Sadly, at least half of what you listed are, in fact, luxuries in most places. I mean, come on... microwave oven is a necessity? Maybe for frozen burrito eating computer nerds.
I would like to argue that, no, the microwave is not a necessity. In the last three years, I have lived for a total of one year without a microwave. To reheat my shepherd's pie I would preheat the over for at least ten minutes, then throw the food in for another 35 minutes at least. If I had a microwave, my food would be hot in 2.5 mins and I would have used a very small fraction of the electricity to do the same job. In retrospect, I could have bought a very nice microwave with the savings in power.
I admit that the "killing someone" analogy is a little extreme - the point of that analogy is point out the difference between actively pursueing an end (ie broadcasting a song or euthenizing a person) and simply allowing the end to occur (ie allowing a person to download an mp3 or the letting nature take its course).
The connection to the GPL is quite simple - it relies on copyright law to make its terms enforceable. GPL code is always copyright, but the liscence allows you to use, modify, or distribute it under certain conditions. If joe file-swapper can allow people to download his music without infriging their copyright, I can allow people to download my closed modifications of your open GPLed code without infringing your copyright.
Perhaps I should have been more clear about this connection, but the point that I am trying to make is that the copyright infringement ruling may be a double-edged sword.
This case at first appeared to be a case of on-line privacy, but the ruling does little to protect that. The only privacy ruling that the judges made is that the music industry needs to prove that copyright infringement occured before they can subpoena.
The real ruling is that simply putting the mp3 files into a shared directory (via a P2P) is not copyright infringement - that goes under personal use. IANAL, and I haven't read the text of the ruling, but to make a call like that probably requires the judges to create a for deciding whether or not something is personal use or copyright infringement.
So now, we have to find where the line is:
Financial gain - This would invalidate the GPL and add fuel to the fire for SCO v. IBM. It seems that the core of their argument against the GPL is that it is "harmful" because it isn't made for financial gain. We can't have anything adding legitimacy to their farcical arguments
Active distribution - perhaps the argument is that making a file available is different from giving a file to a person in the same way that unplugging a person's life support is different from injecting poison into their veins. Now everything distributed on the web is no longer protected by copyright which also would invalidate the GPL as I know of no GPL program that has its initial method of distribution being anything other than making it available for download from the web.
So, where is the line? What does a person have to do to infringe copyright these days?
Other nations are justified to be warry not only beucase the US may decide to cut off a nation's access to the 'net but in some cases should cut of access.
Actually - the funny thing is that that the more corrupt the government of <country> is, the more it is in the best interests the United States to encourage <country>'s people to connect to the internet because the more exposure you give their people to on-line freedom the more likely they will be to demand off-line freedom.
If you look at the statistics for internet service providers in dictatorships versus in free countries - in dictatorships, usually you can count the providers without taking your shoes off. Moreover, the few that exist are heavily regulated and only priviledged people are allowed to access. The only exception is China, but they have the manpower to maintain a great red firewall to block access to anyone that is critical of the Chinese government. On the other hand, in free countries, ISP number in the tens of thousands, anybody is allowed on, and there are very few regulations.
Only a dictator would be afraid of giving the common person internet access, while the USA always will see benefit in keeping commoners connected everywhere in the world. As much as I distrust the American goverment, I would be surprised if they cut off a rogue nation for political reasons, because the worse the politics are, the more important of a tool the internet it. Remember, the internet is largely dominated by American media and American culture and American ideals so it is a great tool for spreading those ideals around the world.
They deduce its distance by how fast it is moving away from us - the universe is expanding at a known rate and the farther something is from us, the faster it is moving away from us. The speed it is moving away can be determined by its red-shift.
I'm far more interested in what's around us then far awayWhen Hubble looks at objects that are incredibly distant, it is also looking back at time. When an object is 13 billion light years away, we see it in the state it was in 13 billion years ago, and thus shortly after the big bang. The object in itself may not be interesting but the state of the universe shortly after the big bang is can provide us clues that bring us closer to unifying General Reletivity with the Uncertainty Principle - the Holy Grail of Physics.
Have y'all noticed the increase in the number of headlines about Hubble lately? Do you think that NASA is on a PR offensive to get their space shuttle budget increased by showing the public what a valuable tool Hubble is?
What the hell are you, some kind of Canadian? Petrol? Petrol Entry Point? BONNET!?!
IAAC (I am a Canadian) and the only times I can remember ever hearing the word petrol used, it had a reasonable derivation of the word sniff in front of it. Canada uses the word gas if it is indended to be used for fuel. The word petrol is normally used in former British colonies outside of North America.
I'm a male and I quite frequently wear a pnytail too. However, there is a difference between male pnoytails and female ponytails: Men usually bind their ponytails near the indentation at the base of their skulls. Thus, the ponytail is aimed downwards and does not portrude much from the backs of their heads. Females typically bind their ponytails at or slightly above the farthest rearward point on their skulls which aims their ponytails directly rearwards. Not only that, females typically have thicker hair which only serves the stregnthen the portrusion and the intereferance with the cranial deflector.
- authority on the differences between female and male anatomy;
Typically at the Canadian border and at any currency exchange you have to fill out a fair amount of paperwork if you are carrying more than $10K USD of cash - they want to know where you got it from. I beleive it stems from an international treaty on money laundering.
Do you really trust a spammer to send you the real goods? Counterfeit drugs are rampant, and unless you purchased the drug from a reputable (liscenced) pharmacy, it is unlikely you are getting the real deal, especially on something expensive, hotly demanded, and potentially embarassing to sue about.
Pfizer suffers from this due to a possibility of a counterfeit drug causing harm, making Pfizer a target of an inadvertant lawsuit, the cost of which being huge amounts of negative publicity. Imagine: Pfizer getting sued - big headline on front page - everybody's talking about it. The drug turning out to be counterfeit - tiny headline near back page three months later - nobody notices. The fact that it came from a spammer - doesn't even get reported.
When was the last time anyone like you posted a rant here about China's numerous civil rights violations or occupation of countries?
We rant about USA's human rights records because US instead of China's or North Viet Nam because critisizing China their records is futile. USA puts protecting human rights high on their priority list but just don't do a good job at it. China and North Viet Nam just don't care. Unfortunately if you want to be a champion of human rights, it's not good enough to be better than most - you have to be a shining example.
Comments and attitudes like yours explain exactly why the U.S. didn't sign the treaty on the international criminal court. They are held to a different standard.
USA didn't sign the ICC treaty because of their fears of it becoming a platform for political grandstanding. Nothing more, nothing less. Which is exactly what people tried to use it for against American administators durign the war on Iraq. Regardless - is it legal for people to shoot people? No. But sometimes the police have to shoot in order to stop much greater criminals.
Disclamer: Yes I supported the war, but I think Bush is an idoit too.
i thought black holes were not proven to exist, or am i living in the past?
Last time I checked, black holes are not directly observable, so their existance can never be proven, but no scientist has yet been able to disprove it either. Such are many things in science. Can you see a quark? a proton? Can you travel back in time to watch evolution occur (let the flames begin!)? Lack of a counter-example is not a proof, but sometimes you have to accept it as one in order to progress.
Slashdot Mirror
- Thomas;
I admit that the "killing someone" analogy is a little extreme - the point of that analogy is point out the difference between actively pursueing an end (ie broadcasting a song or euthenizing a person) and simply allowing the end to occur (ie allowing a person to download an mp3 or the letting nature take its course).
The connection to the GPL is quite simple - it relies on copyright law to make its terms enforceable. GPL code is always copyright, but the liscence allows you to use, modify, or distribute it under certain conditions. If joe file-swapper can allow people to download his music without infriging their copyright, I can allow people to download my closed modifications of your open GPLed code without infringing your copyright.
Perhaps I should have been more clear about this connection, but the point that I am trying to make is that the copyright infringement ruling may be a double-edged sword.
- Thomas;
The real ruling is that simply putting the mp3 files into a shared directory (via a P2P) is not copyright infringement - that goes under personal use. IANAL, and I haven't read the text of the ruling, but to make a call like that probably requires the judges to create a for deciding whether or not something is personal use or copyright infringement.
So now, we have to find where the line is:
- Financial gain - This would invalidate the GPL and add fuel to the fire for SCO v. IBM. It seems that the core of their argument against the GPL is that it is "harmful" because it isn't made for financial gain. We can't have anything adding legitimacy to their farcical arguments
- Active distribution - perhaps the argument is that making a file available is different from giving a file to a person in the same way that unplugging a person's life support is different from injecting poison into their veins. Now everything distributed on the web is no longer protected by copyright which also would invalidate the GPL as I know of no GPL program that has its initial method of distribution being anything other than making it available for download from the web.
So, where is the line? What does a person have to do to infringe copyright these days?- Thomas;
If you look at the statistics for internet service providers in dictatorships versus in free countries - in dictatorships, usually you can count the providers without taking your shoes off. Moreover, the few that exist are heavily regulated and only priviledged people are allowed to access. The only exception is China, but they have the manpower to maintain a great red firewall to block access to anyone that is critical of the Chinese government. On the other hand, in free countries, ISP number in the tens of thousands, anybody is allowed on, and there are very few regulations.
Only a dictator would be afraid of giving the common person internet access, while the USA always will see benefit in keeping commoners connected everywhere in the world. As much as I distrust the American goverment, I would be surprised if they cut off a rogue nation for political reasons, because the worse the politics are, the more important of a tool the internet it. Remember, the internet is largely dominated by American media and American culture and American ideals so it is a great tool for spreading those ideals around the world.
- Thomas;
They deduce its distance by how fast it is moving away from us - the universe is expanding at a known rate and the farther something is from us, the faster it is moving away from us. The speed it is moving away can be determined by its red-shift.
- Thomas;
I'm far more interested in what's around us then far awayWhen Hubble looks at objects that are incredibly distant, it is also looking back at time. When an object is 13 billion light years away, we see it in the state it was in 13 billion years ago, and thus shortly after the big bang. The object in itself may not be interesting but the state of the universe shortly after the big bang is can provide us clues that bring us closer to unifying General Reletivity with the Uncertainty Principle - the Holy Grail of Physics.
Correction - Neptune was farther from Pluto from January 21, 1979 to Feb. 11, 1999 but at this time Pluto is farther from the sun than Neptune.
Of course, there's debate as to whether Pluto-Charon is a planet with a moon, or a double planet...
- Thomas;
Is that why french people smell like that?
Have y'all noticed the increase in the number of headlines about Hubble lately? Do you think that NASA is on a PR offensive to get their space shuttle budget increased by showing the public what a valuable tool Hubble is?
Just my $0.02 ($0.03 CAD)
- Thomas;
What the hell are you, some kind of Canadian? Petrol? Petrol Entry Point? BONNET!?!
IAAC (I am a Canadian) and the only times I can remember ever hearing the word petrol used, it had a reasonable derivation of the word sniff in front of it. Canada uses the word gas if it is indended to be used for fuel. The word petrol is normally used in former British colonies outside of North America.
I'm a male and I quite frequently wear a pnytail too. However, there is a difference between male pnoytails and female ponytails: Men usually bind their ponytails near the indentation at the base of their skulls. Thus, the ponytail is aimed downwards and does not portrude much from the backs of their heads. Females typically bind their ponytails at or slightly above the farthest rearward point on their skulls which aims their ponytails directly rearwards. Not only that, females typically have thicker hair which only serves the stregnthen the portrusion and the intereferance with the cranial deflector.
- authority on the differences between female and male anatomy;
.... but everyone knows you're slashdotted!
Typically at the Canadian border and at any currency exchange you have to fill out a fair amount of paperwork if you are carrying more than $10K USD of cash - they want to know where you got it from. I beleive it stems from an international treaty on money laundering.
Seems pretty smart to me: 1)Committ a federal offense. 2)Post the proof on the internet.
You forgot 3) take it to the bank to get new $20 bills
"Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act (PROTECT) of 2003"
Doesn't that spell PROTECTA?
Am I the only one that accidentally read "Supafly being brewed in the lab?"
Do you really trust a spammer to send you the real goods? Counterfeit drugs are rampant, and unless you purchased the drug from a reputable (liscenced) pharmacy, it is unlikely you are getting the real deal, especially on something expensive, hotly demanded, and potentially embarassing to sue about.
Pfizer suffers from this due to a possibility of a counterfeit drug causing harm, making Pfizer a target of an inadvertant lawsuit, the cost of which being huge amounts of negative publicity. Imagine: Pfizer getting sued - big headline on front page - everybody's talking about it. The drug turning out to be counterfeit - tiny headline near back page three months later - nobody notices. The fact that it came from a spammer - doesn't even get reported.
Or if we can't move the earth, just blow it up - that would eliminate the impact too!
Why does this article remind me of the BOFH?
USA didn't sign the ICC treaty because of their fears of it becoming a platform for political grandstanding. Nothing more, nothing less. Which is exactly what people tried to use it for against American administators durign the war on Iraq. Regardless - is it legal for people to shoot people? No. But sometimes the police have to shoot in order to stop much greater criminals.
Disclamer: Yes I supported the war, but I think Bush is an idoit too.
Why? Because I gotta!
:)
Couldn't resist