as someone who measures for a living, metric isnt some magical entity that cures all ills. all (real) units have some precise definition, held and maintained by a body or agency of standards, and your vast oversimplification of "everyone different than me" is insulting and itself ignorant of the field of measurement. if the conversion between units scares you, i suggest getting a calculator.
Willfully ignorant? Not really, no. People have different aptitudes. And there is a far cry between the math taught in schools to the average person, and the math needed to understand Heisenburg and quantum theory.
Conspiracy and Espionage. Both very clearly defined, and very illegal, throughout the entirety of the western world. Espionage in particular has no "border limitation."
Except that's not what happened, there are several ways to report violations that are legal and secure, and even anonymous.
Manning chose to use none of those, and instead undiscriminately gave a ton of documents, most of which were meaningless and of no importance, to someone not authorized or trusted to use them. Even the american news media will usually vet anything sensitive they are given to mitigate potential harm to innocents, but he instead gave it to Assange who made no such attempt.
You're ingoring the part about Orders. You ahve two parts in that oath. If they should ever be in conflict, one does not override the other unless the orders are clearly unlawful (and his were NOT), but you try to fulfill both with the least amount of compromise to either.
Given that, it is important to know (and most civilian commentors on this topic do not know this, or choose to ignore it) that the military branches have multiple routes of reporting problems up teh chain fo command. And THAT is what he should have done. For ex, in the Marines (and our sisters in the Navy) we have a thing called Request Mast, and it's a basic right every Marine/Sailor has that cannot be denied. We also have several means of anonymously reporting problems. The Army and Air Force have equivalents as well.
But he didnt even try to use any of those. THAT is the fundamental failure on his part (besides allowing himself to be played like a classic espionage asset).
If he had tried to do that it could go a long way to mitigating what he did and he could then frame his actions in the context of being "left with no other choice." But because he didn't, he can't claim that, and its extremely damning.
That doesn't change the fact he is a solder, sworn to obey orders, thousands of them. If he had reservations or problems about the content, content he wasn't supposed to see anyway, there are avenues to address that. The fact that he never once tried to use any route through his chain of command, or bypassing it, is negligent on his part.
All the forces have ways of getting information about problems reported to those who need to know about it, to fix it. And he never even tried to use those
Instead he jumped directly to violating lawful standing orders.
Lawful standing orders that exist for a reason, not for the protection of corruption, but the protecting of sensitive information and lives. No, nothing he released ended up having detrimental effects; but it could have and it's pure chance that it didn't because even he described it as rather indiscriminate grabbing of anything he could. And it didn't help that Assange played him like a violin to his own ends, no different than a handler working his agents.
Maybe in the end it's good that the information is out there. But he went about it the completely wrong way.
EVE is the closest to a real world sim (and real world economy too) that any MMO has gotten.
you have people who play spies, covert ops, merchents, miners, bounty hunters, corporate fat cats, lowly daily to day workers. hell, people have played hiddens ecret agent, joining an opposing corp undercover, working their way up to a trusted position (talkng multiple years), and then leaving with the keys to the vault and their brand new Titan ship.
that's the whole point: rather than following a predetermined path, the world of EVE is completely player driven, and you see a lot of emergent behaviour that mimics real life.
essentially its a minimum garunteed salary, that is broken down into an equivalent hourly rate in order to determine actual compensation from factors such as overtime, per diem, etc.
Um...it's already there if you had bothered to read it. midway down: "Furthermore, Ford substantially increased its workers' wages, in order to combat rampant absenteeism and employee turnover which approached 400% annually, which had the byproduct of giving them the means to become customers."
i believe that to be backwards. in that its not so much that people are ashamed or afraid to drive the competition to work, because after all, cars are expensive, and like a house, you buy or drive what you can afford, and if a cheapo foreign car is it, so be it. but that a lot of motor companies give employee discounts for buying the company product because THEY (the company) dont want someone to be able to go through the parking lot and make the claim of "see? not even their workers will buy it").
yes. how dare that evil Apple company be in the business of making money! dont they know they exist only to pay money to other people and provide jobs?
but neither does it forbid it. you're quoting it without comprehending it, and missing an important word. the word is "necessarily", as in "necessarily imply".
the statement is cautionary in nature, not regulatory. ie, not absolute.
as in: "sometimes people commit the opposite fallacy – dismissing correlation entirely, as if it does not suggest causation."
in the case of those who DID make money off works they created, it was also not uncommon for them to find people who copied them, or performed them without permission, and beat them with sticks until they agreed to not do it again.
you're equating the concept with a garuntee of success. its not. its a protection of the possibility of success.
copyright does not beget success, but simply makes it possible by allowing one to profit from one's own work, without the interference of others, ie, by ripping it off and selling it themselves. the individual citizen has a clear and vested interest served by this protection from the idea that any of us could potentially be that creator.
the opposing force of "scoeity at large" has an opposite interest served by the availability of works in the public domain, for cultural purposes, educational, derivitive, etc. but you cannot sacrifice the individual wholesale for the betterment of everyone else. collective society doesn't create the works, and without the reasonable protection of the individual there would be no works to enter the public domain. having a limited copyright actually serves the public interest, as well as the individual creator's.
its not about a right to be successful. no one anywhere is demanding that. its about "i cant legally record someone else, and sell their 'product' for profit". without copyright a creator of a work is at the mercy of a bigger fish who can imitate or outright steal his creation and profit from it, while giving him nothing. its the same as theft of a craftsmans work to sell to a fence, only of an intangible "good". that is the biggest thing copyright protects for an artist.
Because it's not the artist that's getting the royalty most of the time. First we eliminate the MAFIAA middleman...and then there is no secondly because that would go a long way to fixing the situation.
Imagine...
In a world with no MAFIAA to contrive to make the ARtist owe them, such that they never need to get paid...
And no MAFIAA to lobby to change/extend the copyrights... And no MAFIAA to demand and lobby for ridiculous royalties owed them that the Artists will never see... And Artists with a reasonable copyright protection, yet not exclusive and infinite...
they dont have it any easier, and copywright is not inehrently evil (though it seems to me you take the view they are).
in fact its quite a bit harder. you're probably like me, and work a normal day to day hourly wage job. we work, we get paid. its simple, easy, and garutneed. its very low risk, very low reward, but we make it up on volume of hours worked.
for the sake of discussion, ignoring the MAFIAA and how they have perferted the industry.........a music (or any other kind) artist by contrast is not normal day to day work. it is a high risk, high reward situation. the starving artist stereotype is true because that reflects the condition of the majority of "artists": people who have not been and will never be successful.at it. and most artists DO work continuously. so here we have people who work continuously, trying to be successful, trying to get something creative created AND sold to the public, AND get paid for it. a lot of time and effort with a extremely high chance of NOT succeeding. yet people still do it anyway....because its still a high reward comensurate with the high risk.
if you eliminate completely any protections or garuntees of that works profitability (ie, copywright) the reward drops significantly. the creator of a work does have an right to profit from it, for a -reasonable- period of time. this concept of a limited copywright serves both the personal need of the artist to get a reason reward for his creative effort if he is successful, and the public's cultural interest in having works not perpetually owned and locked down.
but that is the key point: the reasonable period of time. very few people take the stance that copywright is inherently evil, and most agree that a limited duration protection incentivizes artists and protects them, while still encouraging them to continue to produce, and serving the public interest. given that, the rest of negotiation of the meaning of "reasonable". and that is precisely where the MAFIAA comes in, and where they have perverted this topic (another perversionis the enslavement of artists, and using hollywood accounting to prevent having to pay them...but that's another topic). Clearly to most of us this perpetual lockdown that they have managed to bring about is UN-reasonable.
but equally unreasonable is the complete abolishment of copyright. Turn the clock back to a reasonable duration.
Slashdot Mirror
as someone who measures for a living, metric isnt some magical entity that cures all ills. all (real) units have some precise definition, held and maintained by a body or agency of standards, and your vast oversimplification of "everyone different than me" is insulting and itself ignorant of the field of measurement. if the conversion between units scares you, i suggest getting a calculator.
Willfully ignorant? Not really, no. People have different aptitudes. And there is a far cry between the math taught in schools to the average person, and the math needed to understand Heisenburg and quantum theory.
And you already confused something like 75% of the readership of a non-technical news source.
Maybe whent hey actually committ them.
Til then you're barking up the bulls-- tree.
Conspiracy and Espionage.
Both very clearly defined, and very illegal, throughout the entirety of the western world.
Espionage in particular has no "border limitation."
Except that's not what happened, there are several ways to report violations that are legal and secure, and even anonymous.
Manning chose to use none of those, and instead undiscriminately gave a ton of documents, most of which were meaningless and of no importance, to someone not authorized or trusted to use them. Even the american news media will usually vet anything sensitive they are given to mitigate potential harm to innocents, but he instead gave it to Assange who made no such attempt.
You're ingoring the part about Orders. You ahve two parts in that oath. If they should ever be in conflict, one does not override the other unless the orders are clearly unlawful (and his were NOT), but you try to fulfill both with the least amount of compromise to either.
Given that, it is important to know (and most civilian commentors on this topic do not know this, or choose to ignore it) that the military branches have multiple routes of reporting problems up teh chain fo command. And THAT is what he should have done. For ex, in the Marines (and our sisters in the Navy) we have a thing called Request Mast, and it's a basic right every Marine/Sailor has that cannot be denied. We also have several means of anonymously reporting problems. The Army and Air Force have equivalents as well.
But he didnt even try to use any of those.
THAT is the fundamental failure on his part (besides allowing himself to be played like a classic espionage asset).
If he had tried to do that it could go a long way to mitigating what he did and he could then frame his actions in the context of being "left with no other choice." But because he didn't, he can't claim that, and its extremely damning.
This.
That doesn't change the fact he is a solder, sworn to obey orders, thousands of them. If he had reservations or problems about the content, content he wasn't supposed to see anyway, there are avenues to address that. The fact that he never once tried to use any route through his chain of command, or bypassing it, is negligent on his part.
All the forces have ways of getting information about problems reported to those who need to know about it, to fix it.
And he never even tried to use those
Instead he jumped directly to violating lawful standing orders.
Lawful standing orders that exist for a reason, not for the protection of corruption, but the protecting of sensitive information and lives. No, nothing he released ended up having detrimental effects; but it could have and it's pure chance that it didn't because even he described it as rather indiscriminate grabbing of anything he could. And it didn't help that Assange played him like a violin to his own ends, no different than a handler working his agents.
Maybe in the end it's good that the information is out there. But he went about it the completely wrong way.
EVE is the closest to a real world sim (and real world economy too) that any MMO has gotten.
you have people who play spies, covert ops, merchents, miners, bounty hunters, corporate fat cats, lowly daily to day workers. hell, people have played hiddens ecret agent, joining an opposing corp undercover, working their way up to a trusted position (talkng multiple years), and then leaving with the keys to the vault and their brand new Titan ship.
that's the whole point: rather than following a predetermined path, the world of EVE is completely player driven, and you see a lot of emergent behaviour that mimics real life.
because fixing nitrogen into soil via crop plants is more productive than fixing it via non-crop plants and having to wait a year.
Sea water.
essentially its a minimum garunteed salary, that is broken down into an equivalent hourly rate in order to determine actual compensation from factors such as overtime, per diem, etc.
yeaaah....nope.
Um...it's already there if you had bothered to read it. midway down:
"Furthermore, Ford substantially increased its workers' wages, in order to combat rampant absenteeism and employee turnover which approached 400% annually, which had the byproduct of giving them the means to become customers."
i believe that to be backwards. in that its not so much that people are ashamed or afraid to drive the competition to work, because after all, cars are expensive, and like a house, you buy or drive what you can afford, and if a cheapo foreign car is it, so be it. but that a lot of motor companies give employee discounts for buying the company product because THEY (the company) dont want someone to be able to go through the parking lot and make the claim of "see? not even their workers will buy it").
yes. how dare that evil Apple company be in the business of making money!
dont they know they exist only to pay money to other people and provide jobs?
but neither does it forbid it.
you're quoting it without comprehending it, and missing an important word.
the word is "necessarily", as in "necessarily imply".
the statement is cautionary in nature, not regulatory. ie, not absolute.
as in: "sometimes people commit the opposite fallacy – dismissing correlation entirely, as if it does not suggest causation."
plus what Razzle said about wealthy sponsors
and there was also no money made off them.
in the case of those who DID make money off works they created, it was also not uncommon for them to find people who copied them, or performed them without permission, and beat them with sticks until they agreed to not do it again.
you're equating the concept with a garuntee of success.
its not.
its a protection of the possibility of success.
copyright does not beget success, but simply makes it possible by allowing one to profit from one's own work, without the interference of others, ie, by ripping it off and selling it themselves. the individual citizen has a clear and vested interest served by this protection from the idea that any of us could potentially be that creator.
the opposing force of "scoeity at large" has an opposite interest served by the availability of works in the public domain, for cultural purposes, educational, derivitive, etc. but you cannot sacrifice the individual wholesale for the betterment of everyone else. collective society doesn't create the works, and without the reasonable protection of the individual there would be no works to enter the public domain. having a limited copyright actually serves the public interest, as well as the individual creator's.
its not about a right to be successful. no one anywhere is demanding that.
its about "i cant legally record someone else, and sell their 'product' for profit".
without copyright a creator of a work is at the mercy of a bigger fish who can imitate or outright steal his creation and profit from it, while giving him nothing. its the same as theft of a craftsmans work to sell to a fence, only of an intangible "good". that is the biggest thing copyright protects for an artist.
actually he's describing commercial work, where they make music and art for (pun not intended) commercials.
you're conflating the abusive and unethical practices of the MAFIAA and their business model with copyright. the two are seperate if related issues.
Because it's not the artist that's getting the royalty most of the time.
First we eliminate the MAFIAA middleman...and then there is no secondly because that would go a long way to fixing the situation.
Imagine...
In a world with no MAFIAA to contrive to make the ARtist owe them, such that they never need to get paid...
And no MAFIAA to lobby to change/extend the copyrights...
And no MAFIAA to demand and lobby for ridiculous royalties owed them that the Artists will never see...
And Artists with a reasonable copyright protection, yet not exclusive and infinite...
they dont have it any easier, and copywright is not inehrently evil (though it seems to me you take the view they are).
in fact its quite a bit harder. you're probably like me, and work a normal day to day hourly wage job. we work, we get paid. its simple, easy, and garutneed. its very low risk, very low reward, but we make it up on volume of hours worked.
for the sake of discussion, ignoring the MAFIAA and how they have perferted the industry..... ....a music (or any other kind) artist by contrast is not normal day to day work. it is a high risk, high reward situation. the starving artist stereotype is true because that reflects the condition of the majority of "artists": people who have not been and will never be successful.at it. and most artists DO work continuously. so here we have people who work continuously, trying to be successful, trying to get something creative created AND sold to the public, AND get paid for it. a lot of time and effort with a extremely high chance of NOT succeeding. yet people still do it anyway....because its still a high reward comensurate with the high risk.
if you eliminate completely any protections or garuntees of that works profitability (ie, copywright) the reward drops significantly. the creator of a work does have an right to profit from it, for a -reasonable- period of time. this concept of a limited copywright serves both the personal need of the artist to get a reason reward for his creative effort if he is successful, and the public's cultural interest in having works not perpetually owned and locked down.
but that is the key point: the reasonable period of time. very few people take the stance that copywright is inherently evil, and most agree that a limited duration protection incentivizes artists and protects them, while still encouraging them to continue to produce, and serving the public interest. given that, the rest of negotiation of the meaning of "reasonable". and that is precisely where the MAFIAA comes in, and where they have perverted this topic (another perversionis the enslavement of artists, and using hollywood accounting to prevent having to pay them...but that's another topic). Clearly to most of us this perpetual lockdown that they have managed to bring about is UN-reasonable.
but equally unreasonable is the complete abolishment of copyright.
Turn the clock back to a reasonable duration.
and yet that only makes it sound even more fun