refusing to sign NDAs? Probably not enough, in similar enough circumstances, to build a case. And then, you would only be arguing against the exact clauses of the NDA, as it's a fairly well established legal principle that companies can ask employees to sign such contracts to protect their own interests (like it or not).
On the second problem i.e. how do you fight a suit claiming that you have broken an NDA that you signed, it's probably easier to build a case. I reckon you would have to prove that you were justified in doing so e.g. that the NDA was unfairly restricting your ability to perform your job, whether the NDA was with your present or a previous employer.
In this case, it's fairly clear that the person had no professional need to disclose the information. Regardless of your opinion of Apple's desire for secrecy, there's no defense to be made here. It's more a case of arguing to what degree the individual is liable - I would have thought this is more a matter of immediate dismissal rather than taking the guy to court.
Slashdot Mirror
I was trying to find the bright side to this, but couldn't really. But I did wonder what conlusions or new hypothesis you could develop.
The kid expected find out that people were biased due to skin colour. She finds out that the kids are, but the adults aren't, instead going by the nicest dress. But then the project gets pulled for no good reason by the school. She could develop the following opinions:
As a child, people naively may exhibit prejudice, but they can learn to lose them.
8 year olds have no dress sense but it becomes far more important later on.
Then the realisation that other people's appearance is still important, just not as making sure that you look as good as possible.
People in authority can be identified by their dress sense.
Which still doesn't mean that their decisions make any sense.
And so the child can be prepared for the change in prejudice as she ages, into subtler forms, and also to question authority. Maybe the influences will combine to produce a new, visionary kind of authority figure (with, nonetheless, good dress sense).
I think that's a fair response.
In a philosophical/ religious/ spritual/ humanitarian etc type of forum, you can start with the premise that all people are created equally and share the same fundamental rights. There's a lot of ways to put this, but I think the phrasing, "We hold these rights to be self-evident," is pretty good. (I'm Scots, forgive me if I've got the exact wording wrong). It's not entirely scientific, and though that may weaken it in some eyes, it's strength and simplicity are, well, self-evident.
While in a scientific forum, for all the reasons you have given, there's the danger of hurtful theories - there's certainly been several of those e.g. such and such a race are genetically disposed to be less intelligent than this other race. It takes a lot of experience - or more insight than most of us are blessed with - to learn how to deal with these arguments on a logical level, let alone emotional. The "self-evident" argument, for example, would be really tough to defend scientifically.
Certainly with young kids, I would agree that a scientific forum is not the best place.
Simple, the tune is a wee piece of artistic expression. The program is just the instrument by which it is performed. Now if you'd written the tune yourself, we might have something here.
You have a fixed set of tools and must create something from those limitations.
There's two ways to respond to this: one, pretty much every human activity has a fixed set of tools with which to perform any given act, or two, there is no human activity with fundamentally fixed tools, as you're free to create any new tools you can think of to help you out. Either way, this doesn't exclude anything from being defined as art, so it's an empty argument. You've got to provide some differentiation, unless you want to argue that art, engineering and the natural evolution of my girlfriend are all one and the same thing (note: if confronted by girlfriend I would hypocritically change my argument, rather than try and explain why she isn't a work of art)
The other classic logical error above is the implied, "Lindsey is a programmer, and Lindsey is an artist. Therefore programming is art."
Art is about things like intention and effect, not the tools or the media employed. You can't justify a work of art by its rarity or difficulty, or even its beauty. I might state that a creative, elegant circuit design is a work of art, but I wouldn't mean it literally. Likewise my girlfriend. But conversely, due to appreciation of the elegance involved, I might say that both are literally beautiful to me, for beauty is in the eye of the beholder. (Again, if confronted by girlfriend, I will quickly turn hyprocrite, rather than try and explain why she has just been compared to a PCB).
Oh, please. Walking and talking are learned skills, but hailing a cab to ease your aching feet is hardly an artistic statement of the state of your soul.
Animals in general are multi-skilled creatures, humans particularly so, the ability to be both artist and programmer does not make them the same thing. A program may be creative, non-intuitive, elegant and unique, but that still don't make it art. It may just be a superbly crafted tool in response to a need. The fact that someone or something is praiseworthy does not mean that the praise should include claims that it is art (with the exception of the not-always-literally-intended, "That, my friend, is a work of art."). "Art" is considered a desirable thing, and the word is used as a result as a form of superlative. But that doesn't hold up in discussion.
Of course, if someone has some artistic idea (I'm going to cowardly chicken out and not attempt to define that) and programming happens to be the tool by which it is expressed, then great. It forms part of the craftsmanship that is involved in creating art. If the program is well written, the artwork is well executed. If the program embodies the entire work, then it is the artistic medium. And the programmer and the artist may be one and the same.
Don't be misled by the flexibility of the English language, there may be an art to good programming, but programming ain't art.
For the most part, I would say that's true. But you have to make sure you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater - engravings and the like are valid artworks even if the medium happens to be a sword blade.
Likewise, a "weapon" that is ornamental rather than functional in intention (even if it does happen to be razor sharp) might be considered artwork; an area where the word "craft" often comes into play.
No need to feel sorry for yourself, if you're offering condolences to those affected by stupidity. You'll know you have plenty of company.
If you read the article, you'll notice that the ISP, the carrier, the host, all are not responsible. If they're not responsible, they don't need to filter.
Seeing as insults seem to the order of the day, how on earth did small-brained eejits who can't read or apply logic develop the self-impression that they were more intelligent than the government? They may not be able to understand the technology, but you seem to have trouble reading a newspaper.
As for sensible ways to implement it, there is one. If there is a complaint that an individual is posting illegal content to the internet, and investigation shows that this is true, then arrest and charge them. Note there are many ways to do this, that don't all involve the Internet. Or are you too affected by stupidity to think of alternatives?
As the mass media is such an important part of a country's identity, I'm afraid that to a large extent there isn't any choice. It may only be one factor, but it's an important one.
But that wasn't really my point; it's more that free speech doesn't exist anywhere in practice. Further, I am not of the opinion that free speech is a defendable principle unless you are willing to put clauses upon it. Things such as slander and obscenity shouldn't be allowed - and indeed they're not - and the real debate is, how do we apply restrictions?
Although I disagree with what appears to be a rather large blanket definition in the case of South Australia, it seems that holding people responsible for what they post, and not the ISP, carrier, or host site, is the correct approach. The burden of proof would lie with the prosecution like in any other case.
There are related issues such as privacy, but all other things being equal, I have no problem with the concept that it should be illegal to post illegal material onto the web
Seeing as people are as usual flying off the handle and making statements without basis in fact, but merely derived from their own stereotypical opinions (an accusation fairly similar to that often aimed at the legislators), it's worthwhile pointing out a few facts about the article:
There is no mention of software. There is no mention of filtering. There is no mention of thought control. There is no mention of enforcement by ISPs.
A lot of the posts are along the lines of, "Automatic filtering is impossible. Those idiots don't understand the technology." While going purely on the facts in the linked article, a fair reply to this would be, "There's no mention of filtering, and ISPs, carriers and hosts are specifically not targeted by the new laws - that's stated in black and white. You idiots can't even read - where do you get off insulting our lack of understanding!" Besides, it's seems clear to me that technology does not have as great effect on principles and law as tech-heads might think. Just because you've found a method whereby you won't be caught doesn't make it legal or ethical.
It's also worth mentioning that freedom of speech is not a right that Australians have, or for that matter anyone outside of the US (and of the evidence of the average bland, conservative mainstream output of the American media, it could be argued that they drastically fail to appreciate the principle anyway).
People are blindly assuming that the definition of what is obscene is going to be automatically decided by some algorithm somewhere. Well, maybe it is, but it's not stated anywhere. And the fact that ISPs and hosts will not be held responsible tends to suggest that this in unlikely to be the case. Australia has always struck me as pretty reasonable about such things - it will be the courts who decide what is and isn't obscene, which is the way it has always been.
Sorry for being a reactionary conservative prick, but I think that there is such a thing as obscene material, and would not have a particularly high opinion of anyone that thought pictures of, say, an 8 year old orphan being forced to have anal sex should be defended on some pathetic "free speech" principle. I'm willing to bet that was not what the writers of the US Constitution had in mind.
On the premise that some material should therefore be made illegal, how do you stop it? You say, and I agree, that filtering software doesn't work. But if someone is proven to have posted such material, then they should be convicted. In principle at least, this can be passed into law. Further more, such proof is a very different matter to automatic and fail safe filtering.
It remains consistent and practical to acknowledge the fact that the Internet/cyberspace changes the rules, therefore posting to host on the internet can just as easily be treated as an export situation. Anyone within the territory concerned therefore posts at their own risk - they are clearly breaking the law. Tax havens and permanent exiles have been around for centuries, so it really isn't anything new for people to move somewhere that their acts are not liable to prosecution.
There are points to worry about in the article - there is no clear definition of what is "permissable" material. For example, pornography Playboy/Playgirl style is to my mind difficult to criticise, in the sense that it's above board, and the abuses (there must be some) are likely to be no worse than you might get in some sweat shop with an abusive boss - i.e. individual people might get prosecuted but you can't ban pictures of naked people. Those cases involving genuine abuse are more questionable, and the you've got child porn which is completely unacceptable. So there are lines to be drawn, especially when the law as it seems to be outlined in the article then throws even more things under the "banned" label, such as this post for discussing such material.
But if you're only argument is mindless bleatings of "thought control" and "you just don't understand the technology" you're not going to get anywhere. You only appear hysterical and illogical - and remarkably biased. Going by the theory, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem," then by failing to make relevant arguments you're as much to blame as the people that pass the law.
True, the availability of guns doesn't drive people to use them. But everyone is fully aware that there are many, many motives for wanting to kill people, and that is normally a link of some kind between a killer and the deceased i.e. usually they know each other. So whatever the motive for vengeance might be, it is likely to remain present over a period of time and there is a reasonable probability that an opportunity for the desire to hurt to be expressed. In consequence, if firearms are freely available, the result is going to be a lot of death and injury through the use of guns.
One of the services the United States performs for the rest of the world is providing a practical example of the above logic for examination. Shame they're willing to sacrifice so many of their own in the process.
I hit submit rather than preview. Doh! Apologies for speling misteaks.
The problem with this line of argument is basically it has so many holes, it would never stand up in a court of law.
For starters, information is valuable, a fact which is fundamental to copyright laws. Giving people directions is therefore giving people something of value, and in Napster's case, they attempt to profit from doing so - they're engaging in a commercial activity. That is of major importance in the area of copyright.
If you were to charge for information on where to purchase illegal drugs, you would quickly find, I suspect, that this is considered illegal. (IANAL, but the law is littered with terms such as "conspiracy to commit..", "accessory to.." - they'll get you somewhere!). Maybe once or twice is excusable, but by setting up a public busiess to do so? Were you to write a book on making pipe bombs that happens to be remarkably similar to someone else's, you're infringing on copywright. Last time you checked, I don't think you checked very hard.
A common mistake here is assuming that because you know how the technology works, you also understand the legal implications. A classic, "I am an expert in this field, therefore I am an expert in those areas which overlap with yours." While for some strange reason, the converse is not held to true. From my limited (i.e. non-existent) knowledge of the law, the appropriate defence in a situation like is, "You can't prove [beyond reasonable doubt] that my income derives from this activity." Unfortunately, like them or not, Metallica were able to prove a significant amount of illegal trade was taking place. (Incidentally, Napster's assumption this couldn't be done implies that Metallica, the RIAA et al have a better understanding of the technology than people are willing to grant them.)
Saying that, "Napster still just provides information, and no actual files," is a rather disingenuous way of dodging the issue. To claim, "I only put the two parties in contact each other, knowing that they were planning to break the law, and charged a small fee for the privelege. I fail to see why that is illegal," and actually believe it is one of those either-stupid-or-nieve beliefs. That is Napster's original business model, and can be paraphrased as, "I helped two parties break the law, and charged for my part in the process. But because I myself did not touch the illegal substances, I am innocent." Yeah, right.
Napster helps people break copyright, and charges people for the privilege. They do this in the full knowledge that this is how they are making their money. They contradict their supposed philosophy by taking others to court, contesting intellectual property issues. Personally I find it hard to have sympathy for profiteering hypocrites.
Dear oh dear. The most worrying thing about this ridiculously short-sighted and self-centred post is that someone else has actually modded it up. There is nothing to prevent "serious" computer users from running only from the command line. If that's all you want, fine. I very much doubt, however, that sensible proponents of the open source and free software movement include a clause like, "but only if you have sufficient skills to recompile the kernel."
I personally think the idea of people having a handy tool for balancing their cheque book is a good thing (you imply that this is fun by relegating the computer to the status of toy at this point - you must serious fun at a party). A lot of people get into trouble by failing to manage their finances, to further suggest they shouldn't use a computer to help with this because either they or their intended use of a computer isn't serious enough is pathetic.
I also think writing to Grandma is a good thing. If you've got handwriting like mine, a computer is a fine tool. As for games, if that's what somebody wants, what's your problem? If you can't maintain focus, and simply ignore developments that are irrelevant to your own field, I don't hold much hope for achieving much in your research.
Linux is a general purpose operating system. As such it is not intended for any particular use, nor to restrict people from the same. Serious researchers had programmed games onto UNIX mainframes well before Linux came along, so I would say the precedent for frivolous use of serious equipment was well set and quite possibly taken for granted by the creators of Linux. I'm fairly sure it was set before you started working professionally with computers. In fact, it's hard to take your opinions seriously.
Your idea of accountablility strangely leaves the person who actually performed the offense unaccountable. The American way seems to be, "It's not my fault - and I'll prove it in court." Why not think for yourself and take responsibility for your own actions?
The student was given the idea that because the teacher told him to do so, he had the right. That's not a wrong assumption...
Erm, it is a wrong assumption. Just because you consider it an understandable assumption does not make it correct. And if someone has reached the age of 15 without figuring out that even figures of authority get it wrong, he's either naive or stupid.
Sorry, it's not clear to me they don't make much money from their albums, I've never seen their accounts. Using gross figures is a ridiculous way to measure the money the performers actually made. I've also not seen the Grateful Dead live, but then they didn't play Scotland that much. I _have_ seen their albums in many, many retail outlets. I presume that the shops have the CD's in stock because they can sell them. So I would have thought that global album sales might themselves bring in a bit of cash.
You also say they "subsist" on playing live, and many a musician can tell you that constant touring can play havoc with your personal life, especially if you want to raise a family. And this for a band with world-wide recognition. If you can reach the top of your game and still have to work constantly at what you imply is the _most_ profitable part of the business, then that would suggest to me that you are rather selfish in not being willing to pay for their official products.
As for the Dave Matthews Band, I know that at least the drummer, Carter Beaufort, makes money out of instructional videos and sponsorship by some pretty major companies. Most tours also get sponsored, otherwise most tours would lose money. And don't forget all the merchandise etc.
But what if you were a new, little known artist? Noone wants to buy your merchandis, the money you make from a gig will barely pay for the hotel fees, fuel bills, equipment costs and so on. Maybe there's several bands on in a night, you're not headlining, maybe even less money to be had. You're new, so Budwiser and Coke ain't exactly beating a path to your door with a sponsorship deal. Meanwhile, all the cash you put into recording an album (which maybe you earned waiting tables between practising, recording and promotional work), you can't get that back because, hey, music is supposed to be free.
Bands like the Dead and (one of my favourites) Widespread Panic might encourage bootlegs, but they also derive significant income from album sales. If they make so much money that this is only a small proportion of their income, great. But there have always been more people struggling to make a living out of music, film or whatever than there are superstars. Maybe people should give these people a break and try to find a new business model where they can get paid. For the few who get rich, all the best to 'em, hope they enjoy it. Just don't use them as a typical example of an artist.
I reckon that, just as it doesn't take much thought to figure out how the form works, it doesn't take much to figure out that it's a bad design.
;) ). The US spent millions on developing a pen that would work reliably in zero gravity.
The box for any one candidate lines up with THREE holes. Yes, I know there's an arrow. It also makes sense to go for the middle one, and further by looking at the top and bottom boxes it's patently obvious what to do.
BUT mistakes can happen, and people can get confused. We all do the stupidest things on occasion, and a good design is one that does it's best to stop us from doing so at that one crucial moment. It would be a simple thing to have only one hole that corresponds in any way to each candidate. How could a good design offer anything else? What possible justification is there to have three holes that line up - even if only 50% - to each candidate?
It's clear that the design is the way it is for technical reasons - a classic case of expecting people to work the machines do, rather than getting the machines to work the way people do. This is such a well known pitfall that anything that exhibits such a flaw has got to be considered bad design (think "BLINK" tags - so terrible Slashdot won't even let me stick one in Plain Old Text, which is a shame cause "think {BLINK}" had a ring to it).
Despite all that - the form was approved. You can't change your mind afterwards, otherwise the whole process becomes open to question. In fact, a system that allowed for such changes of mind would also be a bad design, so the Democrats are trying to make a right from two wrongs there.
By the way, regarding technological solutions, I am reminded of the space race (it's a bit of a stretch, but I'm going to bring Russia into a discussion on democracy
The Russians just used pencils.
Artists have also struggled throughout history unless they dedicated their working lives to their "sponsor" - witness people like Bach having to produce regular works; say a new piece for each weekly service for the Church. In doing so, a fair degree of freedom is given up. Hardly an ideal situation. Ownership via copyright is only a recent invention if you use the timescale of a thousand years or so, it goes way back to Victorian times.
"Discoveries in nature" - the great extent of historical science - are not patentable so that situation is the same now as it ever was. That individuals or companies might break the law in this regard is a matter of applying the law; it makes little sense to change it (or at least the underlying principle).
The concept of fair use covers the issue of our common heritage, while the extension of copyright past death was originally intended so that an artist could leave behind a form of estate for inheritance, as royalties provide cash flow rather than lump sums. From the artist's point of view, this gives them a far better negotiating position with a publisher than if the product they were offering to sell had only half the shelf life.
That copyrights get transferred to publisher's is a case of getting better contracts as standard practise in the arts in general.
Most copyright principles have a good basis. I would say that the law might get reviewed - the posthumous thing is strange me too - but should be kept. It gets weird when people sell and transfer their rights; but intellectual property is what an artist produces and so they should be allowed to sell it in a market economy. When someone records a song, the words, notes and techniques used to create it are freely available for anyone to do the same. If you feel it's too much effort, too difficult or too time consuming to write and record your own song, anyone who does should be allowed to profit from it.
If they choose to give it away free, that's their choice. But not yours or anyone else's.
European Parliamentary elections take place across all the nations in the EC - so the the time zones issue would crop up. But more than that, votes may take place on different days to take national arrangements/customs/elections into account. We still manage to treat the democratic process with at least a minimal degree of respect. Maybe we just have more patience - you haven't even taken time to read your own post (you include a quote refering to the days of delay) :)
Well, seeing as this is an article in the British press, you should take into account that we have a National Health Service where everyone - without exception - will be cared for whether they pay insurance or not.
The whole issue of private vs public healthcare gets complicated, but at the basic level we believe that everyone has a right to healthcare. I fail to see how any country could consider itself on the road to becoming civilised without taking the basic step of looking after its citizens.
"The most banned books from US schools over the whole of the 1990's to present are the Harry Potter series because it is believed they promote Satanism, Devil Worship and general un Christian unacceptable thinking. " "In a recent poll by USAToday 45% of those polled would support the elimination of the separation of church and state as long as the church was Protestant/Fundamentalist." I thought that the US held itself to believe in freedom of speech and religion. Based on these statistics, are there any Americans willing to admit that their country ain't half as wonderful, democratic and free as they think it is? More interestingly, if the US and its consitution can't do it, will any country manage to get it right? You know, Denmark is pretty cool about most things and they have a monarchy *and* a strong socialist element to their government.
True, but most people are to some extent. If my livelihood and lifestyle was suddenly threatened I guess I'd be a bit annoyed too.
I doubt the factory owners indulging in child labour could avoid the selfish tag, either.
I thought that if someone shattered your world-view, it was your right and duty to reappraise that view with an open mind. Then take appropriate steps - which could include acknowledging your error and agreeing with your supposed enemy. To feel compelled to shatter anything and everything they have done, at any cost and to whatever ends would, for example, give credence to Hitler's Holocaust. Or the Spanish Inquisition. And let's face it, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
I guess there's two problems here. One, if you're not hired due to refusal to sign an NDA, it would be like trying to prove discrimination - very difficult without other cases to back you up, and how many people are refusing to sign NDAs? Probably not enough, in similar enough circumstances, to build a case. And then, you would only be arguing against the exact clauses of the NDA, as it's a fairly well established legal principle that companies can ask employees to sign such contracts to protect their own interests (like it or not). On the second problem i.e. how do you fight a suit claiming that you have broken an NDA that you signed, it's probably easier to build a case. I reckon you would have to prove that you were justified in doing so e.g. that the NDA was unfairly restricting your ability to perform your job, whether the NDA was with your present or a previous employer. In this case, it's fairly clear that the person had no professional need to disclose the information. Regardless of your opinion of Apple's desire for secrecy, there's no defense to be made here. It's more a case of arguing to what degree the individual is liable - I would have thought this is more a matter of immediate dismissal rather than taking the guy to court.