Neither your argument nor the parent post to which you replied contains much in the way of factual statement. Both are laden with meaningless rhetoric such as: The world we live now in is inherently more violent than the one we lived in 20 years ago. The same will probably be true in 20 years time too. If you had an argument in here, I missed it entirely. The only demonstrable fact in here is that our privacy is being attacked, for the dubious purpose of reducing crime.
Since there is no control group mentioned in your argument, indeed no reputable research or experimentation demonstrated at all, I will continue to assume that the only purpose of the exercise described in the article is to sell more cameras which can be easily used for nefarious purposes, but have not been demonstrated in any satisfactory way to serve their stated purpose, that of reducing crime.
So you've assaulted Hawking's argument basied on his lack of credentials as an environmental scientist. I can only imagine I'm supposed to believe your claims on the basis of . . . your credentials, whatever they are.
Hawking is using projections based on what's going on right now. You are introducing this "demographic transition" to which you assign no quantifiable cause except that you "think" so. And of course your infallible vision of "bumps and corrections."
So pardon me if I still choose to believe Hawking's predictions, which are more or less in tune with similar predictions by Carl Sagan (who was a planetary scientist and an expert on the greenhouse effect and Venus).
I know TONS of people who make music with no hope of financial gain. Some of them have been doing it for years. And a lot of it, despite the poor recording quality, is really good music. Cheap digital recording technologies are enabling the recording quality to go up, and the ability to burn CD's or put it on MP3 is making distribution easier. This is what the RIAA is terrified of, because out there are bands that are WAY better than what is on the radio, and they now stand a fighting chance of being heard.
You still have to pay to see them perform live. Imagine that. Frankly, after reading several examples of the incredible suck job that's usually done on their recording contracts, it appears that's where most musicians make their money. By the way, here is another example of a band deliberately releasing online, with no fears of their career going under.
The kinds of bands that will suffer from this are the corporatized bands that don't really have any talent anyway -- bands that cannot put on a live show without a "sync" track (pun intended) and a bunch of hired help.
You're wrong. DC needs to be pushed to the wall on this. They are clearly in violation of the law. Their behavior is far more like the behavior of a con artist than a legitimate business. They need to be treated like a con artist.
The major struggle of the late 20th and early 21st century is going to be over intellectual property, privacy, and individual rights. The Cue Cat embodies all three of these.
First, they give you something that you did not necessarily ask for. This becomes your property. They then start telling you what you can and cannot do with this free item. This is infringing on your personal liberty. Whether or not you were given this item, or paid for it, or requested it personally from the CEO, once it is in your hands you possess it and it is yours. Barring any agreement that you have KNOWINGLY entered into, you are free to do what you wish with it. The EULA, as many have demonstrated, does not qualify as an agreement of any sort, since reading it or agreeing to it is not necessary as a precursor to using the Cue Cat. So now they're reaching into your life, and your privacy, to attempt to prevent you from using your property in whatever fashion you see fit. Finally, they're threatening you with Intellectual Property laws that do not apply. You (the figurative you, that is) did not recieve any intellectual property with the Cue Cat. The EULA that came with the software that was thrown into the trash bin does not count. The new EULA published on-line most certainly does not count. The hardware is what's at issue. Yet DC uses the language of law to reach out and threaten people on the basis that they are infringing on IP rights. At the same time they are quashing your rights to do with your intellectual property (the code you write ) as you please. This is your First Amendment. Say goodbye to it.
It is a part of the personal enjoyment of people like me to take apart electronic devices and figure out how they work. It is our right to do so with the cue cat. It is our right to write software which interfaces with the cue cat, which we have been given for free, with no legally binding contractual stipulations.
DC saw fit to push people who did so up against the wall and threaten them. They as a corporation, in the environment we've encouraged to exist in the US, believed that they had a right to do whatever was necessary to protect their business plan. Whether they were legally or morally entitled to was not a question. Whether their rights were more important than their consumers' rights was not a question. It was simply the standard corporate reaction to a threat to their profits. More and more these threats are percieved as a threat to their "right" to make money.
The fact that a rather large number of people have been brainwashed and sheepified into thinking that this is OK is probably the clearest indicator that this kind of corporate ham-fisted bullying must stop. Digital Convergence are a very small foe comparted to the MPAA and RIAA, but in this arena every time we give in, and allow something like this to pass, we give permission. If we do not stand up and defend our rights, we don't stand much of a chance of keeping them, do we? If DC is not ridiculed out of business or faced with actual legal action, they may well come back next year with some bought legislation to enforce their 'right' to tell people what to do with their own property in their own homes. You might have to answer to hordes of lawyers every time you turn on your TV or open a book. You might end up 'signing' all kinds of back-stabbing agreements as you brush past a magazine rack, without even knowing it.
So Digital Convergence needs to be stomped. Hard. In the face. They need to feel actual legal and financial pain. They need to be made a public example of. Other companies need to see this as a wake-up call. One's business model does not have precedence over the rights of one's consumers. If we don't, we will probably see this all over again next year. And once the gate has been cracked on our rights we may find it to be a hell of a task to push it shut again. There's a whole wave of con artists out there in line behind Digital Convergence, waiting to pounce as soon as the right to privacy and personal liberty is revoked.
It's the mentality that you're either a "Christian" and "for us" or you "ain't" and "against us." These are black and white minds you are dealing with. More complex situations confuse them.
Slashdot Mirror
Neither your argument nor the parent post to which you replied contains much in the way of factual statement. Both are laden with meaningless rhetoric such as: The world we live now in is inherently more violent than the one we lived in 20 years ago. The same will probably be true in 20 years time too. If you had an argument in here, I missed it entirely. The only demonstrable fact in here is that our privacy is being attacked, for the dubious purpose of reducing crime.
Since there is no control group mentioned in your argument, indeed no reputable research or experimentation demonstrated at all, I will continue to assume that the only purpose of the exercise described in the article is to sell more cameras which can be easily used for nefarious purposes, but have not been demonstrated in any satisfactory way to serve their stated purpose, that of reducing crime.
Hawking is using projections based on what's going on right now. You are introducing this "demographic transition" to which you assign no quantifiable cause except that you "think" so. And of course your infallible vision of "bumps and corrections."
So pardon me if I still choose to believe Hawking's predictions, which are more or less in tune with similar predictions by Carl Sagan (who was a planetary scientist and an expert on the greenhouse effect and Venus).
You mean "muzzled" for daring to criticize their highly suspect business practices.
Just relax. The black helicopters are on their way to pick you up.
I know TONS of people who make music with no hope of financial gain. Some of them have been doing it for years. And a lot of it, despite the poor recording quality, is really good music. Cheap digital recording technologies are enabling the recording quality to go up, and the ability to burn CD's or put it on MP3 is making distribution easier. This is what the RIAA is terrified of, because out there are bands that are WAY better than what is on the radio, and they now stand a fighting chance of being heard.
The kinds of bands that will suffer from this are the corporatized bands that don't really have any talent anyway -- bands that cannot put on a live show without a "sync" track (pun intended) and a bunch of hired help.
virus -i n slime; poison; pungency; saltiness.
So there.
You're wrong. DC needs to be pushed to the wall on this. They are clearly in violation of the law. Their behavior is far more like the behavior of a con artist than a legitimate business. They need to be treated like a con artist. The major struggle of the late 20th and early 21st century is going to be over intellectual property, privacy, and individual rights. The Cue Cat embodies all three of these. First, they give you something that you did not necessarily ask for. This becomes your property. They then start telling you what you can and cannot do with this free item. This is infringing on your personal liberty. Whether or not you were given this item, or paid for it, or requested it personally from the CEO, once it is in your hands you possess it and it is yours. Barring any agreement that you have KNOWINGLY entered into, you are free to do what you wish with it. The EULA, as many have demonstrated, does not qualify as an agreement of any sort, since reading it or agreeing to it is not necessary as a precursor to using the Cue Cat. So now they're reaching into your life, and your privacy, to attempt to prevent you from using your property in whatever fashion you see fit. Finally, they're threatening you with Intellectual Property laws that do not apply. You (the figurative you, that is) did not recieve any intellectual property with the Cue Cat. The EULA that came with the software that was thrown into the trash bin does not count. The new EULA published on-line most certainly does not count. The hardware is what's at issue. Yet DC uses the language of law to reach out and threaten people on the basis that they are infringing on IP rights. At the same time they are quashing your rights to do with your intellectual property (the code you write ) as you please. This is your First Amendment. Say goodbye to it. It is a part of the personal enjoyment of people like me to take apart electronic devices and figure out how they work. It is our right to do so with the cue cat. It is our right to write software which interfaces with the cue cat, which we have been given for free, with no legally binding contractual stipulations. DC saw fit to push people who did so up against the wall and threaten them. They as a corporation, in the environment we've encouraged to exist in the US, believed that they had a right to do whatever was necessary to protect their business plan. Whether they were legally or morally entitled to was not a question. Whether their rights were more important than their consumers' rights was not a question. It was simply the standard corporate reaction to a threat to their profits. More and more these threats are percieved as a threat to their "right" to make money. The fact that a rather large number of people have been brainwashed and sheepified into thinking that this is OK is probably the clearest indicator that this kind of corporate ham-fisted bullying must stop. Digital Convergence are a very small foe comparted to the MPAA and RIAA, but in this arena every time we give in, and allow something like this to pass, we give permission. If we do not stand up and defend our rights, we don't stand much of a chance of keeping them, do we? If DC is not ridiculed out of business or faced with actual legal action, they may well come back next year with some bought legislation to enforce their 'right' to tell people what to do with their own property in their own homes. You might have to answer to hordes of lawyers every time you turn on your TV or open a book. You might end up 'signing' all kinds of back-stabbing agreements as you brush past a magazine rack, without even knowing it. So Digital Convergence needs to be stomped. Hard. In the face. They need to feel actual legal and financial pain. They need to be made a public example of. Other companies need to see this as a wake-up call. One's business model does not have precedence over the rights of one's consumers. If we don't, we will probably see this all over again next year. And once the gate has been cracked on our rights we may find it to be a hell of a task to push it shut again. There's a whole wave of con artists out there in line behind Digital Convergence, waiting to pounce as soon as the right to privacy and personal liberty is revoked.
Tulatin Valley seems to think it exists And it's in Oregon.
It's the mentality that you're either a "Christian" and "for us" or you "ain't" and "against us." These are black and white minds you are dealing with. More complex situations confuse them.
Why bother with a moral victory? Just a legal one would be fine at this point.