It seems like a huge stretch in interpretation of copyright law...
I wonder about that because, after all, copyright's purpose is to prevent unauthorized transfer from one person to another. It would seem that by exposing a work to a network that is built soley for transferring information, you are reasonably breaking copyright law.
To put it another way, take away your dislike for copyright law itself, and imagine the work is something that you really would like to keep from being transferred without authorization (say, images of yourself that are private). Would you still agree that putting them on a file transfer network is reasonable, yet handing the same images to someone else is not ok (as normal copyright law goes)?
And we are all heading down that road. Completely unabated and almost without any dissent.
I agree but I am convinced people just need time to catch up with issues like this. Maybe we will go through some years of unreasonable copyright laws before that happens, but the more technology is simplified, the easier it is for the general public to grasp these types of issues in a clearer way.
In this particular case it would appear that copyright law is just being protected reasonably. It is not much defense to say "I didn't know that file was there" for any type of 'illegal' data, I would imagine. The real issue is whether copyright law should even exist in this era of near limitless information creation ability.
Dude don't both even replying to people who purposely confuse intentional targetting of civilians with those poor iraqis who died as of the result of the US Army. The US Army has not and never will target civilians (and will charge any employees found guilty of so). There is a world of difference between the two concepts.
See, here's the problem: their secure and successful ATM venture tarnishes their image as "a bunch of inept oafs" as you would, for lack of a better word, "defend" them.
ATM mistakes happen all the time, you are arguing out of ignorance of the history of ATM failures (where a transaction was incorrect, not just the thing going into breakdown mode).
"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence" rings hollow when the company has created and deployed a system that has not been broken, and not for lack of being a very juicy target.
Your saying has no place in voting systems, where there is enormous focus on preventing malicous hacking. After all, it is clear that once a voting system breaks down it is quite possible for that corruption to live off it's own feedback so to speak, and grow large.
Bush admitted that he holds hands with saudi leaders, he explained that it was what was expected of him in their society.
And your point here is that.... by holding hands... bush corrupt.. ahh i get it
The people running things, both Rep and Dem, are very wealthy and in many instances, particularly in the White House, are ex-CEOs. They are making national decisions based on profit margin, not for us, but for themselves.
I think, basically, that the hundreds of thousands of people tortured for their political beliefs in Iraq pre-invasion would disagree. But feel free to ignore documented evidence for your own political gain. I think it's sick frankly. cue 'yeh well... bush is sick' deflection...
In light of recent disclosures both in the USA (Abramof) and here in Australia (the Wheat Board) I don't trust conservatives to behave honestly.
You imply that you believe the non-conservative polititions are less corrupt. Do you think if I went and created a table of Liberal vs Labour public corruption charges (for their members), that it would look horribly lop sided against Libs? Because if you follow through with your assertion, I don't mind doing one.
Exit polls are an extremely bad idea for this reason alone:
A party could gain massive votes by canvasing their opponents as a guilt-ridden choice or 'immoral' choice, causing unbalance in the way votes are made and the way they are told to exit poll officials. eg. A person may (rightly so) feel uneasy about saying they voted for Democrats because the local community is very pro-war.
Worse still, and this has happened in many countries, people could be scared of violent reprisal for revealing their vote choice (from the government or militia).
There is a *perfectly* valid way to do voting, and that is with e-voting with paper trails (it has been said countless times, without refutation).
Printing a password that is encrypted with a password on each ticket would avoid stuffing. (It is funny that you could even encourage people to try stuffing anything they like in the boxes, knowing that the encryption is too strong to crack from a sample ticket). You just discard any tickets that do not decrypt to the password when counting.
Basic statistics indicates that for large enough numbers, even spot checks of a few percent will almost certainly catch any attempts to do widespread (i.e., statistically significant) manipulation or fraud within the computer mechanism.
And made even more powerful by focusing on the states where votes are close.
I can't think of any weaknesses in this system that can't be overcome with pretty simple measures (e.g. keep public cameras on the paper vote boxes at all times to prevent tampering when the employees take them to the warehouse).
I also don't understand why it was not in place from the beggining, other than not having coughing up enough money to fund it 100%. If that was the case then why not wait a few years longer until we have a proper system in place (e-voting + paper backup)?
Problem is, they spend their donations on actually developing the system, not in paying off Congressmen to give them lucrative exclusive contracts.
Why should government listen to an organization that is not part of the government (assuming OVC isn't)? They have their own non-partisan government organization which has been formed using our own rules of democracy and tax money.
I would feel uneasy about _any_ non-government organization being adopted by the government as your wishes expressed, for fear of political bias within the NGO. You need strict selection of staff by both sides of politics for these types of ultra-sensitive organaizations (voting of all things, talk about politically sensitive!).
You, my friend, have obviously not heard of "stop-loss" and people being called back into duty. How these are different from a "real" draft I cannot see.
Does a 'stop-loss' force people who were never in the military to join or go to jail? If not then the difference to a "real" draft is quite obvious.
YES, McCarthy and Hitler were exactly at the same level of scum.
Please, someone on the left dis-own this retard. Believe me, being silent about fuckwits in your group gives people the wrong impression about your own parties beliefs (as unreasonable as that may be).
I am also a republican voter and can't for the life of me work out why they can't just do the third option you describe (get a wiretap court order first). It has caused problems for the party so I wouldn't mind someone giving me their own justification of why it may have happened.
That's true, although not enacted by Bush as many would have you know. But it does satisfy my question.
Does anyone know if either the Democrats or Republicans have any good policies on that btw? Because even though I lean to the right, I would definately bend and bend hard for a policy that crippled copyright, patents and other intellectual property laws.
I worry a bit because a lot of the jokes in more modern cartoons are based on stereotypes.
I do understand that some of those old cartoons would cause a riot if shown, and so I wouldn't really push the issue. It's just that it feels like the thin edge of the wedge to me, because it's so subjective to say what is tasteless and what is a funny jab at a sterotype (e.g. is a "white men can't dance" joke unshowable?).
...and I'm sure I can count on your voting block to realize when that point comes and 1) be able to get to the polls...
99% of laws are bought in over a long period of time and debate though, so time is no major prob. For laws that are enacted quickly like some of the recent anti-terrorism ones, then the theory is that if the law is disliked enough then the party will be kicked out next election (not elegant I know).
2) vote against the infringement
Out of all the Libertarian types you have met, how many would really let our freedoms go down the drain? I'm talking real life freedoms being taken away. The only people I have come across that wish to unreasonably remove freedoms and choice are unions and religous 'moralists'. I use the word 'unreasonably' here to mean not based on reason, ie. direct contradictions in logic etc..
3) have the votes count. Just a few more Diebold machines out there and we can REALLY effortlessly rig those elections.
You still haven't realised how political most of the voting fraud accusations were have you? (hint, make a list of all the unique _proven_ cases of fraud next to all the unique _allegations_ of fraud since the election). Note that a link to democraticunderground.com/randomlengthyarticle.htm l does not fall within the bounds of proof any more often than jesus.com/intelligentdesign.html does.
What do you consider restricted beyond reason, by the way? How about holding American citizens incommunicado for three years without charging them with a crime? Or does that not count because it in some way was connected to September 11th?
I can't do anything but agree with you here. I just don't see a reason to hold people more than a reasonable length of time before forcing a hearing. For any republicans who are blazee about this, consider an extremely left wing government in power, and how worried you might be then of your political allies being legal held for years without trial. Then you may realise how many on the left feel about this law.
I'm not sure about grouping people of the same race together (in a hypothetical world), but even though you are correct that science has pointed out numerous differences in races, people in general are just no sophisticated enough to handle that information.
Slashdot Mirror
Its for the 'war on terrorism' and its also 'for the children'.
So hypothetically, if there was a true constant terrorist threat, how would the exact same cynicism not be applicable?
It seems like a huge stretch in interpretation of copyright law ...
I wonder about that because, after all, copyright's purpose is to prevent unauthorized transfer from one person to another. It would seem that by exposing a work to a network that is built soley for transferring information, you are reasonably breaking copyright law.
To put it another way, take away your dislike for copyright law itself, and imagine the work is something that you really would like to keep from being transferred without authorization (say, images of yourself that are private). Would you still agree that putting them on a file transfer network is reasonable, yet handing the same images to someone else is not ok (as normal copyright law goes)?
And we are all heading down that road. Completely unabated and almost without any dissent.
I agree but I am convinced people just need time to catch up with issues like this. Maybe we will go through some years of unreasonable copyright laws before that happens, but the more technology is simplified, the easier it is for the general public to grasp these types of issues in a clearer way.
In this particular case it would appear that copyright law is just being protected reasonably. It is not much defense to say "I didn't know that file was there" for any type of 'illegal' data, I would imagine. The real issue is whether copyright law should even exist in this era of near limitless information creation ability.
Pointing out the spite in my argument doesn't obscure the truth about your murdering crook friends in DC.
I'm confused, are arguments riddled with holes suddenly ok now?
Dude don't both even replying to people who purposely confuse intentional targetting of civilians with those poor iraqis who died as of the result of the US Army. The US Army has not and never will target civilians (and will charge any employees found guilty of so). There is a world of difference between the two concepts.
See, here's the problem: their secure and successful ATM venture tarnishes their image as "a bunch of inept oafs" as you would, for lack of a better word, "defend" them.
.... by holding hands ... bush corrupt .. ahh i get it
ATM mistakes happen all the time, you are arguing out of ignorance of the history of ATM failures (where a transaction was incorrect, not just the thing going into breakdown mode).
"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence" rings hollow when the company has created and deployed a system that has not been broken, and not for lack of being a very juicy target.
Your saying has no place in voting systems, where there is enormous focus on preventing malicous hacking. After all, it is clear that once a voting system breaks down it is quite possible for that corruption to live off it's own feedback so to speak, and grow large.
Bush admitted that he holds hands with saudi leaders, he explained that it was what was expected of him in their society.
And your point here is that
Despite our president's delusions that the voices in his head are Jesus Christ telling him what to do...
Argumentum ad hominem.
The people running things, both Rep and Dem, are very wealthy and in many instances, particularly in the White House, are ex-CEOs. They are making national decisions based on profit margin, not for us, but for themselves.
A nicely demonstrative example of Argumentum ad Lazarum there.
I'll leave the rest to the viewers at home.
Perhaps you should consider modifying your links to point to more direct and reputable sources of information?
Perhaps if you did a simple google search of the opening paragraph text you'd find the document duplicated across the web. This for example.
Well, for the oil, basically.
... bush is sick' deflection...
I think, basically, that the hundreds of thousands of people tortured for their political beliefs in Iraq pre-invasion would disagree. But feel free to ignore documented evidence for your own political gain. I think it's sick frankly. cue 'yeh well
In light of recent disclosures both in the USA (Abramof) and here in Australia (the Wheat Board) I don't trust conservatives to behave honestly.
You imply that you believe the non-conservative polititions are less corrupt. Do you think if I went and created a table of Liberal vs Labour public corruption charges (for their members), that it would look horribly lop sided against Libs? Because if you follow through with your assertion, I don't mind doing one.
Exit polls are an extremely bad idea for this reason alone:
A party could gain massive votes by canvasing their opponents as a guilt-ridden choice or 'immoral' choice, causing unbalance in the way votes are made and the way they are told to exit poll officials. eg. A person may (rightly so) feel uneasy about saying they voted for Democrats because the local community is very pro-war.
Worse still, and this has happened in many countries, people could be scared of violent reprisal for revealing their vote choice (from the government or militia).
There is a *perfectly* valid way to do voting, and that is with e-voting with paper trails (it has been said countless times, without refutation).
Printing a password that is encrypted with a password on each ticket would avoid stuffing. (It is funny that you could even encourage people to try stuffing anything they like in the boxes, knowing that the encryption is too strong to crack from a sample ticket). You just discard any tickets that do not decrypt to the password when counting.
Basic statistics indicates that for large enough numbers, even spot checks of a few percent will almost certainly catch any attempts to do widespread (i.e., statistically significant) manipulation or fraud within the computer mechanism.
And made even more powerful by focusing on the states where votes are close.
I can't think of any weaknesses in this system that can't be overcome with pretty simple measures (e.g. keep public cameras on the paper vote boxes at all times to prevent tampering when the employees take them to the warehouse).
I also don't understand why it was not in place from the beggining, other than not having coughing up enough money to fund it 100%. If that was the case then why not wait a few years longer until we have a proper system in place (e-voting + paper backup)?
Problem is, they spend their donations on actually developing the system, not in paying off Congressmen to give them lucrative exclusive contracts.
Why should government listen to an organization that is not part of the government (assuming OVC isn't)? They have their own non-partisan government organization which has been formed using our own rules of democracy and tax money.
I would feel uneasy about _any_ non-government organization being adopted by the government as your wishes expressed, for fear of political bias within the NGO. You need strict selection of staff by both sides of politics for these types of ultra-sensitive organaizations (voting of all things, talk about politically sensitive!).
You, my friend, have obviously not heard of "stop-loss" and people being called back into duty. How these are different from a "real" draft I cannot see.
Does a 'stop-loss' force people who were never in the military to join or go to jail? If not then the difference to a "real" draft is quite obvious.
YES, McCarthy and Hitler were exactly at the same level of scum.
Please, someone on the left dis-own this retard. Believe me, being silent about fuckwits in your group gives people the wrong impression about your own parties beliefs (as unreasonable as that may be).
I am also a republican voter and can't for the life of me work out why they can't just do the third option you describe (get a wiretap court order first). It has caused problems for the party so I wouldn't mind someone giving me their own justification of why it may have happened.
I know, strongly leftist China has really implemented it well so far! Three cheers for government controlled media, hip hip...
Modern day conservatives are nothing more that apologists for tyranny, murder, criminality, and rampant immorality.
Looks like our secret is out guys, time for code X3. Go, go, move it!
This might seem strange to you, but this is how humans originally developed. They did not live in a heterogenous society.
No one likes a smart ass, especially when they are wrong (as you are). Please look up the very strange concepts of:
a) borders
b) migration
c) localization and adaption to a region
That's true, although not enacted by Bush as many would have you know. But it does satisfy my question.
Does anyone know if either the Democrats or Republicans have any good policies on that btw? Because even though I lean to the right, I would definately bend and bend hard for a policy that crippled copyright, patents and other intellectual property laws.
I worry a bit because a lot of the jokes in more modern cartoons are based on stereotypes.
I do understand that some of those old cartoons would cause a riot if shown, and so I wouldn't really push the issue. It's just that it feels like the thin edge of the wedge to me, because it's so subjective to say what is tasteless and what is a funny jab at a sterotype (e.g. is a "white men can't dance" joke unshowable?).
...and I'm sure I can count on your voting block to realize when that point comes and 1) be able to get to the polls...
m l does not fall within the bounds of proof any more often than jesus.com/intelligentdesign.html does.
99% of laws are bought in over a long period of time and debate though, so time is no major prob. For laws that are enacted quickly like some of the recent anti-terrorism ones, then the theory is that if the law is disliked enough then the party will be kicked out next election (not elegant I know).
2) vote against the infringement
Out of all the Libertarian types you have met, how many would really let our freedoms go down the drain? I'm talking real life freedoms being taken away. The only people I have come across that wish to unreasonably remove freedoms and choice are unions and religous 'moralists'. I use the word 'unreasonably' here to mean not based on reason, ie. direct contradictions in logic etc..
3) have the votes count. Just a few more Diebold machines out there and we can REALLY effortlessly rig those elections.
You still haven't realised how political most of the voting fraud accusations were have you? (hint, make a list of all the unique _proven_ cases of fraud next to all the unique _allegations_ of fraud since the election). Note that a link to democraticunderground.com/randomlengthyarticle.ht
What do you consider restricted beyond reason, by the way? How about holding American citizens incommunicado for three years without charging them with a crime? Or does that not count because it in some way was connected to September 11th?
I can't do anything but agree with you here. I just don't see a reason to hold people more than a reasonable length of time before forcing a hearing. For any republicans who are blazee about this, consider an extremely left wing government in power, and how worried you might be then of your political allies being legal held for years without trial. Then you may realise how many on the left feel about this law.
I'm not sure about grouping people of the same race together (in a hypothetical world), but even though you are correct that science has pointed out numerous differences in races, people in general are just no sophisticated enough to handle that information.