The class is specifically designed for non-science students that have to take a physics class. In other words, required to graduate but they'll probably never use it again. If using the movies actually motivates the students to learn some actual physics, I say more power to him. I'm sure this is not the same physics class that physics majors, or even science majors, are taking.
You check the appropriate box and let people count it. Simple. And it works.
Yeah, because people never make mistakes counting things, ever.
A paper ballot with a box with an X is not very subject to interpretation.
If it's only a slash instead of an "X", is it a vote or isn't it? If the "X" covers two boxes, who gets the vote? If someone uses an "O" instead, does it count? If someone fills in the box completely, were they voting for that person or scribbling out a mistake? In each of these cases you have two choices: 1) try to figure out who the vote was cast for which requires interpretation or 2) disqualify the ballot which denies someone their right to vote. Who you ask will decide whether or not the vote counts and who gets it.
An electronic system could verify the ballot was correctly filled out, warn the voter if it wasn't allowing him to correct it, and still maintain voter anonymity. If you don't care about the validity of the input, who cares about the output?
Because I've worked as an elections inspector. In my state there are four inspectors from each party present at each polling place. We break a fresh seal on each ballot box when the polls open and seal it at the night when they close. It needs to be signed off on by all four inspectors to be considered valid. Tampering would be pretty obvious.
And once it leaves your sight, how do you know the votes contained within got counted?
Explain to me how we could prove tampering in a computer-based system (OSS or closed-source -- doesn't matter)?
There are a number of ways including spot auditing of paper receipts: the votes totals match or there's a problem; the number of votes counted is equal to the number of paper receipts or there's a problem. Notice none of this requires trust in the machine accepting the votes.
And how many hours of training would be required to train the 80 year old grandma poll worker in how to detect and prevent fraud?
If she can add, she can do it. If she can understand the current procedures, she'll understand the new ones.
I'll grant you that I'm assuming the worst case scenario here
Yes, without acknowledging that paper systems have flaws as well.
By all means make a compelling case to me for why we need electronic voting in the first place.
I did so here. Unless you don't think the fiasco in Florida wasn't a problem with human error in a paper system.
Do the supposed benefits (and what benefit is there really besides faster counting?) outweigh the risks?
In a properly designed and implemented system, yes, they will. The benefits will be greater accuracy, increased accountability and greater speed and the risks will be no more than with a paper system.
Not to mention the increased cost inherent in these systems.
Electronic systems will most likely be cheaper to obtain and maintain than most mechanical systems, easier and cheaper to transport as well.
Warehouses aren't really subject to the same checks and balances that election ballot counts are.
You'd be surprised. I worked in a warehouse where a single employee could fit $10,000 worth of merchandise in his pockets. An inventory count was the most likely time for the theft to occur because it was less likely to be detected. There were numerous security checks in place and still we would have four people count the same bin and come up with four different totals. The check was to keep counting until all the numbers matched. I hardly think the company had less of an interest in making sure the counts were correct than the people counting votes do.
But the problem is you can't make a secure electronic voting system that the voter can trust without losing the anonymous ballot.
A paper system is no more secure. How do you know the box with your ballot in it ever got to the counting center? What reason do people have to trust a black box paper system over a black box electronic system? Other than emotional reasons, that is.
You can't make an electronic voting system that Grandma poll worker can understand well enough to know if it's been tampered with or not.
If the procedures surrounding the voting machine are secure (such as auditing of paper receipts), then the tampering will be evident. You're also making an assumption that the poll workers are incapable of operating the computer systems correctly but have no problem monitoring paper systems. I see no evidence for this assertion.
I have online access in real time (can't do this and keep anonymous ballots)
You can't do this with paper ballots either.
I get a statement each month (see previous comment)
See previous reply.
and I keep a paper record in my checkbook (nothing stopping you from doing this but how do you prove it's really what you voted?)
You can't prove how you really voted with paper either. What exactly is your point?
Yes, Humans aren't perfect. Why then would a computerized voting system be?
Paper systems aren't perfect either, so why should a computer voting system have to be? Don't make more demands of an electronic system than you're making of a paper system and then claim the paper system is better.
Who wrote the software for it? Human beings. Humans with their own political interests and agenda (be it left, right, or center).
As do the humans counting the votes in a paper system. As do the humans casting the votes. As do the humans monitoring the paper system. You can test and certify code and verify that the proper code is running on the machine. You can't do that with people.
What's easier to tamper with? An electronic system or tens of thousands of paper ballots guarded by the local sheriff deputies? Let's see:
This is just ridiculous. You're comparing the single least secure electronic system (one you made up, in fact) against the single most secure paper system and claiming it proves your point. It's like comparing the slowest Apple to the fastest Intel machine to prove that Intels are faster. It proves nothing.
If my voting system can't be verified by the 80 year old poll worker then I don't trust it. It's that simple. Anything else is exceedingly naive.
Assuming that all electronic systems are equally insecure as the Diebold system is also exceedingly naive. But you've hit on the key point here: trust. People trust paper systems and are willing to let the insecurities slide while they are most critical of the same flaws in electronic systems.
You, as a voter, can no more verify your paper ballot was counted than you can your electronic ballot. This is inherent in anonymous voting. What makes you trust the system is the procedures put in place to make fraud very difficult. Not impossible, mind you, just difficult. The same kinds of procedures can be implemented in an electronic system to make it just as difficult to perpetrate fraud, and easy to catch if there is any. And the suggestion that the poll workers are not capable of learning and implementing these procedures has no basis in fact as well as insulting to the people working the polls.
The bottom line is that we don't need electronic voting systems.
This argument is getting old. Paper ballot systems are full of problems themselves. Any system that requires humans to read and count the ballots is error prone. Humans are error prone, and tend to be more error prone when performing boring tasks like counting votes. Anybody who's done an inventory in a warehouse can attest to this. Humans are also inconsistent. Paper ballot systems require humans to interpret the intent of the voter and the interpretations can vary. Think hanging chads.
At best they are a political ploy to score cheap points for looking like we are "doing something" about the mess in Florida.
They are an attempt to remove the human error from the process. This is not a bad thing.
What the heck is wrong with paper ballots that are actually auditable?
Any voting system should have human readable paper receipts for auditing. The people who are genuinely interested in getting electronic voting to work understand this.
Or mechanical voting systems that don't rely on software that we can't see or understand?
Paper ballots and mechanical voting systems are no less a black box system than an electronic system with no receipt. When you put your ballot into the box or press the lever, you have no idea whether or not your vote will actually be counted. It's a problem inherent in anonymous voting, not just electronic systems.
Why the heck do we need touchscreen voting?
Because, oddly enough, this is something computers are really good at, counting things. They do it consistently without getting bored and are not subject to interpretation. Two identical machines will count the same input the same way everytime. They can also do it much faster.
Electronic systems can be as secure as, or even more secure, than paper ballots or mechanical systems with the right procedures. Keep in mind, it's the procedures that make paper ballots secure, not the ballots themselves. There are numerous checks which help prevent tampering and make it very difficult to coerce or bribe the people responsible for counting the votes. And many of the problems that electronic voting can suffer from are also applicable to paper.
there is the nagging suspicion that if one is continuously inaccurate, one's viewership/readership will suffer.
This is only true if the viewers/readers care about accuracy and make a conscious decision to question that accuracy. A close parallel is how urban legends get passed around. People tend to believe what they're told as long as it's remotely believable and until they can be shown otherwise. If the story is entertaining and believable, they won't question it.
Most readers will naturally flock to a source that reflects their philisophical/political views sure, but do they actually realize they are trading accuracy?
People are less likely to question the accuracy of something they happen to agree with. It's not that they're making a decision to trade accuracy for agreement, they're just assuming it to be accurate because they agree with it.
I certainly can't understand why anyone would willingly get their information from an inaccruate source, and then use that information to either form opinions or attempt to advance their views.
People form opinions on the scantiest of information and tend to believe that which they already agree with. Few will actually do the research to prove themselves wrong. It's not a conscious decision to believe inaccurate information, just a tendency not to question it. A good example of this is how many people believe urban legends.
It's one of the reasons why I think blogs are better at news reporting than non-interactive sources like newspapers and television. It's not just one person reporting the story, and if the information is inaccurate you can be damned sure someone will call attention to it. No, not all the comments are well informed, but it's usually not very hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.
"The present findings indicate that duration of daily television viewing is strongly associated with obesity and super-obesity in adult males, as in children."
Notice it says "associated with" and not "causes". Maybe this can explain it:
"...Non-obese men... prefer other pastimes, since most leisure activities require more physical exertion than television watching."
Well, duh. They like to watch television because they're fat. Not the other way around. It hardly supports "TV viewing makes adult men fatter." TV viewing just doesn't make them thinner.
And this: "Watch less TV; prevent violent acts."
But from the study on their own web page:
"One of the major risk factors for interpersonal youth violence appears to be a history of heavy television viewing, particularly the viewing of televised violence..."
Again, correlation but not necessarily causation. Maybe violent kids are attracted to violent television programs.
However, no studies to date have examined the possibility that reduction in time spent viewing television will alter the frequency of violent or aggressive behavior.
So no studies before this one have actually determined that watching less TV reduces violent behavior, the results of this study are not on the web page, and the study doesn't show up anywhere in a Google search except on their web page. Some proof.
And what bizzare law prevents the government from looking after the public welfare???
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized[
1].
Explain to me how monitoring every action of every citizen is "looking after the public welfare".
We live in a free society. That means we have the freedom to go about our business, conduct our daily affairs, and live our lives without the government looking over our shoulders. That freedom doesn't end just because you left your house. The government should not be allowed to monitor the lives of citizens, in public or private, without very good reason. And "in case they commit a crime" is not good reason.
but do you really thing private planes don't have black boxes?
Having flown private planes, I can tell you they don't all have them. The planes I flew at most had an emergency locator transmitter which was only activated in the event of a crash and only served to locate the plane. There was nothing on board which recorded anything about what the plane was doing before it crashed.
The GPL is also something that RESTRICTS your rights. You may be happy with what you gain by giving up the ability to spin it into a closed off product, but it's certainly restrictive with what you can do with GPL code.
Software, by default, is covered by copyright law which is more restrictive than the GPL. The GPL doesn't restrict you from doing anything that isn't already restricted by copyright. The GPL grants you the license to do things not normally granted by copyright providing you follow the rules.
That's precisely why there isn't any fair use anymore. Yes, it's protected and well documented in the law, but if the deep pockets file a suit anyway, you now have to hire a lawyer to defend your rights and convince a judge that it is fair use. You can be totally in the right and still have it cost you a bunch of money. The threat of litigation is usually enough to stifle most fair uses.
When you see commercials on cable or satellite TV, aren't they using "your power" and "your bandwidth" (your cable or satellite)? They're using "your hardware" (the TV) also. Is this different?
The television stations displaying the ads are getting compensation directly from the advertiser which is used to fund the programming I watch. As a television viewer I am willing to accept this arrangement: I am giving the advertiser the opportunity to sell me products in return for the programming I am watching. (Note: this does not obligate me to watch the ads, only give them the opportunity to present them to me.)
Pop-up adware receives funding from the advertisers and gives me nothing in return. They aren't funding the websites I'm viewing, they are possibly collecting marketing data from my online activities, and installing possibly harmful software on my machine which may reduce its functionality. Most of this is done without my direct knowledge and/or consent (and no, burying it in a EULA for some unrelated software does not count). And in return, I get... nothing.
I am willing to tolerate advertising on television because I know the programming wouldn't exist without it. The internet and the sites I visit are receiving no compensation from this advertising and would still be there if the pop-up adware went away.
I. A person is guilty of a class B felony if, except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter or without the consent of all parties to the communication, the person:
(a) Wilfully intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any telecommunication or oral communication;
"intercept" is defined earlier to include recording. And "telecommunication" is defined broadly enough to include a chat conversation (IANAL, but that's how I read it). The only distinction for a recording by someone involved in the conversation is that it's only a misdemeanor, but still illegal.
Obsession with anything is bad if it interferes with your life. Sci-Fi/Fantasy is no different.
But the criticism of science fiction and fantasy fans - that we are infantile and escapist people, and socially inept to boot - sadly has a little more truth to it.
Yeah, and people who are obsessed with Survivor, American Idol or any of a dozen soap operas are less escapist then fantasy fans.
As long as science fiction and fantasy fandom remained a fairly marginal subculture, then while certain fans may have pursued their passion to an unhealthy degree, the existence of the subculture was harmless. But when society as a whole starts to become obsessed with the otherworldly, then society as a whole threatens to go hikikomori - to become more interested in whiling away its time dreaming, than in addressing the real problems that confront it.
When society as a whole becomes obessed with anything, it becomes a problem. The existence of a few people obsessed with the genre does not imply that society as a whole will become obesessed with it if if becomes popular. Yes, there are some very obsessive fantasy fans, but the majority are quite capable of functioning in a normal society. And to suppose that all society will become obsessive fantasy fans because a few are is ridiculous.
Nothing quite like taking an exaggerated stereotype and applying it to everyone.
"the funny part is that speeding does NOT get you there any faster than the guy driving the speed limit."[1]
You then followed it up with a calculation showing the person going 15mph faster over 40 miles of road gets there 7.5 minutes faster, which negates your own statement. And when I called you on it, you added all kinds of special circumstances that made it impossible for the "speeder" to go 15mph faster in the first place.
If he can't speed, there's no argument. There's also no violation to prevent. So what's your point? Wanting to go faster is not against the law.
if the typical traffic clow is 75mph then the 70mph vehicle will almost NEVER be impeded.
If the car is impeded, he can't very well speed, and there's no point to the argument. Unless your point is that wanting to go faster doesn't get you there any faster, in which case I agree. But that's not what you said.
So tax evasion is now just considered "capitalism"?
How can you evade a tax you aren't required to pay? If purchasing out-of-state means not having to pay sales tax, it's not tax evasion. And if that means businesses which are required to collect sales tax lose customers to those that aren't, then yes, good or bad, that's captialism.
A free market does not imply an unregulated market. By "free market" I mean a market in which businesses are free to compete based on the quality and value of their services and products. This is desirable because the consumer benefits from this competition by keeping prices in check and encouraging companies to improve their products or services. The regulations on this market are such that the competition is fair and free, so companies cannot eliminate the competition by practices which do not benefit, and often hurt, the consumer.
Slashdot Mirror
The class is specifically designed for non-science students that have to take a physics class. In other words, required to graduate but they'll probably never use it again. If using the movies actually motivates the students to learn some actual physics, I say more power to him. I'm sure this is not the same physics class that physics majors, or even science majors, are taking.
You check the appropriate box and let people count it. Simple. And it works.
Yeah, because people never make mistakes counting things, ever.
A paper ballot with a box with an X is not very subject to interpretation.
If it's only a slash instead of an "X", is it a vote or isn't it? If the "X" covers two boxes, who gets the vote? If someone uses an "O" instead, does it count? If someone fills in the box completely, were they voting for that person or scribbling out a mistake? In each of these cases you have two choices: 1) try to figure out who the vote was cast for which requires interpretation or 2) disqualify the ballot which denies someone their right to vote. Who you ask will decide whether or not the vote counts and who gets it.
An electronic system could verify the ballot was correctly filled out, warn the voter if it wasn't allowing him to correct it, and still maintain voter anonymity. If you don't care about the validity of the input, who cares about the output?
Because I've worked as an elections inspector. In my state there are four inspectors from each party present at each polling place. We break a fresh seal on each ballot box when the polls open and seal it at the night when they close. It needs to be signed off on by all four inspectors to be considered valid. Tampering would be pretty obvious.
And once it leaves your sight, how do you know the votes contained within got counted?
Explain to me how we could prove tampering in a computer-based system (OSS or closed-source -- doesn't matter)?
There are a number of ways including spot auditing of paper receipts: the votes totals match or there's a problem; the number of votes counted is equal to the number of paper receipts or there's a problem. Notice none of this requires trust in the machine accepting the votes.
And how many hours of training would be required to train the 80 year old grandma poll worker in how to detect and prevent fraud?
If she can add, she can do it. If she can understand the current procedures, she'll understand the new ones.
I'll grant you that I'm assuming the worst case scenario here
Yes, without acknowledging that paper systems have flaws as well.
By all means make a compelling case to me for why we need electronic voting in the first place.
I did so here. Unless you don't think the fiasco in Florida wasn't a problem with human error in a paper system.
Do the supposed benefits (and what benefit is there really besides faster counting?) outweigh the risks?
In a properly designed and implemented system, yes, they will. The benefits will be greater accuracy, increased accountability and greater speed and the risks will be no more than with a paper system.
Not to mention the increased cost inherent in these systems.
Electronic systems will most likely be cheaper to obtain and maintain than most mechanical systems, easier and cheaper to transport as well.
Warehouses aren't really subject to the same checks and balances that election ballot counts are.
You'd be surprised. I worked in a warehouse where a single employee could fit $10,000 worth of merchandise in his pockets. An inventory count was the most likely time for the theft to occur because it was less likely to be detected. There were numerous security checks in place and still we would have four people count the same bin and come up with four different totals. The check was to keep counting until all the numbers matched. I hardly think the company had less of an interest in making sure the counts were correct than the people counting votes do.
But the problem is you can't make a secure electronic voting system that the voter can trust without losing the anonymous ballot.
A paper system is no more secure. How do you know the box with your ballot in it ever got to the counting center? What reason do people have to trust a black box paper system over a black box electronic system? Other than emotional reasons, that is.
You can't make an electronic voting system that Grandma poll worker can understand well enough to know if it's been tampered with or not.
If the procedures surrounding the voting machine are secure (such as auditing of paper receipts), then the tampering will be evident. You're also making an assumption that the poll workers are incapable of operating the computer systems correctly but have no problem monitoring paper systems. I see no evidence for this assertion.
I have online access in real time (can't do this and keep anonymous ballots)
You can't do this with paper ballots either.
I get a statement each month (see previous comment)
See previous reply.
and I keep a paper record in my checkbook (nothing stopping you from doing this but how do you prove it's really what you voted?)
You can't prove how you really voted with paper either. What exactly is your point?
Yes, Humans aren't perfect. Why then would a computerized voting system be?
Paper systems aren't perfect either, so why should a computer voting system have to be? Don't make more demands of an electronic system than you're making of a paper system and then claim the paper system is better.
Who wrote the software for it? Human beings. Humans with their own political interests and agenda (be it left, right, or center).
As do the humans counting the votes in a paper system. As do the humans casting the votes. As do the humans monitoring the paper system. You can test and certify code and verify that the proper code is running on the machine. You can't do that with people.
What's easier to tamper with? An electronic system or tens of thousands of paper ballots guarded by the local sheriff deputies? Let's see:
This is just ridiculous. You're comparing the single least secure electronic system (one you made up, in fact) against the single most secure paper system and claiming it proves your point. It's like comparing the slowest Apple to the fastest Intel machine to prove that Intels are faster. It proves nothing.
If my voting system can't be verified by the 80 year old poll worker then I don't trust it. It's that simple. Anything else is exceedingly naive.
Assuming that all electronic systems are equally insecure as the Diebold system is also exceedingly naive. But you've hit on the key point here: trust. People trust paper systems and are willing to let the insecurities slide while they are most critical of the same flaws in electronic systems.
You, as a voter, can no more verify your paper ballot was counted than you can your electronic ballot. This is inherent in anonymous voting. What makes you trust the system is the procedures put in place to make fraud very difficult. Not impossible, mind you, just difficult. The same kinds of procedures can be implemented in an electronic system to make it just as difficult to perpetrate fraud, and easy to catch if there is any. And the suggestion that the poll workers are not capable of learning and implementing these procedures has no basis in fact as well as insulting to the people working the polls.
The bottom line is that we don't need electronic voting systems.
This argument is getting old. Paper ballot systems are full of problems themselves. Any system that requires humans to read and count the ballots is error prone. Humans are error prone, and tend to be more error prone when performing boring tasks like counting votes. Anybody who's done an inventory in a warehouse can attest to this. Humans are also inconsistent. Paper ballot systems require humans to interpret the intent of the voter and the interpretations can vary. Think hanging chads.
At best they are a political ploy to score cheap points for looking like we are "doing something" about the mess in Florida.
They are an attempt to remove the human error from the process. This is not a bad thing.
What the heck is wrong with paper ballots that are actually auditable?
Any voting system should have human readable paper receipts for auditing. The people who are genuinely interested in getting electronic voting to work understand this.
Or mechanical voting systems that don't rely on software that we can't see or understand?
Paper ballots and mechanical voting systems are no less a black box system than an electronic system with no receipt. When you put your ballot into the box or press the lever, you have no idea whether or not your vote will actually be counted. It's a problem inherent in anonymous voting, not just electronic systems.
Why the heck do we need touchscreen voting?
Because, oddly enough, this is something computers are really good at, counting things. They do it consistently without getting bored and are not subject to interpretation. Two identical machines will count the same input the same way everytime. They can also do it much faster.
Electronic systems can be as secure as, or even more secure, than paper ballots or mechanical systems with the right procedures. Keep in mind, it's the procedures that make paper ballots secure, not the ballots themselves. There are numerous checks which help prevent tampering and make it very difficult to coerce or bribe the people responsible for counting the votes. And many of the problems that electronic voting can suffer from are also applicable to paper.
there is the nagging suspicion that if one is continuously inaccurate, one's viewership/readership will suffer.
This is only true if the viewers/readers care about accuracy and make a conscious decision to question that accuracy. A close parallel is how urban legends get passed around. People tend to believe what they're told as long as it's remotely believable and until they can be shown otherwise. If the story is entertaining and believable, they won't question it.
Most readers will naturally flock to a source that reflects their philisophical/political views sure, but do they actually realize they are trading accuracy?
People are less likely to question the accuracy of something they happen to agree with. It's not that they're making a decision to trade accuracy for agreement, they're just assuming it to be accurate because they agree with it.
I certainly can't understand why anyone would willingly get their information from an inaccruate source, and then use that information to either form opinions or attempt to advance their views.
People form opinions on the scantiest of information and tend to believe that which they already agree with. Few will actually do the research to prove themselves wrong. It's not a conscious decision to believe inaccurate information, just a tendency not to question it. A good example of this is how many people believe urban legends.
It's one of the reasons why I think blogs are better at news reporting than non-interactive sources like newspapers and television. It's not just one person reporting the story, and if the information is inaccurate you can be damned sure someone will call attention to it. No, not all the comments are well informed, but it's usually not very hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.
That's what Meta-Moderation is for...
"TV viewing makes adult men fatter."
But if you read the study:
Notice it says "associated with" and not "causes". Maybe this can explain it:
Well, duh. They like to watch television because they're fat. Not the other way around. It hardly supports "TV viewing makes adult men fatter." TV viewing just doesn't make them thinner.
And this: "Watch less TV; prevent violent acts."
But from the study on their own web page:
Again, correlation but not necessarily causation. Maybe violent kids are attracted to violent television programs.
So no studies before this one have actually determined that watching less TV reduces violent behavior, the results of this study are not on the web page, and the study doesn't show up anywhere in a Google search except on their web page. Some proof.
Wow! A rabid anglo-saxon.
If you can't attack the argument, attack the man.
Explain to me how monitoring every action of every citizen is "looking after the public welfare".
We live in a free society. That means we have the freedom to go about our business, conduct our daily affairs, and live our lives without the government looking over our shoulders. That freedom doesn't end just because you left your house. The government should not be allowed to monitor the lives of citizens, in public or private, without very good reason. And "in case they commit a crime" is not good reason.
Once again, you ignore the fact that driving is an inherently public act.
And your ignoring the fact that simply because it happens in public does not give the government the right to monitor every aspect of it.
but do you really thing private planes don't have black boxes?
Having flown private planes, I can tell you they don't all have them. The planes I flew at most had an emergency locator transmitter which was only activated in the event of a crash and only served to locate the plane. There was nothing on board which recorded anything about what the plane was doing before it crashed.
The GPL is also something that RESTRICTS your rights. You may be happy with what you gain by giving up the ability to spin it into a closed off product, but it's certainly restrictive with what you can do with GPL code.
Software, by default, is covered by copyright law which is more restrictive than the GPL. The GPL doesn't restrict you from doing anything that isn't already restricted by copyright. The GPL grants you the license to do things not normally granted by copyright providing you follow the rules.
What DO YOU have so special as to be able to break the law and endanger other people???
The rather large jump-to-conclusion your making here is that violating the law necessarily endangers other people every single time. It does not.
That's precisely why there isn't any fair use anymore. Yes, it's protected and well documented in the law, but if the deep pockets file a suit anyway, you now have to hire a lawyer to defend your rights and convince a judge that it is fair use. You can be totally in the right and still have it cost you a bunch of money. The threat of litigation is usually enough to stifle most fair uses.
So now when are Slashdotters going to stop defending copyright infringement as a constitutional rights issue?
When the copyright laws are no longer unconstitutional.
When you see commercials on cable or satellite TV, aren't they using "your power" and "your bandwidth" (your cable or satellite)? They're using "your hardware" (the TV) also. Is this different?
... nothing.
The television stations displaying the ads are getting compensation directly from the advertiser which is used to fund the programming I watch. As a television viewer I am willing to accept this arrangement: I am giving the advertiser the opportunity to sell me products in return for the programming I am watching. (Note: this does not obligate me to watch the ads, only give them the opportunity to present them to me.)
Pop-up adware receives funding from the advertisers and gives me nothing in return. They aren't funding the websites I'm viewing, they are possibly collecting marketing data from my online activities, and installing possibly harmful software on my machine which may reduce its functionality. Most of this is done without my direct knowledge and/or consent (and no, burying it in a EULA for some unrelated software does not count). And in return, I get
I am willing to tolerate advertising on television because I know the programming wouldn't exist without it. The internet and the sites I visit are receiving no compensation from this advertising and would still be there if the pop-up adware went away.
According to the wiretap law, it is:
"intercept" is defined earlier to include recording. And "telecommunication" is defined broadly enough to include a chat conversation (IANAL, but that's how I read it). The only distinction for a recording by someone involved in the conversation is that it's only a misdemeanor, but still illegal.
Obsession with anything is bad if it interferes with your life. Sci-Fi/Fantasy is no different.
But the criticism of science fiction and fantasy fans - that we are infantile and escapist people, and socially inept to boot - sadly has a little more truth to it.
Yeah, and people who are obsessed with Survivor, American Idol or any of a dozen soap operas are less escapist then fantasy fans.
As long as science fiction and fantasy fandom remained a fairly marginal subculture, then while certain fans may have pursued their passion to an unhealthy degree, the existence of the subculture was harmless. But when society as a whole starts to become obsessed with the otherworldly, then society as a whole threatens to go hikikomori - to become more interested in whiling away its time dreaming, than in addressing the real problems that confront it.
When society as a whole becomes obessed with anything, it becomes a problem. The existence of a few people obsessed with the genre does not imply that society as a whole will become obesessed with it if if becomes popular. Yes, there are some very obsessive fantasy fans, but the majority are quite capable of functioning in a normal society. And to suppose that all society will become obsessive fantasy fans because a few are is ridiculous.
Nothing quite like taking an exaggerated stereotype and applying it to everyone.
yes taht IS what I said,
No it isn't. Here is what you said:
"the funny part is that speeding does NOT get you there any faster than the guy driving the speed limit."[1]
You then followed it up with a calculation showing the person going 15mph faster over 40 miles of road gets there 7.5 minutes faster, which negates your own statement. And when I called you on it, you added all kinds of special circumstances that made it impossible for the "speeder" to go 15mph faster in the first place.
If he can't speed, there's no argument. There's also no violation to prevent. So what's your point? Wanting to go faster is not against the law.
if the typical traffic clow is 75mph then the 70mph vehicle will almost NEVER be impeded.
If the car is impeded, he can't very well speed, and there's no point to the argument. Unless your point is that wanting to go faster doesn't get you there any faster, in which case I agree. But that's not what you said.
So tax evasion is now just considered "capitalism"?
How can you evade a tax you aren't required to pay? If purchasing out-of-state means not having to pay sales tax, it's not tax evasion. And if that means businesses which are required to collect sales tax lose customers to those that aren't, then yes, good or bad, that's captialism.
Welcome to the regulated free market.
A free market does not imply an unregulated market. By "free market" I mean a market in which businesses are free to compete based on the quality and value of their services and products. This is desirable because the consumer benefits from this competition by keeping prices in check and encouraging companies to improve their products or services. The regulations on this market are such that the competition is fair and free, so companies cannot eliminate the competition by practices which do not benefit, and often hurt, the consumer.
So, yes, it is regulated, but free none the less.