There absolutely are moral regulations that are necessary. Laws that prevent murder legislate morality.
The laws in this country are not and should not be based on morality, right and wrong, good or evil, or ethics.
It is not against the law for me to kill you because it is 'wrong' or 'evil'. It is against the law because my right to, say shoot my gun is trumped by your right to live. In fact my right to shoot my gun is trumped by your right not to feel threatened so I cannot even shoot at you.
One's right to have sex with offspring is trumped by that offspring rights.
Did you miss the age of enlightenment? Man is, by his very nature, free. That freedom should not be infringed unless it overlaps the rights of another and it is decided that the other's rights should trump. For example, the Texas sodomy law being struck-down was a no-brainer. One's right to live in a country where 'icky' things don't happen doesn't come close to trumping the freedom of a couple in Texas.
If you want to draw lines, start with a circle around you. You're totally free within that circle and every other man is within his. When the circles overlap, then the government has a roll.
You don't get to look into my circle and try to impose your ideas of 'right' and 'wrong'. I'm for the overturning every law that does so. You may draw any line you'd like regarding morallity, but keep it to yourself.
I'd like a gadget that had white-listed number which cause the phone to ring, every other number going to voice mail. You'd need a code to override in case a family member is calling from a payphone or something. The point is the phone would not even ring if it was anyone else.
Post-Postscript: According to Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols of eWEEK, SCO confirmed today (04 March) that this memo is legitimate.
While it is understandable that the last line in a long article may be missed, on the second paragraph it said:
On March 4th SCO, within 24 hours of publication, I received word from Steven J. Vaughan at eWEEK.com that SCO had confirmed that the memo is legitimate.
Do you have information Eric S. Raymond doen't about Mr. Vaughan's claim, or some conviction that executives cannot be blockheads?
Chewy eventually shows up back at home. Han greets the family: "Malla. Lumpy. Itchy." Han scruffs the little one's head, saying, "Look at Lumpy, he's all grown up. I think his voice is changing." Then Han hugs all four fur balls and pauses meaningfully at the door: "All of you are an important part of my life."
If so, perhaps one could use viewing this as a threat to get the kids to clean their rooms.
I became suspicious when I noticed the ratio of male to female was unusually high. I soon realized that the ratio was skewed because most (all) of the anti-protesters where women.
My favorite was the anti-protest sign "I don't pay for my music, I'm not paying for my OS! So Sue me!"
I became suspicious when I noticed the ratio of male to female was unusually high. I soon realized that the ratio was skewed because most (all) of the anti-protesters where women.
My favorite was the anti-protest sign "I don't pay for my music, I'm not paying for my OS! So Sue me!"
It might be helpful to review the 9th and 10th amendment.
The point is Americans should have all rights, 100% freedom - rights revoked. Not 0% rights + whatever we are granted.
1. Convince Americans the enumerated rights are all they have. Then enumerate less. 2. ?? 3. Profit
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
To answer your question, yes, I have an absolute Constitional Right to anonymity. I'm talking Constitution here. I have the right because the Constitution does not say otherwise.
The ideal of freedom is not one we have lost, it is one we have yet to achieve.
Human scientists are still struggling to understand and explain countless things.
It seems that the first thing that believers say is, "there is a lot of stuff we don't know"? They also need to take this to heart. They seem to have some deep aversion to leaving things in an unknown state.
"I don't know what that thing in the sky was." "It must be aliens from Vega making crop circles, anally probing housewives, and mutilating cows."
"I don't know how he bent that spoon." "It must be that he used his 'mental powers' to heat the metal."
"I don't know how that guy seems to know so much in the cold reading." "It must be that he is talking to the dead spirits of that persons family."
"I don't know why sticking a bunch of tiny needles into people in certain spots seems to have some sort of consistent positive result". "It must be that the needles are re-channeling the bodies chi for a more harmonious flow."
Your point is that there is a lot that we don't know. My point is the same; We don't know, so we need to stop pretending that we do.
A rational person should have no problem with someone who makes claims of observable facts. It is all the crap that goes with that claim that trips us up. Claims not based on "seems" and "some sort of" but claims made as "is this". The clam is not that "sticking a bunch of tiny needles into people in certain spots seems to have some sort of consistent positive result". The claim is usually a bunch of "bullshit" about chi energy spirit auras. This is what Occam was referring to. Adding complexities upon complexities until the original observalbe fact is buried in a "load".
let us theorize about the possible causes of that
Yes, but the next step is to test that theory and through it out if it cannot be validated. If we don't know, we should follow the available evidence and use the complete scientific method to test the hypothesis. What we shouldn't do is go on some mental masturbatory rampage about Vegan aliens. A hypothesis by itself is pretty useless if it isn't or cannot be tested.
The further one gets from the observable, repeatable fact the more extraordinary the claim is. The more one has to add to an explanation of observable fact the bigger the "load of bull".
"Buying" laws may not not produce legislation you see as equitable, but the law remains the law until changed. Almost all the posts here are arguing for the right to engage in criminal activity, and their main argument seems to be that it ought not to be illegal.
I agree. Sharing "Mariah Carey tracks" is not civil disobediance and will not bring any positive change. My voting and educating my children to different way, may. In the meantime public libraries and used CD/book stores are the way to go.
For god's sake, the stuff is only throw-away commercial pop entertainment. Are you going to stake the future of the Internet on the "right" to distribute, say, Mariah Carey tracks? Come on!
Mariah Carey's first album was in 1990 only 12 years ago. We will fully respect the copyright on her ablums. More to your point; It is not worth the future of the Internet for the pap that is marketed today, I agree again.
"the stuff" is NOT "only throw-away commercial pop entertainment", see my first point. The public domain is being robbed of everything for nearly the last hundred years!
Before the inevitable "you thieves are getting what you deserve" posts please consider the following points:
Copyright covers more than music and movies a few are: Architecture Books Bumper stickers Choreographic works Images News Articles Poetry Plays Sculptures Software T-S hirts Video Games
Copyright was supposed to be 14 years. A limited monopoly, a deal, a trade-off, a balance. Copyright was supposed to be for promotion of, not hoarding and controlling, the arts and sciences. Anything older that 14 years should now belong to society, that means us. It should be ours, that was the deal. Anything older than 14 years has been stolen from the public domain. Buying laws does not make it right. Those people in government are supposed to represent us, the people did not demand or accept a change in the deal (except through ignorance or apathy). There is going to be a hole in the public domain until things change. Copyright changes are about money and control, not right or wrong. DRM makes copyright eternal or criminals out of those that break protections.
As far as I'm concerned, the deal is off!
It is off in the sense of the following: My kids have a "correct" understanding of copyright. At every opportunity I let them know what I think is right (about everything, not just copyright.). My kids listen to oldies or indies (my son loves 2 1/2 White Guys) and have never bought a CD. My kids mainly buy/read books that are in the public domain (GUTENBERG). My kids all know how to play two musical instruments (they are making their own music, and have higher tastes). My kids understand that what they buy is theirs and they can do whatever they want with it. My son is a nut with our camcorder. He has respect for the movie industry but higher tastes. My kids live in a region free macrovision free home (in fact crippled CDs or software are immediately broken. They'll not hunt for the CD to a game I purchased.) My kids use proprietary software only when there is no sourceforge alternative. My kids hear "copyright infringement" not "pirate" or "thief". My kids hear "crippled CD, software" not "copy protected". My kids understand that ideas and information are free[without restraint] and can be shared with no loss to the originator ala Jefferson, and that IP is artificial based on an agreement. My kids trade, copy, use anything older than 14 years without hesitation or reservation.
In fine, I'm helping to raise a generation that expects a certain level copyright freedom.
The real pirates, thieves, criminals are the likes of the RIAA, MPAA.
Respond rationally and you just may change my view.
p.s. I realize that I have indoctrinated my children but that is my darwinian right:0)
I think that these sort of laws will eventually pass. Not only because they are perceived to be in the best interest of the MPAA but because they give more power to the government. A statement by Ayn Rand comes to mind.
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
Then contact your bank to stop payments to whatever entity is siphoning from your account.
Have you ever tried this? If you stop payment on a transaction you will be charged a fee. This will only stop that month's payment. You will have to stop payment again the next month. Of course you will be charged another fee.
I had AT&T set up to auto deduct from my bank. I closed that AT&T account and opened a new one (switching calling plans). AT&T started deducting from my bank for the new AT&T account. Never mind that I didn't authorize them to.
My bank told me that once I opt into this I can't opt-out. I'd have to ask AT&T to stop siphoning from the account. AT&T told me several times that they wouldn't, that I was moved to regular billing, but sure enough every month there was a new AT&T deduction. I eventually had to close all accounts and move to another bank.*
I have since set up a dummy account at a third bank exclusively for online payments. One I can close at any moment and has minimal funds.
I wonder how many people would use auto payment if they new that once they turned it on, they couldn't turn it off.
*I needed to close all accounts. The bank has the power to pull funds from any account with my name on it.
What's wrong with going to a movie and simply enjoy it?
What is wrong with expecting a certain level of production quality?
I never try to find mistakes the first time I see a movie, I'm trying to enjoy it. There are some movies, though, where the mistakes stand out enough to be distracting.
Similar to software, I don't go looking for problems but sometimes problems find me.
Quality of production may not be as important as quality of story, acting, and etc. but it is not totally unimportant.
I have seen movies that had so may obvious mistakes that I left the theater with a vague feeling of being ripped of.
I am Hilary Rosen of the RIAA. Our business model is really messed up. Our revenue stream is in utter disarray. Our hairiest problem is the proliferation of p2p networks. We have been unable to stop them. Buying laws, calling people thieves, and copy protecting CDs won't work either. I'd like the slashdot community to help me find a technical way to shut them down.
Maybe because online they can actually be *good* at it?
This is a great point. I play most games because for a few hours I can feel more skilled than I really am.
In Unreal, I can jump down the stairs, turning in mid-air, switch weapons, and giblet the guy chasing me. If I tried a move like that in real life I'd be in the hospital for months:)
Slashdot Mirror
There absolutely are moral regulations that are necessary. Laws that prevent murder legislate morality.
The laws in this country are not and should not be based on morality, right and wrong, good or evil, or ethics.
It is not against the law for me to kill you because it is 'wrong' or 'evil'. It is against the law because my right to, say shoot my gun is trumped by your right to live. In fact my right to shoot my gun is trumped by your right not to feel threatened so I cannot even shoot at you.
One's right to have sex with offspring is trumped by that offspring rights.
Did you miss the age of enlightenment? Man is, by his very nature, free. That freedom should not be infringed unless it overlaps the rights of another and it is decided that the other's rights should trump. For example, the Texas sodomy law being struck-down was a no-brainer. One's right to live in a country where 'icky' things don't happen doesn't come close to trumping the freedom of a couple in Texas.
If you want to draw lines, start with a circle around you. You're totally free within that circle and every other man is within his. When the circles overlap, then the government has a roll.
You don't get to look into my circle and try to impose your ideas of 'right' and 'wrong'. I'm for the overturning every law that does so. You may draw any line you'd like regarding morallity, but keep it to yourself.
I'd like a gadget that had white-listed number which cause the phone to ring, every other number going to voice mail. You'd need a code to override in case a family member is calling from a payphone or something. The point is the phone would not even ring if it was anyone else.
Anyone heard of something like this?
The fact that it may have not been confirmed when you posted is just is starting to sink in.
apologies
At the bottom of the page it says:
While it is understandable that the last line in a long article may be missed, on the second paragraph it said:
Do you have information Eric S. Raymond doen't about Mr. Vaughan's claim, or some conviction that executives cannot be blockheads?
If so, perhaps one could use viewing this as a threat to get the kids to clean their rooms.
The real reason it won't work is that A9 makes a cumbersome verb.
I also took some pictures. Available here
:-)
It is a friends server so be gentle
I became suspicious when I noticed the ratio of male to female was unusually high. I soon realized that the ratio was skewed because most (all) of the anti-protesters where women.
My favorite was the anti-protest sign "I don't pay for my music, I'm not paying for my OS! So Sue me!"
I also took some pictures. Available here
:-)
It is a friends server so be gentle
I became suspicious when I noticed the ratio of male to female was unusually high. I soon realized that the ratio was skewed because most (all) of the anti-protesters where women.
My favorite was the anti-protest sign "I don't pay for my music, I'm not paying for my OS! So Sue me!"
Besides, why would anyone who believed in that naive hoax suddenly believe a so-called Hubble picture?
Never try to reason someone out of something that they didn't reason themselves into.
The point is Americans should have all rights, 100% freedom - rights revoked. Not 0% rights + whatever we are granted.
1. Convince Americans the enumerated rights are all they have. Then enumerate less.
2. ??
3. Profit
To answer your question, yes, I have an absolute Constitional Right to anonymity. I'm talking Constitution here. I have the right because the Constitution does not say otherwise.
The ideal of freedom is not one we have lost, it is one we have yet to achieve.
The freedom to commit a crime is not a freedom you want to support.
If they are successful in buying a law alowing this it will no longer be a crime.
Human scientists are still struggling to understand and explain countless things.
It seems that the first thing that believers say is, "there is a lot of stuff we don't know"? They also need to take this to heart. They seem to have some deep aversion to leaving things in an unknown state.
"I don't know what that thing in the sky was." "It must be aliens from Vega making crop circles, anally probing housewives, and mutilating cows."
"I don't know how he bent that spoon." "It must be that he used his 'mental powers' to heat the metal."
"I don't know how that guy seems to know so much in the cold reading." "It must be that he is talking to the dead spirits of that persons family."
"I don't know why sticking a bunch of tiny needles into people in certain spots seems to have some sort of consistent positive result". "It must be that the needles are re-channeling the bodies chi for a more harmonious flow."
Your point is that there is a lot that we don't know. My point is the same; We don't know, so we need to stop pretending that we do.
A rational person should have no problem with someone who makes claims of observable facts. It is all the crap that goes with that claim that trips us up. Claims not based on "seems" and "some sort of" but claims made as "is this". The clam is not that "sticking a bunch of tiny needles into people in certain spots seems to have some sort of consistent positive result". The claim is usually a bunch of "bullshit" about chi energy spirit auras. This is what Occam was referring to. Adding complexities upon complexities until the original observalbe fact is buried in a "load".
let us theorize about the possible causes of that
Yes, but the next step is to test that theory and through it out if it cannot be validated. If we don't know, we should follow the available evidence and use the complete scientific method to test the hypothesis. What we shouldn't do is go on some mental masturbatory rampage about Vegan aliens. A hypothesis by itself is pretty useless if it isn't or cannot be tested.
The further one gets from the observable, repeatable fact the more extraordinary the claim is. The more one has to add to an explanation of observable fact the bigger the "load of bull".
---
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Sagan
"Buying" laws may not not produce legislation you see as equitable, but the law remains the law until changed. Almost all the posts here are arguing for the right to engage in criminal activity, and their main argument seems to be that it ought not to be illegal.
I agree. Sharing "Mariah Carey tracks" is not civil disobediance and will not bring any positive change. My voting and educating my children to different way, may. In the meantime public libraries and used CD/book stores are the way to go.
For god's sake, the stuff is only throw-away commercial pop entertainment. Are you going to stake the future of the Internet on the "right" to distribute, say, Mariah Carey tracks? Come on!
Mariah Carey's first album was in 1990 only 12 years ago. We will fully respect the copyright on her ablums. More to your point; It is not worth the future of the Internet for the pap that is marketed today, I agree again.
"the stuff" is NOT "only throw-away commercial pop entertainment", see my first point. The public domain is being robbed of everything for nearly the last hundred years!
I'd love some system that said if you like artist x you'll probably like indie y.
Or if you like song q you'll probably like indie song r.
Someone start this. I cannot donate skills but I can/would donate money.
Before the inevitable "you thieves are getting what you deserve" posts please consider the following points:
S hirts
:0)
Copyright covers more than music and movies a few are:
Architecture
Books
Bumper stickers
Choreographic works
Images
News Articles
Poetry
Plays
Sculptures
Software
T-
Video Games
Copyright was supposed to be 14 years. A limited monopoly, a deal, a trade-off, a balance.
Copyright was supposed to be for promotion of, not hoarding and controlling, the arts and sciences.
Anything older that 14 years should now belong to society, that means us. It should be ours, that was the deal.
Anything older than 14 years has been stolen from the public domain. Buying laws does not make it right.
Those people in government are supposed to represent us, the people did not demand or accept a change in the deal (except through ignorance or apathy).
There is going to be a hole in the public domain until things change.
Copyright changes are about money and control, not right or wrong.
DRM makes copyright eternal or criminals out of those that break protections.
As far as I'm concerned, the deal is off!
It is off in the sense of the following:
My kids have a "correct" understanding of copyright. At every opportunity I let them know what I think is right (about everything, not just copyright.).
My kids listen to oldies or indies (my son loves 2 1/2 White Guys) and have never bought a CD.
My kids mainly buy/read books that are in the public domain (GUTENBERG).
My kids all know how to play two musical instruments (they are making their own music, and have higher tastes).
My kids understand that what they buy is theirs and they can do whatever they want with it.
My son is a nut with our camcorder. He has respect for the movie industry but higher tastes.
My kids live in a region free macrovision free home (in fact crippled CDs or software are immediately broken. They'll not hunt for the CD to a game I purchased.)
My kids use proprietary software only when there is no sourceforge alternative.
My kids hear "copyright infringement" not "pirate" or "thief".
My kids hear "crippled CD, software" not "copy protected".
My kids understand that ideas and information are free[without restraint] and can be shared with no loss to the originator ala Jefferson, and that IP is artificial based on an agreement.
My kids trade, copy, use anything older than 14 years without hesitation or reservation.
In fine, I'm helping to raise a generation that expects a certain level copyright freedom.
The real pirates, thieves, criminals are the likes of the RIAA, MPAA.
Respond rationally and you just may change my view.
p.s. I realize that I have indoctrinated my children but that is my darwinian right
Not to mention writting in the margins and highlighting, both could be said to dramatically change the presentation of a book.
Then contact your bank to stop payments to whatever entity is siphoning from your account.
Have you ever tried this? If you stop payment on a transaction you will be charged a fee. This will only stop that month's payment. You will have to stop payment again the next month. Of course you will be charged another fee.
I had AT&T set up to auto deduct from my bank. I closed that AT&T account and opened a new one (switching calling plans). AT&T started deducting from my bank for the new AT&T account. Never mind that I didn't authorize them to.
My bank told me that once I opt into this I can't opt-out. I'd have to ask AT&T to stop siphoning from the account. AT&T told me several times that they wouldn't, that I was moved to regular billing, but sure enough every month there was a new AT&T deduction. I eventually had to close all accounts and move to another bank.*
I have since set up a dummy account at a third bank exclusively for online payments. One I can close at any moment and has minimal funds.
I wonder how many people would use auto payment if they new that once they turned it on, they couldn't turn it off.
*I needed to close all accounts. The bank has the power to pull funds from any account with my name on it.
As I was watching The Matrix this kinda thing is what I thought they were farming. Boy was I disappointed with the whole battery thing.
--
"Instead of getting married again, I'm going to find a woman I don't like and just give her a
house." -Steven Seagal
What's wrong with going to a movie and simply enjoy it?
What is wrong with expecting a certain level of production quality?
I never try to find mistakes the first time I see a movie, I'm trying to enjoy it. There are some movies, though, where the mistakes stand out enough to be distracting.
Similar to software, I don't go looking for problems but sometimes problems find me.
Quality of production may not be as important as quality of story, acting, and etc. but it is not totally unimportant.
I have seen movies that had so may obvious mistakes that I left the theater with a vague feeling of being ripped of.
'Thanks also to all hundreds of visitors to this site...'
:)
Methinks Mr Dorhauer is in for a big surprise
This is from Robert Heinlein's Life-Line and it is written in 1939! All the players change but it is still the same game.
Maybe because online they can actually be *good* at it?
:)
This is a great point. I play most games because for a few hours I can feel more skilled than I really am.
In Unreal, I can jump down the stairs, turning in mid-air, switch weapons, and giblet the guy chasing me. If I tried a move like that in real life I'd be in the hospital for months
Then you get the clowns like TNN and the E network who put a huge band across the bottom of the screen and scroll text across it while the show is on.
:)
I wish that they would all do this. It would give me yet another use for duct tape