Theft is when you take someone else's physical property without permission.
Sneaking into a movie (or ballgame) is, well, sneaking into a movie (or ballgame). It is NOT theft.
This is not a moral argument or a justification of sneaking into movies (or ballgames). It is an argument concerning the meaning of the words "steal" and "theft." Probably the best term for people who enjoy artistic or sports performances without paying for them (when such payment is normally required) is "freeloader."
As for me personally, I do not practice or condone copyright infringement, and I don't sneak into movies or ballgames, nor do I condone such sneaking. I am certainly not a thief. I am actually a law-abiding citizen, and not a freeloader.
I am also, I guess, a language purist, and I resent that the MPAA and RIAA are waging a propaganda war to make copyright infringement legaly, morally, and linuistically equivalent to theft.
When Perot was running for office, there was a saying going around that mailing social security checks to people AT RANDOM would achieve a more equitable (re)distribution of wealth than sending them to their actual recipients.
Annecdotally, several of the welthiest people I know collect social security (or are at least eligible to do so).
Meanwhile, middle class, blue collar, and even "illegal" aliens with fake SSN's are paying to keep the system solvent. It is silly.
I think we should fund social security from the income tax (raising it enough to do so) and drop the current paycheck deduction for social security. The paycheck deduction creates a sense of entitlement for current wage earners that will simply not ever materialize. It also creates a smokescreen that hides just how much money we pay in taxes every year.
I live in a major urban area in California, and I can tell you right now that the earthquakes we have here would kill 10's of thousands of people in the third world, and building codes are the main difference.
Besides, the barrier to home ownership is not just the cost of the house, but also the cost of the land.
Where I live, the land is well over half the value of a home.
I do share some of your frustration about how ordinances can, for example, prohibit people from keeping their motor homes on their own property.
I remember reading how San Jose (California) was going to mandate that people had to keep a certain minimal level of landscaping at their homes. In particular, the city was going to ban weeds. Not sure if that ever went through (I don't live in San Jose).
It's just a pet peeve of mine, but copyright infringement and theft are two distinct crimes.
I hate it when people equate copyright infringement with stealing. Illegal downloading is more like sneaking into a movie, concert or ballgame without a ticket than it is like theft.
Sorry, but playing back in order of how the files are named? That makes the thing more or less completely useless unless you have a very, very short list of songs you always want to hear in the same order; how the heck do you get to market without the basics that you'd have expected from an MP3 player five years ago?
How much of a LUSER are you. I mean any real geek would just organize his music in different folders with different names using hard links so the songs play in the desired order. The folder IS the playlist. I mean, it is linux based, right?
Even higher than a turbo-charged formula 1 racecar?
I don't think the newer cars are turbocharged, but there was a time when formula 1 used turbos, and they had small (one or two liter?) engines producing several hundred horsepower. Maybe close to 1000 HP.
And Grande Prix motorcycles used to get 200 HP out of a non-turbo, two-stroke, 500CC. These are tiny motors. I doubt they weigh 30 pounds.
And then there are top-fuel dragsters... The motors are somewhat heavy, but the dragsters cross the quarter mile finish line doing well over 300 MPH. I think they have some serious power to weight going on there!
About 10 years ago I read a review of some hot-rodded corvette that could do close to 200 MPH. Since that issue of the magazine also had an article on top-fuel dragsters, the authors threw in a little comparison. If the corvette crossed the start line at a top-fuel dragster event going at full speed, the dragster would catch and overtake the corvette before the quarter mile finish line. The cars are so powerful that they can lose traction and burn out even when they are already going 300 MPH! And they have tires made of gooey rubber with about 2psi (or something) of air in them.
Even though the hyperlink says explanation, it isn't really an explanation.
Here is a quote: "Although this study only reveals phenomenological or design rules to obtain the peripehral drift illusion with large illusion magnitude, we are seeking an explanation on the basis of motion detector models."
In other words, there is no explanation, just a set of rules to help generate a more powerful illusion.
Great, now we're turning into England. How long do you think it'll take before the United States surpases England as the country that spies the most on its own citizenry? [emphasis added]
Actually, windows XP has EFS, which (on SP1 and above) provides decent encryption. I use it. I also used syskey to set up a bootup passphrase (rather than allowing syskey to "hide" its key in the registry).
I used the security policy manager to tell windows to delete the swap file on shutdown.
I think I'm protected against the easy attacks.;-)
MM --
Re:the whole IP issue is invalid
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 1
IMO, you deserve an award for correctly using the term "begging the question."
Are you one of those people who thinks we'd all be safer if everybody carried a concealed firearm too? Seriously, I've met several people who honestly think this. I mean, I don't argue that if everybody on a plane had a knife, you'd have a lot of trouble hijacking the plane (guns are a bad idea on planes for obvious reasons). The problem with this is that just like everywhere else in life, people get drunk and rowdy. The first time a drunk passenger knifes an obnoxious flight attendant, or another passenger who looks at them funny or bumps into the guy's wife, etc., everybody would stop thinking this is such a good idea.
That's the same reason we don't want everyone running around packing heat. In parts of the country where people regularly pack heat, you hear a lot more stories about somebody getting drunk at a party, getting in a fist fight and then going out to their truck to get their gun and solving their dispute with handguns, and end up hurting the other party to the dispute, themselves, or an innocent bystander. Common gun ownership is only an effective deterrent to violence when all parties involved are thinking and behaving rationally.
A couple of things.
1) I'm just kidding about handing out knives. I know that the airlines are not going to hand out knives to passengers. They don't even give free meals anymore.
2) I'm not sure what the "obvious reasons" are that we don't want guns on airplanes. Is it just because they are crowded? If so, I agree. But it is a myth that a single bullet-sized hole in the airplane fuselage would catastophically decompress the cabin. I believe that air marshalls and pilots should have guns (or whatever other weapons they desire) on planes.
3) I am not really a proponent of "everyone" packing heat. Obviously, ex-cons shouldn't be packing heat. People with a history of violent attacks on other people definitely shouldn't be allowed to pack heat. The whole point of the excercise is for responsible people to have an upper hand over thugs. By and large I'm a little wishy-washy on the wisdom of concealed carry for non-criminals. But it hasn't been a disaster in the places where it has been tried (the so-called shall issue states).
4) "Common gun ownership" is a constitutionally protected right. But any mature adult who hasn't shown a reason why he or she is not fit to own a firearm should be able to buy, transport, and shoot (e.g., at a range) any kind of firearm he/she wants. This would include semi- and fully automatic rifles. Otherwise what the hell does the second ammendment mean?
I know my views sound crazy to lots of people, and I definitely DON'T live in a part of the country where my viewpoint is popular, but there it is.
Just keep this in mind: If the unpopular parts of the constituion are ignored, it will soon not have any meaning at all.
Since they already have armored cockpit doors and (some) armed pilots, they ought to hand a knife to every passenger as part of the boarding procedure.
Then we'll see how many terrorists manage to hijack planes.
A friend of mine studied anthropology. Anthropology definitely recognizes a scientific notion of race. According to my friend, skulls can be classified according to race by looking at shapes and distance between features.
I have also studied anthropology, and I know several people who are actively working in that field. I can tell you that it's not as cut-and-dried as you make it sound. There is no such thing as a "negro gene," for example. Certain traits might be more common in Africa than in Europe, but there will always be some mixture of traits across even the most isolated population. Skull measurements and the like can give you a rough idea of whether someone would be considered black or white by today's standards, but it's not remotely in the same league as telling, say, a chimpanzee skull from a babboon skull.
Whoa, there. I never said there was a "negro gene." And I didn't mean to imply that there is anything cut-and-dried about race, either. WTF? If you read my whole post you would have seen where I said that race is less and less meaningful in places like California where people from all kinds of races marry each other and have kids.
And baboons and chimps are different species altogether. OF COURSE it is easier to tell their skulls apart than humans of different races.
If you break down the part of my post you quoted, there are two assertions:
1) My friend studied anthropology.
2) In his classes, the concept of race was taught, and this includes scientific methods for classifying human skulls according to race.
If you disagree with one of those assertions, then there is something we can argue about. If you don't, then I have no quarrel with you. But I would appreciate it if you didn't imply that I said bizarre and idiotic things. (Unless I actually did say them, of course!)
Anthropology definitely recognizes a scientific notion of race. According to my friend, skulls can be classified according to race by looking at shapes and distance between features.
Although I agree that, at least in places like California (which is where I live) race is becoming irrelevant. There are so many mixed race couples and mixed race kids that no one even bats an eyelash at it anymore.
Maybe this is the real solution to racial descrimination? Mix up the gene pool until there are no races anymore.
I agree that the Irish don't have any particular reputaion for "animal husbandry" with sheep. But I believe the Scottish may have more of a reputation than the Welsh. For example, here is a very old joke:
Q: Why do Scottish men wear kilts? A: Because sheep can hear a zipper open from a mile away.
Look, you thought it was reasonable to have a fan powered sailboat. It isn't. And now you're just weaseling.
Your post is vague in terms of argument. But since you accuse me of weaseling, I am not bound to let you have the last word.
I never said a fan-powered sailboat was reasonable. I just said it was possible, and I stand behind that. You have certainly not constructed any compelling argument to the contrary.
If you think the principle of conservation of momentum is consistent with the sailboat NOT moving forward in the example in one of my previous posts of throwing baseballs at a board angled so that the baseballs bounce off the boat aftward, then I encourage you to explain the details.
If you want to retract your previous statement that the baseballs and board example is exactly the same as the fan and sail example, then I would say that you are the one who is weaseling.
If you do neither, I think you have lost this argument.
I still believe that the boat could be made to go forward, but I don't want to argue about it.
Seems hard to believe, considering you immediately follow this sentence with several paragraphs of argument.
The argument was not meant to support the case where the fan blows forward. The argument was meant to support the case where the fan blows sideways.
This is an aeorodynamics problem
No, it's not. It's a force problem. The fact that you have the air acting as an intermediary in your pushing on the boat is a red herring.
It is both types of problem, really. I just find it easier to look at it from an aeorodynamics perspective.
If the net effect is to direct a stream of air molecules backwards, the boat WILL move forward
It's no different than if you were, say, throwing baseballs against a board. The fact that the balls might bounce overboard afterward is irrelevant. The force of the balls striking the board is countered by the force you applied in throwing them.
You are right. It is no different. If the baseballs are thrown athwartships and then bounce overboard going aft, this will propel the boat forward in exactly the same way that throwing the baseballs directly aft will propel the boat forward. This is an inescapable conclusion. Momentum is conserved, and if the baseballs end up with aftward momentum, they must be imparting forward momentum on the boat. This is the essence of my argument. The boat may also have a tendency to move sideways, but this is largely countered by the keel or centerboard and in any event does not change the fact that the boat makes forward progress.
no matter how much you may want this to not be true.
My desires have nothing to do with it. In fact, I think it would kinda cool if it worked. You'd probably be on your way to developing some sort of perpetual motion machine.
You are right that your desires (and mine) have nothing to do with it. But there is no perpetual motion machine lurking in there. It takes work to spin the fan (or throw the baseballs) and that work propels the boat forward. The most efficient case is when the air molecules (or baseballs) are sent directly aft without encountering a sail or board. But even when the air or baseballs are initially directed athwartships, it is easy to see (from conservation of momentum) that the boat MUST experience a forward thrust if the particles end up travelling aft. Just imagine a ducted fan, where the intake draws air from the side of the boat, and directs the air rearward with a duct. The sail in my model is just an inefficient duct.
Anyway, if you reply again in a similar vein (i.e., intelligently and politely) I'll let you have the last word.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
I guess those unix guys knew what they were doing when they settled on a time representation that rolls over in 2038.
MM
Actually, you are 100 % mistaken.
Theft is when you take someone else's physical property without permission.
Sneaking into a movie (or ballgame) is, well, sneaking into a movie (or ballgame). It is NOT theft.
This is not a moral argument or a justification of sneaking into movies (or ballgames). It is an argument concerning the meaning of the words "steal" and "theft." Probably the best term for people who enjoy artistic or sports performances without paying for them (when such payment is normally required) is "freeloader."
As for me personally, I do not practice or condone copyright infringement, and I don't sneak into movies or ballgames, nor do I condone such sneaking. I am certainly not a thief. I am actually a law-abiding citizen, and not a freeloader.
I am also, I guess, a language purist, and I resent that the MPAA and RIAA are waging a propaganda war to make copyright infringement legaly, morally, and linuistically equivalent to
theft.
MM
When Perot was running for office, there was a saying going around that mailing social security checks to people AT RANDOM would achieve a more equitable (re)distribution of wealth than sending them to their actual recipients.
Annecdotally, several of the welthiest people I know collect social security (or are at least eligible to do so).
Meanwhile, middle class, blue collar, and even "illegal" aliens with fake SSN's are paying to keep the system solvent. It is silly.
I think we should fund social security from the income tax (raising it enough to do so) and drop the current paycheck deduction for social security. The paycheck deduction creates a sense of entitlement for current wage earners that will simply not ever materialize. It also creates a smokescreen that hides just how much money we pay in taxes every year.
MM
--
Building codes also save lives.
I live in a major urban area in California, and I can tell you right now that the earthquakes we have here would kill 10's of thousands of people in the third world, and building codes are the main difference.
Besides, the barrier to home ownership is not just the cost of the house, but also the cost of the land.
Where I live, the land is well over half the value of a home.
I do share some of your frustration about how ordinances can, for example, prohibit people from keeping their motor homes on their own property.
I remember reading how San Jose (California) was going to mandate that people had to keep a certain minimal level of landscaping at their homes. In particular, the city was going to ban weeds. Not sure if that ever went through (I don't live in San Jose).
MM
--
It's just a pet peeve of mine, but copyright infringement and theft are two distinct crimes.
I hate it when people equate copyright infringement with stealing. Illegal downloading is more like sneaking into a movie, concert or ballgame without a ticket than it is like theft.
MM
--
At least the moderator recognized that it was a joke.
;-)
I'll try to make it even more over-the-top next time.
MM
--
How much of a LUSER are you. I mean any real geek would just organize his music in different folders with different names using hard links so the songs play in the desired order. The folder IS the playlist. I mean, it is linux based, right?
Duh!!!
MM
--
Even higher than a turbo-charged formula 1 racecar?
I don't think the newer cars are turbocharged, but there was a time when formula 1 used turbos, and they had small (one or two liter?) engines producing several hundred horsepower. Maybe close to 1000 HP.
And Grande Prix motorcycles used to get 200 HP out of a non-turbo, two-stroke, 500CC. These are tiny motors. I doubt they weigh 30 pounds.
And then there are top-fuel dragsters... The motors are somewhat heavy, but the dragsters cross the quarter mile finish line doing well over 300 MPH. I think they have some serious power to weight going on there!
About 10 years ago I read a review of some hot-rodded corvette that could do close to 200 MPH. Since that issue of the magazine also had an article on top-fuel dragsters, the authors threw in a little comparison. If the corvette crossed the start line at a top-fuel dragster event going at full speed, the dragster would catch and overtake the corvette before the quarter mile finish line. The cars are so powerful that they can lose traction and burn out even when they are already going 300 MPH! And they have tires made of gooey rubber with about 2psi (or something) of air in them.
MM
--
Can you provide some backup documentation for this claim? It sounds like complete BS to me.
MM
--
Hah!
;-)
I was thinking about making a post like yours. I'm glad I read through first. No sense in getting modded down for redundancy.
Meanwhile, I hope you get modded up as funny or interesting.
MM
--
Even though the hyperlink says explanation, it isn't really an explanation.
Here is a quote:
"Although this study only reveals phenomenological or design rules to obtain the peripehral drift illusion with large illusion magnitude, we are seeking an explanation on the basis of motion detector models."
In other words, there is no explanation, just a set of rules to help generate a more powerful illusion.
MM
--
I don't know where you live, but here in California, windows are transparent.
MM--
DPRK? Iran? Saudi Arabia?
MM--
Actually, windows XP has EFS, which (on SP1 and above) provides decent encryption. I use it. I also used syskey to set up a bootup passphrase (rather than allowing syskey to "hide" its key in the registry).
;-)
I used the security policy manager to tell windows to delete the swap file on shutdown.
I think I'm protected against the easy attacks.
MM
--
IMO, you deserve an award for correctly using the term "begging the question."
MM
--
A couple of things.
1) I'm just kidding about handing out knives. I know that the airlines are not going to hand out knives to passengers. They don't even give free meals anymore.
2) I'm not sure what the "obvious reasons" are that we don't want guns on airplanes. Is it just because they are crowded? If so, I agree. But it is a myth that a single bullet-sized hole in the airplane fuselage would catastophically decompress the cabin. I believe that air marshalls and pilots should have guns (or whatever other weapons they desire) on planes.3) I am not really a proponent of "everyone" packing heat. Obviously, ex-cons shouldn't be packing heat. People with a history of violent attacks on other people definitely shouldn't be allowed to pack heat. The whole point of the excercise is for responsible people to have an upper hand over thugs. By and large I'm a little wishy-washy on the wisdom of concealed carry for non-criminals. But it hasn't been a disaster in the places where it has been tried (the so-called shall issue states).
4) "Common gun ownership" is a constitutionally protected right. But any mature adult who hasn't shown a reason why he or she is not fit to own a firearm should be able to buy, transport, and shoot (e.g., at a range) any kind of firearm he/she wants. This would include semi- and fully automatic rifles. Otherwise what the hell does the second ammendment mean?
I know my views sound crazy to lots of people, and I definitely DON'T live in a part of the country where my viewpoint is popular, but there it is.
Just keep this in mind: If the unpopular parts of the constituion are ignored, it will soon not have any meaning at all.
MM--
Yeah.
Since they already have armored cockpit doors and (some) armed pilots, they ought to hand a knife to every passenger as part of the boarding procedure.
Then we'll see how many terrorists manage to hijack planes.
MM
--
Thanks for saying it so I didn't have to!
MM
--
And baboons and chimps are different species altogether. OF COURSE it is easier to tell their skulls apart than humans of different races.
If you break down the part of my post you quoted, there are two assertions:
1) My friend studied anthropology.
2) In his classes, the concept of race was taught, and this includes scientific methods for classifying human skulls according to race.
If you disagree with one of those assertions, then there is something we can argue about. If you don't, then I have no quarrel with you. But I would appreciate it if you didn't imply that I said bizarre and idiotic things. (Unless I actually did say them, of course!)
MM
--
Read about DNS round robin sharing of voluntary ntp servers:
http://www.pool.ntp.org
MM
--
A friend of mine studied anthropology.
Anthropology definitely recognizes a scientific notion of race. According to my friend, skulls can be classified according to race by looking at shapes and distance between features.
Although I agree that, at least in places like California (which is where I live) race is becoming irrelevant. There are so many mixed race couples and mixed race kids that no one even bats an eyelash at it anymore.
Maybe this is the real solution to racial descrimination? Mix up the gene pool until there are no races anymore.
MM
--
I agree that the Irish don't have any particular reputaion for "animal husbandry" with sheep. But I believe the Scottish may have more of a reputation than the Welsh. For example, here is a very old joke:
Q: Why do Scottish men wear kilts?
A: Because sheep can hear a zipper open from a mile away.
MM
--
Look, you thought it was reasonable to have a fan powered sailboat. It isn't. And now you're just weaseling.
Your post is vague in terms of argument. But since you accuse me of weaseling, I am not bound to let you have the last word.
I never said a fan-powered sailboat was reasonable. I just said it was possible, and I stand behind that. You have certainly not constructed any compelling argument to the contrary.
If you think the principle of conservation of momentum is consistent with the sailboat NOT moving forward in the example in one of my previous posts of throwing baseballs at a board angled so that the baseballs bounce off the boat aftward, then I encourage you to explain the details.
If you want to retract your previous statement that the baseballs and board example is exactly the same as the fan and sail example, then I would say that you are the one who is weaseling.
If you do neither, I think you have lost this argument.
MM
--
Firefox? ITYM FoxPro, no? Or is the firefox team planning on adding a rlational database to the 0.9.4 release?
MM
--
The argument was not meant to support the case where the fan blows forward. The argument was meant to support the case where the fan blows sideways.
It is both types of problem, really. I just find it easier to look at it from an aeorodynamics perspective.
You are right. It is no different. If the baseballs are thrown athwartships and then bounce overboard going aft, this will propel the boat forward in exactly the same way that throwing the baseballs directly aft will propel the boat forward. This is an inescapable conclusion. Momentum is conserved, and if the baseballs end up with aftward momentum, they must be imparting forward momentum on the boat. This is the essence of my argument. The boat may also have a tendency to move sideways, but this is largely countered by the keel or centerboard and in any event does not change the fact that the boat makes forward progress.
You are right that your desires (and mine) have nothing to do with it. But there is no perpetual motion machine lurking in there. It takes work to spin the fan (or throw the baseballs) and that work propels the boat forward. The most efficient case is when the air molecules (or baseballs) are sent directly aft without encountering a sail or board. But even when the air or baseballs are initially directed athwartships, it is easy to see (from conservation of momentum) that the boat MUST experience a forward thrust if the particles end up travelling aft. Just imagine a ducted fan, where the intake draws air from the side of the boat, and directs the air rearward with a duct. The sail in my model is just an inefficient duct.
Anyway, if you reply again in a similar vein (i.e., intelligently and politely) I'll let you have the last word. ;-)
MM
--