First, let me say how refreshing it is that we can express a difference of opinion without the acrimony I see so much of on slashdot these days. We clearly differ on *some* points (though we may not be so far apart as you think), but the fact that we can exchange them rationally is a good sign, no?
All I can say is, I will not get on an airliner unarmed. If that means I don't get on a an airliner ever again, so be it. I think and believe that many of these restrictions are unreasonable, unconstitutional and only serve to make air travel less safe...
Yikes... I shudder to imagine how many highjackings there would have been between the time weapons were restricted in the cabin and now if travelers had been allowed to arm themselves. Might indeed have prevented what happened on 9-11, but there's really no telling. I'm more inclined to think we'd have had a huge increase in the number of jacking attempts over the last 30 years or so, along with a proportionate increase in the number of explosive decompressions as armed passengers attempted to "rescue" the plane they were in. I'm afraid I would have to opine that an armed group of passengers in an aircraft cabin makes it less safe, not more so. My vote is for appropriately-armed sky marshals on board, if not every plane, at least those deemed to be higher risk.
You pay your money and you take your choice. If your choice is not one of the ones listed, you take your money elsewhere, right?
On the free speech issue, I must sit squarely, and somewhat uncomfortably, on the fence. I believe our Founding Fathers meant by free speech that we have a say, a voice, in the government (by and for the people). Indeed, I believe it did not grant us the right to say whatever the hell we please, whenever the hell we please, and your "FIRE!" example is the most quoted and, I think, the most poignant example. Dissent and reasoned debate must always be appropriate expressions of that freedom, but if we descend into frothing and fervor and ill-considered calls for destruction, either of establishments without or within, then we are no better than those who brought this most recent tragedy upon us.
While I don't believe an Amendment to prohibit flag burning adds anything to the security we're all wishing we had more of right now, as I said in my first post, I'm not opposed to it.
The interesting thing is, the recommended disposal of an American flag, IIRC, is burning. Granted, the circumstances are not the same, but, again IIRC, throwing the flag into the garbage is dishonorable, whereas burning is more reverent.
In any case, should a law against flag-burning be passed, I think that every American should gather and burn their flags, since such a law is such an affront to the ideals that the flag stands for.
I have been in attendance at numerous flag retiring ceremonies and, yes, the prescribed manner for taking an old flag out of service is burning. Your statement that the "circumstances are not the same" is a gross understatement. This is a solemn and reverent ceremony, performed by those who respect the flag, the U.S.A., and all that both stand for.
Personally, I have no problem with prohibitions against burning our country's most visible symbol, but I do respect your right to feel otherwise. And, if the majority do not side with you, then I call that Democracy in action. Being of an odd age, I've never been called for service, nor even had to register for the draft. But... I can also easily understand how those who have fought (my relatives), and those who have lost loved ones defending our country are greatly dishonored by the act and the passions of those who would wish to preserve the "right" to dishonor America in this way.
I'm afraid the fervor with which some seem to want to defend such a "right" has an eery parallel to those who would wish to exercise it abroad.
Last, I think the reactions of much of this slashdot crowd is every bit as knee-jerk as the yet unstated and unexecuted actions being crowed about. I do not consider carrying a knife on an airplane to be a "right". I almost always carry a Swiss Army knife on vacation and business trips - never knowing what I'll have to repair on the road. What right of mine is infringed by requiring that I send it through the checked baggage instead of my briefcase or camera bag? What right is infringed by requiring that I have proper identification before I board an aircraft? We have the right to travel, no argument, but getting there via airplane is more like a privilege than an "inalienable right". Most of the actions being whined about seem more like prudent steps to preserve our privilege of flying rather than concrete steps to deprive us of our essential freedoms...
Re:We should have no sympathy...
on
eBay Beats DMCA
·
· Score: 1
I still am amazed by the number of people that think just because they can find something on the Internet, that it's theirs to use, gratis. In my school days (I won't say how long ago that was), one could find quite a bit about a given subject in the encyclopedia - that did NOT mean one could or should copy it verbatim in order to make life easier when completing that term paper. It's called ethics - look into it.
As amusing as your comment might have seemed to you about my "PRETTY sad life", it's still way off the mark. I'm not sitting around looking to bitch about lusers scamming my words and text - certainly no more so than you have spent your time sniping at me in a far less constructive way. As I've stated (and most will agree), WHY should my tools and efforts, no matter how minimal they may seem, be used to facilitate another's undercutting of my auction? When another auction pops up, literally hours after mine, with an undercut minimum bid and the lamer couldn't be bothered to even create his own auction text or take his own picture, yes, I do want things made a wee bit more difficult for him. It's called competition - look into it.
What's really "PRETTY sad" is that you and the previous anonymous coward seem to be missing the larger, original point I made. Mr. Hendrickson had only to assert that the material was his and it would have been removed. That's eBay's policy and the real message behind my anecdote. He shot himself in the foot by spending more time and energy declaring that he didn't have to assert his rights than it would have taken him to simply do so...
Re:We should have no sympathy...
on
eBay Beats DMCA
·
· Score: 1
Ignoring your unbelievably crass manner of expression, I will reply to your pathetically ill-informed little tantrum.
Quite simply, I purchased a digital camera to facilitate my picture taking for (ready now?) my auctions, not someone else's. It's really not so diffcult to imagine (or is it?) that 'competition' on eBay should be just that, competition. Use you own tools, your own materials, your own words and your own pictures, for selling your own goods.
This is a simple concept, perhaps even simpler than you appear to be. So much so, in fact, that eBay has a specific policy against misappropriating images for use in this way. Pity if you can't understand it (or agree) especially without resorting to such juvenile forms of expression.
I'll bet you spent a lot of time in detention for copying off someone else's paper, didn't you...
We should have no sympathy...
on
eBay Beats DMCA
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
for Mr. Hendrickson. eBay has a simple, easy to follow mechanism for removing "infringing" material, which he REFUSED to follow. Even in a court of law, he must AFFIRM that the material was his. This is all eBay asked him to do, and he refused, choosing instead to take his chances in court. Boo-hoo if he lost.
I had a similar, if far more trivial, case. I posted an auction with a digital picture of the item being offered. Another seller "stole" my picture (and most of my clever auction listing text) to use in his own auction of an identical item. It was obvious that the image was the same (it was shot on my desk) and the words were clear plagiarism.
A few notes exchanged with eBay, along with an "affirmation" that I took the image with my own digital imaging device, and the offending auction listing was history. It eventually re-appeared, with a poor(er) quality picture and revamped words, but my point had been made.
Too bad for Mr. Hendrickson that he didn't comply with such an oh-so-simple request. It worked for me...
Yup. I'm a whorin' for kharma. I used Loop Recorder and CoolEdit to capture, isolate, snip, and amplify the sound from the TV clip on one of the referenced websites. You can find an MP3 sample of the sound formerly known as white noise but that is now known as chusssh-chusssh-chusssh at:
http://www.endwell.net/sound-1.mp3
I'm sure there's some psycho-acoustic stuff happening with a sound like this, especially directionally, but I'll leave me cell phone on vibrate, thank you. As for alarms, emergency beacons, etc. I'll leave it to the experts to decide further that it actually does what it appears (sounds) to do...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm just waiting to see more of those killer 'implants' like Six of Nine had on ST:Voyager!
...and we LIKED it!
First, let me say how refreshing it is that we can express a difference of opinion without the acrimony I see so much of on slashdot these days. We clearly differ on *some* points (though we may not be so far apart as you think), but the fact that we can exchange them rationally is a good sign, no?
All I can say is, I will not get on an airliner unarmed. If that means I don't get on a an airliner ever again, so be it. I think and believe that many of these restrictions are unreasonable, unconstitutional and only serve to make air travel less safe...
Yikes... I shudder to imagine how many highjackings there would have been between the time weapons were restricted in the cabin and now if travelers had been allowed to arm themselves. Might indeed have prevented what happened on 9-11, but there's really no telling. I'm more inclined to think we'd have had a huge increase in the number of jacking attempts over the last 30 years or so, along with a proportionate increase in the number of explosive decompressions as armed passengers attempted to "rescue" the plane they were in. I'm afraid I would have to opine that an armed group of passengers in an aircraft cabin makes it less safe, not more so. My vote is for appropriately-armed sky marshals on board, if not every plane, at least those deemed to be higher risk.
You pay your money and you take your choice. If your choice is not one of the ones listed, you take your money elsewhere, right?
On the free speech issue, I must sit squarely, and somewhat uncomfortably, on the fence. I believe our Founding Fathers meant by free speech that we have a say, a voice, in the government (by and for the people). Indeed, I believe it did not grant us the right to say whatever the hell we please, whenever the hell we please, and your "FIRE!" example is the most quoted and, I think, the most poignant example. Dissent and reasoned debate must always be appropriate expressions of that freedom, but if we descend into frothing and fervor and ill-considered calls for destruction, either of establishments without or within, then we are no better than those who brought this most recent tragedy upon us.
While I don't believe an Amendment to prohibit flag burning adds anything to the security we're all wishing we had more of right now, as I said in my first post, I'm not opposed to it.
I have been in attendance at numerous flag retiring ceremonies and, yes, the prescribed manner for taking an old flag out of service is burning. Your statement that the "circumstances are not the same" is a gross understatement. This is a solemn and reverent ceremony, performed by those who respect the flag, the U.S.A., and all that both stand for.
Personally, I have no problem with prohibitions against burning our country's most visible symbol, but I do respect your right to feel otherwise. And, if the majority do not side with you, then I call that Democracy in action. Being of an odd age, I've never been called for service, nor even had to register for the draft. But... I can also easily understand how those who have fought (my relatives), and those who have lost loved ones defending our country are greatly dishonored by the act and the passions of those who would wish to preserve the "right" to dishonor America in this way.
I'm afraid the fervor with which some seem to want to defend such a "right" has an eery parallel to those who would wish to exercise it abroad.
Last, I think the reactions of much of this slashdot crowd is every bit as knee-jerk as the yet unstated and unexecuted actions being crowed about. I do not consider carrying a knife on an airplane to be a "right". I almost always carry a Swiss Army knife on vacation and business trips - never knowing what I'll have to repair on the road. What right of mine is infringed by requiring that I send it through the checked baggage instead of my briefcase or camera bag? What right is infringed by requiring that I have proper identification before I board an aircraft? We have the right to travel, no argument, but getting there via airplane is more like a privilege than an "inalienable right". Most of the actions being whined about seem more like prudent steps to preserve our privilege of flying rather than concrete steps to deprive us of our essential freedoms...
As amusing as your comment might have seemed to you about my "PRETTY sad life", it's still way off the mark. I'm not sitting around looking to bitch about lusers scamming my words and text - certainly no more so than you have spent your time sniping at me in a far less constructive way. As I've stated (and most will agree), WHY should my tools and efforts, no matter how minimal they may seem, be used to facilitate another's undercutting of my auction? When another auction pops up, literally hours after mine, with an undercut minimum bid and the lamer couldn't be bothered to even create his own auction text or take his own picture, yes, I do want things made a wee bit more difficult for him. It's called competition - look into it.
What's really "PRETTY sad" is that you and the previous anonymous coward seem to be missing the larger, original point I made. Mr. Hendrickson had only to assert that the material was his and it would have been removed. That's eBay's policy and the real message behind my anecdote. He shot himself in the foot by spending more time and energy declaring that he didn't have to assert his rights than it would have taken him to simply do so...
Quite simply, I purchased a digital camera to facilitate my picture taking for (ready now?) my auctions, not someone else's. It's really not so diffcult to imagine (or is it?) that 'competition' on eBay should be just that, competition. Use you own tools, your own materials, your own words and your own pictures, for selling your own goods.
This is a simple concept, perhaps even simpler than you appear to be. So much so, in fact, that eBay has a specific policy against misappropriating images for use in this way. Pity if you can't understand it (or agree) especially without resorting to such juvenile forms of expression.
I'll bet you spent a lot of time in detention for copying off someone else's paper, didn't you...
I had a similar, if far more trivial, case. I posted an auction with a digital picture of the item being offered. Another seller "stole" my picture (and most of my clever auction listing text) to use in his own auction of an identical item. It was obvious that the image was the same (it was shot on my desk) and the words were clear plagiarism.
A few notes exchanged with eBay, along with an "affirmation" that I took the image with my own digital imaging device, and the offending auction listing was history. It eventually re-appeared, with a poor(er) quality picture and revamped words, but my point had been made.
Too bad for Mr. Hendrickson that he didn't comply with such an oh-so-simple request. It worked for me...
Yup. I'm a whorin' for kharma. I used Loop Recorder and CoolEdit to capture, isolate, snip, and amplify the sound from the TV clip on one of the referenced websites. You can find an MP3 sample of the sound formerly known as white noise but that is now known as chusssh-chusssh-chusssh at: http://www.endwell.net/sound-1.mp3 I'm sure there's some psycho-acoustic stuff happening with a sound like this, especially directionally, but I'll leave me cell phone on vibrate, thank you. As for alarms, emergency beacons, etc. I'll leave it to the experts to decide further that it actually does what it appears (sounds) to do...