Copyright is great. Let's give an author the exclusive right to decide who copy her book. That's fine, it serves the purpose, but let's not pretend copyright isn't an attack on free speech. Patents are great. Let's make sure inventors get a fair share of profits from their inventions, but let's not pretend patents aren't an attack on free enterprise.
When you take these concepts to the level of property, that a creator owns a work or an invention, then you're elevating a good, practical policy to an ideal that is wholly at odds with a free society for no additional benefit except that it seems to satisfy an incoherent desire to find symmetry with real property.
No, intellectual property is not a valid construct. The purpose of these laws is to promote creativity, that's the beginning and end of it. A society that views ideas as something that someone can own to the exclusion of others is not compatible with a society founded on free speech and free enterprise.
The equivalent would be the destruction of some massive shipment of CDs. The right time to do it would be when it can spark the imagination of the nation, leading to a near total boycott of the RIAA. Right now you'd probably just be a funny news story.
Gee, if only the FBI were required to get a warrant before making a search, we'd already have an explanation on record to look up. Too bad our founders didn't put anything into the constitution about that.
Except that according to Liberty survivors, the ship was clearly identified as American yet the attackers came at them for some time and only broke off when *they* were identified.
Just because you don't have your head in the sand about Arab aggression doesn't mean you should have your head in the sand about the Israelis' willingness to kill Westerners to serve their ends. See the King David Hotel bombing for another prominent example.
While I feel politically agnostic, I find libertarian ideals appealing. Nowhere have I read anything associating libertarianism with Laissez-faire Capitalism
I suppose you're against the state punishing premeditated murders harsher than murders of passion or self defense? That seems to be your position, that the state has to be motive agnostic.
"With the introduction of "hate crimes" equality under the law goes out the window because we've replaced "facts" with "feelings" (for the uninformed "hate" is an extreme feeling)."
That's the way you feel, but the facts are that in the US there's a long history of white people getting a slap on the wrist when convicted of hate crimes while everyone else routinely has the book thrown at them.
Bravo. Pretty slick slide from "Hate Speech" to "Hate Crime".
For those who don't know, equating prosecuting someone for saying "Muslims Suck" with harsher sentencing guidelines for murderers who kill Muslims for being Muslims.
A man who "stated clearly that he expected GW to keep his word" while he voted to give up his only chance to hold GW to his word is a liar.
I'm glad that Reid is at the top of the Senate instead of that cat killer, but it's not reasonable that someone could sincerely hold Reid's stated position and vote the way he did.
"but was instead a vote for giving the President power he could use as leverage on the Interational stage, to force Saddam into compliance, and in the event that all else had failed, war as a last resort."
This is how many congressmen explained their vote, but Saddam was not enough of a threat and the war resolution had too few safeguards to make this position reasonable in 2002.
Here's the difference: Only about half the Democrats (speaking of congress here) voted for this war based on lies that has murdered tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Almost every single Republican voted for it.
A sizable chunk of Democrats want to hold the Bush administration accountable for this crime, Almost no Republican does.
Almost all Democrats are against Telco (and by extension, Bush) immunity, but enough are willing to vote with just about every single Republican that it's always in danger of passing.
And so on.
The Democrats are cripplingly corrupt and evil, the Republicans are totally corrupt and evil.
Governments frequently provide services with a small fee as an effective way to limit a service's use. I don't think that's the case here, but it does have a place in a world where resources aren't infinite.
They are both great books. I reread LoTR recently, though, and found the parts I used to think were boring were now my favorites. My new favorite part, Tom Bombadil joking around with the ring, is *always* cut out of adaptations.
Slashdot Mirror
Copyright is great. Let's give an author the exclusive right to decide who copy her book. That's fine, it serves the purpose, but let's not pretend copyright isn't an attack on free speech. Patents are great. Let's make sure inventors get a fair share of profits from their inventions, but let's not pretend patents aren't an attack on free enterprise.
When you take these concepts to the level of property, that a creator owns a work or an invention, then you're elevating a good, practical policy to an ideal that is wholly at odds with a free society for no additional benefit except that it seems to satisfy an incoherent desire to find symmetry with real property.
No, intellectual property is not a valid construct. The purpose of these laws is to promote creativity, that's the beginning and end of it. A society that views ideas as something that someone can own to the exclusion of others is not compatible with a society founded on free speech and free enterprise.
The equivalent would be the destruction of some massive shipment of CDs. The right time to do it would be when it can spark the imagination of the nation, leading to a near total boycott of the RIAA. Right now you'd probably just be a funny news story.
That's weird, because sixth sense got me, but I figured out the others when "Ghost Dad" was really, really disappointed in the state of his family.
Outside of those, the Minority Report was poorly done and riddled with plot holes,
So was the story.
Gee, if only the FBI were required to get a warrant before making a search, we'd already have an explanation on record to look up. Too bad our founders didn't put anything into the constitution about that.
Who ever it was, they probably don't read Slashdot.
Except that according to Liberty survivors, the ship was clearly identified as American yet the attackers came at them for some time and only broke off when *they* were identified.
Just because you don't have your head in the sand about Arab aggression doesn't mean you should have your head in the sand about the Israelis' willingness to kill Westerners to serve their ends. See the King David Hotel bombing for another prominent example.
Hey man, welcome to the world of growing income inequality, where you're either rich or gardener to the rich.
While I feel politically agnostic, I find libertarian ideals appealing. Nowhere have I read anything associating libertarianism with Laissez-faire Capitalism
Glad you put that to bed.
I program in Lua, you old fart.
"Pretty much standard operating procedure for the "politically correct" crowd."
Exemplified by our "Of course you support our troops" crowd in the US.
I suppose you're against the state punishing premeditated murders harsher than murders of passion or self defense? That seems to be your position, that the state has to be motive agnostic.
"With the introduction of "hate crimes" equality under the law goes out the window because we've replaced "facts" with "feelings" (for the uninformed "hate" is an extreme feeling)."
That's the way you feel, but the facts are that in the US there's a long history of white people getting a slap on the wrist when convicted of hate crimes while everyone else routinely has the book thrown at them.
Bravo. Pretty slick slide from "Hate Speech" to "Hate Crime".
For those who don't know, equating prosecuting someone for saying "Muslims Suck" with harsher sentencing guidelines for murderers who kill Muslims for being Muslims.
A man who "stated clearly that he expected GW to keep his word" while he voted to give up his only chance to hold GW to his word is a liar.
I'm glad that Reid is at the top of the Senate instead of that cat killer, but it's not reasonable that someone could sincerely hold Reid's stated position and vote the way he did.
"but was instead a vote for giving the President power he could use as leverage on the Interational stage, to force Saddam into compliance, and in the event that all else had failed, war as a last resort."
This is how many congressmen explained their vote, but Saddam was not enough of a threat and the war resolution had too few safeguards to make this position reasonable in 2002.
Here's the difference: Only about half the Democrats (speaking of congress here) voted for this war based on lies that has murdered tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Almost every single Republican voted for it.
A sizable chunk of Democrats want to hold the Bush administration accountable for this crime, Almost no Republican does.
Almost all Democrats are against Telco (and by extension, Bush) immunity, but enough are willing to vote with just about every single Republican that it's always in danger of passing.
And so on.
The Democrats are cripplingly corrupt and evil, the Republicans are totally corrupt and evil.
One day at a time, my friend. They don't have the full story.
Governments frequently provide services with a small fee as an effective way to limit a service's use. I don't think that's the case here, but it does have a place in a world where resources aren't infinite.
"Zen is total bullshit. When you realize that fact, you have mastered Zen."
Which is the master, which is the bullshit?
I wonder if this sort of law actually leads to more civil, accurate questioning. In addition to making it easier to pin a crime on whoever they want.
In microgravity it would take hours for your finger to descend to the button, even from a tiny height.
There are horizons in Low Earth Orbit after all.
I have three problems with Tim Burton.
Danny. Fucking. Elfman.
They are both great books. I reread LoTR recently, though, and found the parts I used to think were boring were now my favorites. My new favorite part, Tom Bombadil joking around with the ring, is *always* cut out of adaptations.