Do you know what the typical case is? Men working in degrading, dangerous or stressful professions that most women do not want to take, travelling to dangerous places, working late at night and many more hours. There is already equal pay for equal work, as long as the work is actually equal. I advise you to read Warren Farrel's research in "Why Men Earn More", it will be enlightening if you give it a chance.
No it does not automatically fix it, but it does allow anyone who wants to try and fix it, for any reason, to do it. On the other hand, as it is today, if anyone tries to start to charge in order to support XP, he would be automatically sued by MS, and the same would happen if by any means they felt that you, by some miracle, made enough money with MSDOS 1.0 to be worth their attention.
No, it wouldn't. Unless they sell their products, then yes, they would be forced to give support for as long as they decide to hold the copyleft. That is not a problem as copyleft is a reaction to copyright and this solution would make far more to control copyright than copyleft ever could.
Sure. In any sane world if you sell a book with any critical error, like a chapter missing for example, you should have the obligation to provide a fixed version to the customer or to give him his money back, and I personally like the obligation to fix factual mistakes any time in the future as long as they hold copyright too. Copyright is a privilege given by society and it should come with adequate responsibilities to society.
At your orders, my good sir. Copyright is an artificial restriction imposed by the government to protect the developer. It has its reasons to be, but like all rules imposed by law a balance should be met between the good and the harm it does.
Copyright was never meant to be used as a means to make a product or service unavailable. Quite the opposite. If a company decides to sabotage their own product by either refusing to sell it, making it prohibitively expensive or denying support and forbidding others from providing this support it should lose this right.
But it is simple. Forget the source code. Just sign out any claim they have over the copyright and let the others who do not want to sign out take the liability.
Make no mistake, I am no fan of MS and I despise most of their business strategies, but your critique can be applied to any complex piece of software and especially to operational systems. There will always be vulnerabilities and at least regarding security updates MS is by far the most pro-active and responsible company out there.
The objective of applying security updates from Microsoft is to make your OS safer by applying fixes delivered by a trusted party. MS may not be perfectly "trusted" but at least it has to worry about the liability of any fishy piece of software they install in your computer. On the other hand any source from the "black market" can simply deliver rootkits and any kind of malware disguised as security updates which certainly defies the purpose of applying updates.
Facebook, Zynga, Apple, Google or whatever mega corporation you may think will take anything they want from you with or without patents. You may try and sue them, but you will likely lose and lose everything you have in the process.
Patents are made to protect them from you, not the other way around.
You don't need perfectly hierarchical punishments even because this has never existed in this world and never will as the assessment of the gravity of a crime is subjective, as in your 1000 people example. In this case even because you cannot determine at all with any degree of certainty this life shortening.
That said punishment should be unpleasant enough to sufficiently deter people from committing the crime. If society judges that the deterrence isn't working at the desired levels punishment should be increased. If the punishment is not enough to adequately deter a crime and the crime is grave enough life imprisonment or death should be used to prevent known criminals to commit those crimes again.
All these judgement of value should follow people's will democratically. You would be surprised if you asked the average person how much he is willing to risk to recover known criminals.
Finally I consider much more important to incentive people to not commit crimes than to commit crimes with restraint, in this sense your argument about the little girl is completely moot.
I am forced to accept your experience regarding your use of the term "common sense". You seem to be full of prejudices.
Back to reality, nobody can affect the past. Any solution we propose to any problem is only meaningful in relation to the future. So no a dead or incarcerated criminal cannot commit crimes against society. Regarding violent criminals it is the only sure way to prevent them from doing it. Everything else is wishful thinking.
A dead or incarcerated criminal can and has done it as well.
Only after he turns into a zombies. You are most likely referring to this possibility, I reckon.
And sure, there are a lot of studies to back anything you want in sociology and other human "sciences". That is why they say very little to corroborate or refute anything. Locating and identifying those few that produce any useful data, and understanding what conclusions can and cannot be taken from this data is generally a very hard job and requires something that most people lack: common sense.
That said I do not depend on these studies for my arguments. A bit of logic and common sense is usually enough to show how absurd is your set of beliefs.
The ideological difference is on the retribution/rehabilitation axis.
That dispute happens only in your head, my friend. I couldn't care less about retribution, but rehabilitation and nice prisons are not a good way to exert deterrence.
you cannot execute or give life imprisonment to those who have committed less than the most serious offence.
No, you can't and that is where the deterrence (as in the correct use for the word) comes in. That said, for minor crimes even rehabilitation has a role, I admit, although it is less important by far than deterrence.
You apparently are out of touch with reality my friend. There are plenty of studies that show exactly what I just said, but they are not even really necessary to understand that an incarcerated or a dead criminal cannot commit crimes against society. A rehabilitated one (whatever that word really means) can and has done it.
Some, including the people who wrote my university textbook
Who apparently share your tendency to give extra meanings to words unnecessarily making them less specific, ambiguous and utterly meaningless in the end.:)
Rehabilitation is only really effective for small crimes, where deterrence is also effective. I have nothing against it, but it should be considered at most a secondary concern.
For real criminals, like serial murders, rapists, etc, rehabilitation is usually a wasted effort and the misconception that it can solve the problem prevents the real solution (which is insulation) from being applied.
The combination of insulation with deterrence does the job. For lighter crimes deterrence solves the problem. For grave crimes, like murder, the optimal solution for society is indeed life without parole or death sentence.
Nope. Deterrence is to prevent someone from doing something because of the consequences. Insulation is another thing entirely. It is to physically insulate those that are dangerous to society from it.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you know what the typical case is? Men working in degrading, dangerous or stressful professions that most women do not want to take, travelling to dangerous places, working late at night and many more hours. There is already equal pay for equal work, as long as the work is actually equal. I advise you to read Warren Farrel's research in "Why Men Earn More", it will be enlightening if you give it a chance.
No it does not automatically fix it, but it does allow anyone who wants to try and fix it, for any reason, to do it. On the other hand, as it is today, if anyone tries to start to charge in order to support XP, he would be automatically sued by MS, and the same would happen if by any means they felt that you, by some miracle, made enough money with MSDOS 1.0 to be worth their attention.
No, it wouldn't. Unless they sell their products, then yes, they would be forced to give support for as long as they decide to hold the copyleft. That is not a problem as copyleft is a reaction to copyright and this solution would make far more to control copyright than copyleft ever could.
Sure. In any sane world if you sell a book with any critical error, like a chapter missing for example, you should have the obligation to provide a fixed version to the customer or to give him his money back, and I personally like the obligation to fix factual mistakes any time in the future as long as they hold copyright too. Copyright is a privilege given by society and it should come with adequate responsibilities to society.
Same logic applies to security patches for OS.
That is why I told "commercial" products, as in things they sold to people.
They could just give up on the copyright of those products that are not their interest to support anymore.
At your orders, my good sir. Copyright is an artificial restriction imposed by the government to protect the developer. It has its reasons to be, but like all rules imposed by law a balance should be met between the good and the harm it does.
Copyright was never meant to be used as a means to make a product or service unavailable. Quite the opposite. If a company decides to sabotage their own product by either refusing to sell it, making it prohibitively expensive or denying support and forbidding others from providing this support it should lose this right.
But it is simple. Forget the source code. Just sign out any claim they have over the copyright and let the others who do not want to sign out take the liability.
Microsoft or any software company should be forced to provide full support for their commercial products for as long as they hold copyright over them.
Make no mistake, I am no fan of MS and I despise most of their business strategies, but your critique can be applied to any complex piece of software and especially to operational systems. There will always be vulnerabilities and at least regarding security updates MS is by far the most pro-active and responsible company out there.
The objective of applying security updates from Microsoft is to make your OS safer by applying fixes delivered by a trusted party. MS may not be perfectly "trusted" but at least it has to worry about the liability of any fishy piece of software they install in your computer. On the other hand any source from the "black market" can simply deliver rootkits and any kind of malware disguised as security updates which certainly defies the purpose of applying updates.
Loser does pay for legal fees, but corporations can risk it and you cannot, and they can outlast you unless you have a lot of money to keep fighting.
Facebook, Zynga, Apple, Google or whatever mega corporation you may think will take anything they want from you with or without patents. You may try and sue them, but you will likely lose and lose everything you have in the process.
Patents are made to protect them from you, not the other way around.
You don't need perfectly hierarchical punishments even because this has never existed in this world and never will as the assessment of the gravity of a crime is subjective, as in your 1000 people example. In this case even because you cannot determine at all with any degree of certainty this life shortening.
That said punishment should be unpleasant enough to sufficiently deter people from committing the crime. If society judges that the deterrence isn't working at the desired levels punishment should be increased. If the punishment is not enough to adequately deter a crime and the crime is grave enough life imprisonment or death should be used to prevent known criminals to commit those crimes again.
All these judgement of value should follow people's will democratically. You would be surprised if you asked the average person how much he is willing to risk to recover known criminals.
Finally I consider much more important to incentive people to not commit crimes than to commit crimes with restraint, in this sense your argument about the little girl is completely moot.
I am forced to accept your experience regarding your use of the term "common sense". You seem to be full of prejudices.
Back to reality, nobody can affect the past. Any solution we propose to any problem is only meaningful in relation to the future. So no a dead or incarcerated criminal cannot commit crimes against society. Regarding violent criminals it is the only sure way to prevent them from doing it. Everything else is wishful thinking.
A dead or incarcerated criminal can and has done it as well.
Only after he turns into a zombies. You are most likely referring to this possibility, I reckon.
And sure, there are a lot of studies to back anything you want in sociology and other human "sciences". That is why they say very little to corroborate or refute anything. Locating and identifying those few that produce any useful data, and understanding what conclusions can and cannot be taken from this data is generally a very hard job and requires something that most people lack: common sense.
That said I do not depend on these studies for my arguments. A bit of logic and common sense is usually enough to show how absurd is your set of beliefs.
The ideological difference is on the retribution/rehabilitation axis.
That dispute happens only in your head, my friend. I couldn't care less about retribution, but rehabilitation and nice prisons are not a good way to exert deterrence.
you cannot execute or give life imprisonment to those who have committed less than the most serious offence.
No, you can't and that is where the deterrence (as in the correct use for the word) comes in. That said, for minor crimes even rehabilitation has a role, I admit, although it is less important by far than deterrence.
I'm sorry for you of you think defining something as a "technical" term is any justification to arbitrarily misuse of language.
You apparently are out of touch with reality my friend. There are plenty of studies that show exactly what I just said, but they are not even really necessary to understand that an incarcerated or a dead criminal cannot commit crimes against society. A rehabilitated one (whatever that word really means) can and has done it.
Some, including the people who wrote my university textbook
Who apparently share your tendency to give extra meanings to words unnecessarily making them less specific, ambiguous and utterly meaningless in the end. :)
is considered by some to be a subset of specific deterrence
;)
Obviously you are part of these "some" unenlightened people who like to borrow meanings and give them to words that never had those extra meanings.
Yes, it is based on effective results. Rehabilitation has extreme costs to society, and very little effective in recurring and violent criminals.
Rehabilitation is only really effective for small crimes, where deterrence is also effective. I have nothing against it, but it should be considered at most a secondary concern.
For real criminals, like serial murders, rapists, etc, rehabilitation is usually a wasted effort and the misconception that it can solve the problem prevents the real solution (which is insulation) from being applied.
The combination of insulation with deterrence does the job. For lighter crimes deterrence solves the problem. For grave crimes, like murder, the optimal solution for society is indeed life without parole or death sentence.
Nope. Deterrence is to prevent someone from doing something because of the consequences. Insulation is another thing entirely. It is to physically insulate those that are dangerous to society from it.