Now, if you are calling them criminal because of Iraq/Afghanistan, then nope. The real problem was not CIA. These were simply foot soldiers doing what they were ordered to by the highest level of the gov.
To risk a Godwin, "just following orders" hasn't been a valid defense (or, in this case moral rationalization) since Nuremberg. Soldiers are just people, and people are culpable for their actions. If someone works for a company, and that company asks them to do something illegal, whose to blame? Both the company for asking illegal activities from its employees, and the employee for carrying out illegal activities. Why should tacking the world "soldier" onto it make it any different?
If the people of the CIA broke international law, and acted in a way that is morally reprehensible to us, then guilt flows down the latter. The US Gov't is guilty of making illegal demands, the CIA is guilty of not questioning these demands, and the employees of the CIA who actually carried this out are guilty of doing it (or at least not all turning into merry whistleblowers).
But I consider it to be a tremendous and horrid act to behave in accordance with laws which violate someone's human rights.
I personally dislike China's ubiquitous censorship, and Google supporting it. But I don't think that internet searches have anything to do with human rights. What right is being infringed upon? Sure, it is still tyranny, but I have grave doubts that there is any right to uncensored internet searches (actually I have grave doubts that there are any innate human rights at all!).
Can't believe you got modded Troll instead of insightful.
It's because I had something bad to say about The Anointed One.
See? Got modded down again.
Perhaps because talking about John Ashcroft is a wee bit off topic?
Also, the last post was a troll, pure and simple. No one, that I know of at least, thinks Obama is "anointed" or any such crap, and most everyone I know is pretty far left. Actually, the further left you are, the more disappointed with Obama you probably are. Most people probably only voted for Obama because they were sick of the right, and deathly afraid of McCain/Palin, and not because he is some special super-politician who can save us from all our ills.
In regards to your first post, it perhaps shouldn't be modded as a troll, but perhaps as "woohoo cliche hip cynicism!" Your vote as an individual counts as much as anyone else's, no, it will never actually count beyond your actual worth though. Now if you organized like minded people, and worked to convince others that your opinion was worthy, then that WOULD count more. But just whinging that your vote doesn't count because a majority of voters don't share your opinion and voted otherwise, thats just silly. The problem with America is that everyone's vote counts, and a vast majority of American's are uninformed idiots, or rabidly idealistic and naive. And worse, everyone "knows better" than everyone else, and would like to impose their views on the rest of us "for their own good".
You think it's bad but you just shrug your shoulders and accept the bullshit?
I think its bad, but completely normal (non-nefarious), and I think that playing the same game against it doesn't further anyone's point. Furthermore, I don't think that plebes like you and me have much substance to contribute to the actual scientific debate. You have no strong reason (meaning empirical, or experimental) to say they are wrong, I have no strong empirical reason to claim they are correct (though I would set the odds slightly in the AGW crowds favor, which is a completely meaningless statement). This is a battle of climatologists, we don't matter.
This isn't accepting it, nor is this qualifying it as bullshit or not. This is me, somewhat, shrugging my shoulders though. The only debate I can actually see there being any point in is "if it is true, then what". If it isn't true, then we don't have to do anything, if it is, then we must do something. Thats it.
Everyone who DOES present data to disprove it is met with ridicule, job loss, personal attacks, etc. And of course, there's always a follow up by the global warming nutjobs who "debunk" their claims.
While tragic, this is rather common in all intellectual/academic circles, see Newton vs. Leibniz for an older (and perhaps more vitriolic) example. Sadly this is what happens when science is polluted by politics and economic self-interest (with a dose of religion, oddly), though often the egos of scientists are large enough to allow this to happen in a setting that is pure from superfluous influence.
There really shouldn't be a public debate on the science in the first place. AGW is either happening or not no matter what you or I (or Exxon or Al Gore) believe. Sadly this isn't "fair and balanced" enough for modern times. The debate (once things clear the actual scientists) should be on action and policy, there our opinion should count, but not in the science. Thats the thing that gets me about the whole global warming thing, the emotional drivel we all try to pass of as meaningful. Really, when it comes down to it, it doesn't matter one bit how you or I feel about it, it is a empirical fact or not, period.
Either way - the tactic of proving things with data is useless when the other side simply alters their data and refuses to release it.
"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" doesn't do a damn thing, much less forward the actual science. If AGW is true (and I don't think anyone is in the place to say it is or isn't definitively), then it is a big deal, and deserves some actual data thrown around. If you think the pro-AGW crowd isn't making their point due to bad emotive arguments and bad science, you sure as hell won't make your point by doing the same thing.
Yes, the data should be released. The data probably WILL be released eventually when the groups who have it ensure their exclusivity in publishing (which is rather common in all fields of science). Yes, qualified scientists should wrangle over it and promote their pet oppositional theories. No, some guy on the internet with access to this data still won't (or at least shouldn't) matter.
That's just wrong. The political and economic impact of the proposed regulations is ridiculously large (and negative). Emitting less and polluting less is great. I'm all for a cleaner world with less crap in it. But none of the proposed changes will result in that - the proposed changes simply move pollution generation to China and India and other such countries, while taxing the fuck out of everyone else.
I don't think the long-term impact would be as big as you think (I don't care much about the short term, again no one has the right to profit), new infrastructure means jobs, new technology means jobs, etc... Also in shifting from our current greedy energy overlords to a new batch of greedy green-energy overlords nothing much is lost, the money justs shifts hands. This has happened before, the automotive field killing the buggy field sucked for the buggy makers, but society wasn't hurt by it.
That and I think that green energy technology is intrinsically better than our polluting inefficient stuff we have now, completely ignoring the possibility of global warming. Efficiency (which would have to be contained within any "green" solutions) trumps inefficiency every time.
In short, Al Gore is the devil.
Like all other externally labeled "devils", Al Gore is a charismatic blow-hard genuinely trying to do good in his own mis-guided way. I personally don't like him, but I find it hard to leverage much hate at him. He's been on the environmental thing much longer than the AGW debate, and really didn't profit much on it before now.
The problem, once again, lies not in our stars but in ourselves.
You are correct, but the context still effects the style of our communications. When I'm talking to my boss I use a different vocabulary and syntax than when I talk to my parents, when I talk to my pub friends I use language in a way that would be unacceptable to my parents, etc... Most people, of most cultures, do this.
This brings to mind when I finally decided to join the 20th century and get a cell-phone. I tried to type coherent sentences with proper punctuation and capitalization. I promptly stopped doing this, though it pained me, since the amount of time spent typing a message properly completely negated the only benefits to the medium (namely speed). Not that I adopted "text-ese", I just realized that loosening the rules might be advantageous. The same thing happened, to a lesser extent, when I used to run IM programs constantly. Both of these mediums nudge people towards short malformed statements which are more about quickly expressing a point than proper linguistic wrangling.
Yes, someone could write high level grammar in these mediums, but it isn't as natural, and somewhat negates the point of the medium.
Our society is far too kind to the moron, and it is to our detriment.
I generally agree, though we must also keep in mind that proper language does not denote intelligence either. In the US there are tons of dialects that use tortured grammar and word choice (the UK is much worse), but are using the proper language of that particular region/culture. Also, every single one of us is subject to the occasional typo or gaffe, no matter what our level of linguistic skill. They just happen from time to time.
Veering back on topic: This whole discussion is rather silly, borrow words change when they hit a different culture, this is natural and universal. If we were to compare proto-English to what we speak and write today, we'd be shocked since most of what we now speak is borrowed from Latin (via French), even while we keep our Germanic grammar.
Think of all the native English speakers who cannot correctly use words like "loose"/"lose" or "they're"/"there"/"their". It shows that they still struggle with basic usage of their native language, the sorts of issues that they should have worked out back in elementary school. It's noteworthy that foreigners who learn English as a second (or third) langauge tend not to make these mistakes.
You are correct, at least as far as written language. If you were to talk to someone who just confused "lose" with "loose" though, I'm sure they would know the difference. Ditto with "there", "their", "they're." This is more a case of lack of experience with written language, than actual stupidity or laziness. We often forget that/. caters to a demographic that is much more literate than the general population. Even so, if you recall the poll here a few weeks back, there are some among us who refuse to read books, and probably don't write much either (no, code doesn't count). Also, most forms of electronic communications generally foster bad habits and promote general laziness. Something about electronic communications spawns a "throw away" mind set. When I sit down to write something on paper, or even plan on writing a serious document in word, I write much better than any/. reply I've ever written.
This type of forum is more like a rambling discussion, than a well-structured debate. How often do you actually use completely proper grammar in a colloquial setting? How often does even the most mindlessly pedantic of us slip and say "ATM machine?"
In the end though, it really doesn't matter. Language exists for communications, and is generally tailored to the audience and intention of the speaker. I see no need to spend the time writing a doctoral dissertation level reply to you.
On topic, how many readers here actually didn't understand what the summary was talking about? If you were genuinely confused you might have a legitimate case to complain, if not your just being a mildly sophisticated troll (but a troll nonetheless).
I am one of those terrible, evil, baby eating smokers, and I never lost a computer because of it. My girlfriend is also a smoker, and has also never lost a computer due to it. Her parents are smokers, and never... you get the point. The worse domestic computer ick death I'm seen was thanks to cat and dog hair, not smoking. So I don't understand how us "pet haters" have to subsidize people with fuzzy animals. Pet people can simply get rid of their pets, after-all.
I agree on your stance, and wasn't trying to push you into a camp, nor show myself as belonging in one.
It might be suggestive, but lacking context or any reason to show that this word choice pointed to unethical or unscientific (synonyms in this case) actions. When someone says they'll "f'in' bury" someone, I don't take it as a slip meaning that they actually will murder someone.
I'm taking the word "hide" as completely irrelevant for now, unless it can actually be proven that something was "hidden" (in the nefarious, or misleading sense).
The earth's climate is changing, as it tends to do. Humans are not affecting it in any measurable way. The change will be extremely slow and gradual. The change will not destroy the planet. The change may be an inconvenience for people, and certain species may go extinct. There is nothing humans can do to stop it.
Good, you have a hypothesis. Now go and actually prove it. Or at least work to disprove the alternative with, you know, actual data.
I'm a skeptic, I don't actually know if anthropogenic global warming is happening. I'm guessing we'll know with reasonable certainty sometime in the next 20-100 years. I haven't seen any data that conclusively proves or disproves AGW. Personally though I'm in favor of the reforms presented by the global warming crowd though, even if they haven't convinced me that they are correct. Why? Because we have more to lose if they are right and we do nothing, than if they are wrong and we do something. Also, the solutions presented by them make more sense than the status-quo. Emitting less is a good idea, as is increased efficiency. And I really don't see it as my responsibility to ensure the profits of billionaires who don't give one lick about me. Exxon can fold tomorrow, and I won't shed a tear.
Because its email that wasn't slated for public release?
If I knew that all my private email would be leaked someday (and someone actually cared enough to read it), I sure as hell would write much different than I do today.
In and ideal free market type scheme this would be true, but you forget the value of marketing, and forced scarcity. Look at the vodka and tequila markets for proof of this.
I remember back in college, I was in the HRM department's (which was in the top 5 internationally) wine club. We noticed that the higher priced wine always scored much higher than the cheaper stuff in our tastings. We though this was natural, because, obviously, higher priced wines MUST be better than the cheaper stuff. One week, the head of the club decided to remove all the price, naming, and regional information from the wines before the tasting. The result was that a $10 (retail) Merlot scored evenly with a $200 bottle (wholesale). After this, all tastings were done the same, and often the expensive wines scored slightly lower than the high priced ones, but were generally pretty close. Taste also comes into play, we all don't like the same things, and often taste is completely subjective. Give me the most highly rated Zinfandel and I probably would give a pretty low reguard compaired to a more moderately rated Shiraz, the same goes for region, I personally think the highest quality Australian or South American wines pale in comparison to the mid-line quality wines from Sonoma or France. Or as my dad once told me "The cheapest French wine is generally better than the best American wine". Other would disagree, which is my whole point.
This is true of more than wines, go check your top shelf vodkas, most of them taste just as good as a $25 bottle of "lesser" vodka. Price influences perception, and perception influences the actual experience. Yes, often price does correlate with quality, but often there is a level where this ceases to happen and "expensive image" takes over from "actual quality". Is a Lexus really much better than a Toyota?
The top end, and the bottom end are generally not worth the money.
But hurr durr [citation needed]! It's like a 5 year old saying "oh yeah? prove it!" when you tell them to brush their damned teeth or they'll get cavities.
Actually, it was more like a reasonable response from just about anyone when confronted by someone trying to make an argument support with statistics that they pulled from their ass. I'm guessing that a majority of torrents are copyright violations, but I'm not going to state that anything around 99.99% of torrents are. I'm not going to stick a number on this, and I'm not going to state it like a fact, since that would also fall under the sin of talking out of my ass and trying to pass it on as gospel.
We don't actually know the full extent of piracy, nor do we know what the actual ratio of copyrighted material vs. legitimate material is at TPB. This debate is also enriched a bit by adding the caveat "illegal by whose laws".
Nuclear bombs are nothing more than a tool. And completely legal and morally neutral. The USE of the tool is a case by case thing, blah blah blah.
Actually, nuclear technology is a tool, and morally ambivalent. If you make a bomb from it then you might be falling into the "bad" use area (though one could argue that the scientists in the Manhattan Project were building it for the right reason, to combat Hitler), where using it for power is a morally "good" use. In a WWII scenario we can see the creation of the bomb as another morally neutral argument, it was originally going to be used to combat Hitler (before he could develop like), which in the eyes of most of those involved was a "good" use. Later when Hitler was defeated, a lot of the scientists objected it to being used on Japan, on a civilian target. Obviously the bomb was a bad thing in the Cold War, though many argue that nuclear weapons were a deterrent for actual violence, and thus a good thing at best, and a regretfully necissary gray thing at worst.
There is a lot of nuance out there.
Lets say that piracy is a bad thing, and torrents facilitate piracy. Lets also say, now, that the content industry finally joined the 21st century and decided to use torrents to distribute content, would torrents still be bad?
Though personally I don't care about piracy anyone. I'm completely in favor of piracy. I don't even bother to have a weak moral justification. Companies are out to screw me, so I have no problem with screwing them.
I mean, the forefathers put copyright into the Constitution for a reason.
Copyright, though is a very different beast today from what it was in the Constitution. We've revised it into:
To promote the Profit of International Corporations, by securing for unlimited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
I doubt this, and [citation needed]. A lot of non-piracy based things are using torrent these days as a means for distributing patches, and downloading content. There is also Linux distros, and several sites that offer torrents old old movies in the public domain.
Torrents are nothing more than a tool, and is completely legally and morally neutral. The USE of the tool is a case by case thing, and wholly dependent on how people use it, and thus culpability falls onto individuals, and not the tool itself. Torrent's, in themselves, are nothing more than a bandwidth effiecient way of moving data around, just like every other protocol on the Internet. People use FTP, HTTP, and Usenet to pirate data too, should there be demonized just like torrents?
By all means, go after individual violators, but leave the tool alone.
Things out of copyright still have commercial value, you just lose the monopoly aspect. Look at Trent Reznor/Nine Inch Nails Creative Commons releases, there is nothing stopping the unwashed hordes from freely downloading the content, but he still made money hand over fist, even without copyright behind him (yes, he had a prexisting fan base, etc... but the argument still holds in this case). Even looking at the piracy ridden music scene today, these artists still make tons of money even while their whole catalog is freely-available online.
There might not be AS MUCH commercial value, but there still is a significant amount.
Also, the artist is dead, I doubt they care about their continued profit over their last 4 albums. Their family might, but this is of no concern, since the artist could have stashed some amount of their profits into a fund to provide for them, just like the rest of us non-creative working stiffs.
I don't really care one bit about anyone in the equation outside of the actual content creator. They are the only ones that copyright exists for.
HPL is long dead, and August Derleth is long dead. Most of HPL's writing is nearing 90+ years old, and 1970 is almost 40 years ago. There is no reason for Arkham House to still have any control over the writings of someone who has been dead for 73 years.
What useful function is Arkham House fulfilling (at least in light of being the sole holder of HPL's copyrights)?
If they aren't even making money off of them, then there is no need for this, the "people nebulously attached to content creators deserve a cut" argument dies when they can't even make money.
IP protections for the things you listed are separate, they exist on patents, whereas entertainment exists in the realm of copyright. Both systems are broken, but patents at least approach reasonable. Hell, most of us would be happy if copyright and patents had the same terms and conditions.
The figure was pulled from my ass, so I probably could live for 20+ years exactly as I am now, but wasn't quite sure, so I reduced the figure for safety (and to cover my lack of mathematical gumption).
If you were smart, and made decent investments, I'm guessing you could stretch that million for a lifetime of happy middle class living sans work. Though I doubt that life would be very fulfilling without work.
Considering that for 1Mil, I could live very happily for 10+ years without working (at my current standard of living), or 5+ years as a very happy indulgent moron, then yes, I would take it. But if I was in the top 1000 companies indexed on Google, I wouldn't take it, since A) I'm not an "I" but a company, B) 1Mil isn't much money for these behemoths, and probably not worth the millions in lost business, C) Microsoft is involved, and D) there might be hidden legal problems involved that my shareholders wouldn't like.
Even without copyright, artists still have some rights with regard to what they produce, specifically those that are based on contracts.
To pick nits; Aren't these rights based on contracts also only based on legal whim? There are no contracts without enforcement, and enforcement is a government thing (in the modern age).
Actually, I can't think of a single innate right that an artist would have, that I wouldn't. To be honest, I can't think of a single innate right. Rights generally are only those things that you can convince others you have, and convince enough people to protect, that is it. If the government decided to revoke copyright completely, then there would be no rights attached to the creation of insubstantial works.
So artists are the only ones to get a government enforced and mandated estate? When I, or anyone else who isn't dealing with eternal copyrights, die my estate will consist of my assets and savings, minus debt. When an "artist" dies, their estate is assets and savings, plus a government mandated money tree. There is nothing saying "artists" can save up money and leave it to their children just like the rest of us. I don't see why "saving money" is an onus that "artists" should be saved from?
Also, this is a bit of a misnomer, since most of these "artists" copyrights are not making money for their children, they are making money (for all eternity) for large corporations that had nothing to do with creating music in the first place.
Does Arkham House (for example) really deserve to have the rights (and thus get a cut) of most of H.P. Lovecrafts works? Why the hell did they do to deserve such an eternal money maker?
Personally I think copyright should be limited to the life of the "artist", and completely non-transferable. And if you opt out of the non-transferable bit, it should be a flat, non-renewable, 30 years. I know this will never happen, so in the spirit of compromise I like the idea of a 15 year copyright, with one free extension, and after that all extensions cost a rising amount of money (based on the market value of the property).
We forget that copyright was not created (at least in the US) for the good of the artist, but for the good of the public.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, if you are calling them criminal because of Iraq/Afghanistan, then nope. The real problem was not CIA. These were simply foot soldiers doing what they were ordered to by the highest level of the gov.
To risk a Godwin, "just following orders" hasn't been a valid defense (or, in this case moral rationalization) since Nuremberg. Soldiers are just people, and people are culpable for their actions. If someone works for a company, and that company asks them to do something illegal, whose to blame? Both the company for asking illegal activities from its employees, and the employee for carrying out illegal activities. Why should tacking the world "soldier" onto it make it any different?
If the people of the CIA broke international law, and acted in a way that is morally reprehensible to us, then guilt flows down the latter. The US Gov't is guilty of making illegal demands, the CIA is guilty of not questioning these demands, and the employees of the CIA who actually carried this out are guilty of doing it (or at least not all turning into merry whistleblowers).
But I consider it to be a tremendous and horrid act to behave in accordance with laws which violate someone's human rights.
I personally dislike China's ubiquitous censorship, and Google supporting it. But I don't think that internet searches have anything to do with human rights. What right is being infringed upon? Sure, it is still tyranny, but I have grave doubts that there is any right to uncensored internet searches (actually I have grave doubts that there are any innate human rights at all!).
Can't believe you got modded Troll instead of insightful.
It's because I had something bad to say about The Anointed One.
See? Got modded down again.
Perhaps because talking about John Ashcroft is a wee bit off topic?
Also, the last post was a troll, pure and simple. No one, that I know of at least, thinks Obama is "anointed" or any such crap, and most everyone I know is pretty far left. Actually, the further left you are, the more disappointed with Obama you probably are. Most people probably only voted for Obama because they were sick of the right, and deathly afraid of McCain/Palin, and not because he is some special super-politician who can save us from all our ills.
In regards to your first post, it perhaps shouldn't be modded as a troll, but perhaps as "woohoo cliche hip cynicism!" Your vote as an individual counts as much as anyone else's, no, it will never actually count beyond your actual worth though. Now if you organized like minded people, and worked to convince others that your opinion was worthy, then that WOULD count more. But just whinging that your vote doesn't count because a majority of voters don't share your opinion and voted otherwise, thats just silly. The problem with America is that everyone's vote counts, and a vast majority of American's are uninformed idiots, or rabidly idealistic and naive. And worse, everyone "knows better" than everyone else, and would like to impose their views on the rest of us "for their own good".
You think it's bad but you just shrug your shoulders and accept the bullshit?
I think its bad, but completely normal (non-nefarious), and I think that playing the same game against it doesn't further anyone's point. Furthermore, I don't think that plebes like you and me have much substance to contribute to the actual scientific debate. You have no strong reason (meaning empirical, or experimental) to say they are wrong, I have no strong empirical reason to claim they are correct (though I would set the odds slightly in the AGW crowds favor, which is a completely meaningless statement). This is a battle of climatologists, we don't matter.
This isn't accepting it, nor is this qualifying it as bullshit or not. This is me, somewhat, shrugging my shoulders though. The only debate I can actually see there being any point in is "if it is true, then what". If it isn't true, then we don't have to do anything, if it is, then we must do something. Thats it.
Everyone who DOES present data to disprove it is met with ridicule, job loss, personal attacks, etc. And of course, there's always a follow up by the global warming nutjobs who "debunk" their claims.
While tragic, this is rather common in all intellectual/academic circles, see Newton vs. Leibniz for an older (and perhaps more vitriolic) example. Sadly this is what happens when science is polluted by politics and economic self-interest (with a dose of religion, oddly), though often the egos of scientists are large enough to allow this to happen in a setting that is pure from superfluous influence.
There really shouldn't be a public debate on the science in the first place. AGW is either happening or not no matter what you or I (or Exxon or Al Gore) believe. Sadly this isn't "fair and balanced" enough for modern times. The debate (once things clear the actual scientists) should be on action and policy, there our opinion should count, but not in the science. Thats the thing that gets me about the whole global warming thing, the emotional drivel we all try to pass of as meaningful. Really, when it comes down to it, it doesn't matter one bit how you or I feel about it, it is a empirical fact or not, period.
Either way - the tactic of proving things with data is useless when the other side simply alters their data and refuses to release it.
"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" doesn't do a damn thing, much less forward the actual science. If AGW is true (and I don't think anyone is in the place to say it is or isn't definitively), then it is a big deal, and deserves some actual data thrown around. If you think the pro-AGW crowd isn't making their point due to bad emotive arguments and bad science, you sure as hell won't make your point by doing the same thing.
Yes, the data should be released. The data probably WILL be released eventually when the groups who have it ensure their exclusivity in publishing (which is rather common in all fields of science). Yes, qualified scientists should wrangle over it and promote their pet oppositional theories. No, some guy on the internet with access to this data still won't (or at least shouldn't) matter.
That's just wrong. The political and economic impact of the proposed regulations is ridiculously large (and negative). Emitting less and polluting less is great. I'm all for a cleaner world with less crap in it. But none of the proposed changes will result in that - the proposed changes simply move pollution generation to China and India and other such countries, while taxing the fuck out of everyone else.
I don't think the long-term impact would be as big as you think (I don't care much about the short term, again no one has the right to profit), new infrastructure means jobs, new technology means jobs, etc... Also in shifting from our current greedy energy overlords to a new batch of greedy green-energy overlords nothing much is lost, the money justs shifts hands. This has happened before, the automotive field killing the buggy field sucked for the buggy makers, but society wasn't hurt by it.
That and I think that green energy technology is intrinsically better than our polluting inefficient stuff we have now, completely ignoring the possibility of global warming. Efficiency (which would have to be contained within any "green" solutions) trumps inefficiency every time.
In short, Al Gore is the devil.
Like all other externally labeled "devils", Al Gore is a charismatic blow-hard genuinely trying to do good in his own mis-guided way. I personally don't like him, but I find it hard to leverage much hate at him. He's been on the environmental thing much longer than the AGW debate, and really didn't profit much on it before now.
The problem, once again, lies not in our stars but in ourselves.
You are correct, but the context still effects the style of our communications. When I'm talking to my boss I use a different vocabulary and syntax than when I talk to my parents, when I talk to my pub friends I use language in a way that would be unacceptable to my parents, etc... Most people, of most cultures, do this.
This brings to mind when I finally decided to join the 20th century and get a cell-phone. I tried to type coherent sentences with proper punctuation and capitalization. I promptly stopped doing this, though it pained me, since the amount of time spent typing a message properly completely negated the only benefits to the medium (namely speed). Not that I adopted "text-ese", I just realized that loosening the rules might be advantageous. The same thing happened, to a lesser extent, when I used to run IM programs constantly. Both of these mediums nudge people towards short malformed statements which are more about quickly expressing a point than proper linguistic wrangling.
Yes, someone could write high level grammar in these mediums, but it isn't as natural, and somewhat negates the point of the medium.
Our society is far too kind to the moron, and it is to our detriment.
I generally agree, though we must also keep in mind that proper language does not denote intelligence either. In the US there are tons of dialects that use tortured grammar and word choice (the UK is much worse), but are using the proper language of that particular region/culture. Also, every single one of us is subject to the occasional typo or gaffe, no matter what our level of linguistic skill. They just happen from time to time.
Veering back on topic: This whole discussion is rather silly, borrow words change when they hit a different culture, this is natural and universal. If we were to compare proto-English to what we speak and write today, we'd be shocked since most of what we now speak is borrowed from Latin (via French), even while we keep our Germanic grammar.
If your typing this on a computer, please get off of her, she might be uncomfortable.
Think of all the native English speakers who cannot correctly use words like "loose"/"lose" or "they're"/"there"/"their". It shows that they still struggle with basic usage of their native language, the sorts of issues that they should have worked out back in elementary school. It's noteworthy that foreigners who learn English as a second (or third) langauge tend not to make these mistakes.
You are correct, at least as far as written language. If you were to talk to someone who just confused "lose" with "loose" though, I'm sure they would know the difference. Ditto with "there", "their", "they're." This is more a case of lack of experience with written language, than actual stupidity or laziness. We often forget that /. caters to a demographic that is much more literate than the general population. Even so, if you recall the poll here a few weeks back, there are some among us who refuse to read books, and probably don't write much either (no, code doesn't count). Also, most forms of electronic communications generally foster bad habits and promote general laziness. Something about electronic communications spawns a "throw away" mind set. When I sit down to write something on paper, or even plan on writing a serious document in word, I write much better than any /. reply I've ever written.
This type of forum is more like a rambling discussion, than a well-structured debate. How often do you actually use completely proper grammar in a colloquial setting? How often does even the most mindlessly pedantic of us slip and say "ATM machine?"
In the end though, it really doesn't matter. Language exists for communications, and is generally tailored to the audience and intention of the speaker. I see no need to spend the time writing a doctoral dissertation level reply to you.
On topic, how many readers here actually didn't understand what the summary was talking about? If you were genuinely confused you might have a legitimate case to complain, if not your just being a mildly sophisticated troll (but a troll nonetheless).
I am one of those terrible, evil, baby eating smokers, and I never lost a computer because of it. My girlfriend is also a smoker, and has also never lost a computer due to it. Her parents are smokers, and never... you get the point. The worse domestic computer ick death I'm seen was thanks to cat and dog hair, not smoking. So I don't understand how us "pet haters" have to subsidize people with fuzzy animals. Pet people can simply get rid of their pets, after-all.
I agree on your stance, and wasn't trying to push you into a camp, nor show myself as belonging in one.
It might be suggestive, but lacking context or any reason to show that this word choice pointed to unethical or unscientific (synonyms in this case) actions. When someone says they'll "f'in' bury" someone, I don't take it as a slip meaning that they actually will murder someone.
I'm taking the word "hide" as completely irrelevant for now, unless it can actually be proven that something was "hidden" (in the nefarious, or misleading sense).
The earth's climate is changing, as it tends to do.
Humans are not affecting it in any measurable way.
The change will be extremely slow and gradual.
The change will not destroy the planet.
The change may be an inconvenience for people, and certain species may go extinct.
There is nothing humans can do to stop it.
Good, you have a hypothesis. Now go and actually prove it. Or at least work to disprove the alternative with, you know, actual data.
I'm a skeptic, I don't actually know if anthropogenic global warming is happening. I'm guessing we'll know with reasonable certainty sometime in the next 20-100 years. I haven't seen any data that conclusively proves or disproves AGW. Personally though I'm in favor of the reforms presented by the global warming crowd though, even if they haven't convinced me that they are correct. Why? Because we have more to lose if they are right and we do nothing, than if they are wrong and we do something. Also, the solutions presented by them make more sense than the status-quo. Emitting less is a good idea, as is increased efficiency. And I really don't see it as my responsibility to ensure the profits of billionaires who don't give one lick about me. Exxon can fold tomorrow, and I won't shed a tear.
Because its email that wasn't slated for public release?
If I knew that all my private email would be leaked someday (and someone actually cared enough to read it), I sure as hell would write much different than I do today.
In and ideal free market type scheme this would be true, but you forget the value of marketing, and forced scarcity. Look at the vodka and tequila markets for proof of this.
Perception is 50% of taste, generally.
I remember back in college, I was in the HRM department's (which was in the top 5 internationally) wine club. We noticed that the higher priced wine always scored much higher than the cheaper stuff in our tastings. We though this was natural, because, obviously, higher priced wines MUST be better than the cheaper stuff. One week, the head of the club decided to remove all the price, naming, and regional information from the wines before the tasting. The result was that a $10 (retail) Merlot scored evenly with a $200 bottle (wholesale). After this, all tastings were done the same, and often the expensive wines scored slightly lower than the high priced ones, but were generally pretty close. Taste also comes into play, we all don't like the same things, and often taste is completely subjective. Give me the most highly rated Zinfandel and I probably would give a pretty low reguard compaired to a more moderately rated Shiraz, the same goes for region, I personally think the highest quality Australian or South American wines pale in comparison to the mid-line quality wines from Sonoma or France. Or as my dad once told me "The cheapest French wine is generally better than the best American wine". Other would disagree, which is my whole point.
This is true of more than wines, go check your top shelf vodkas, most of them taste just as good as a $25 bottle of "lesser" vodka. Price influences perception, and perception influences the actual experience. Yes, often price does correlate with quality, but often there is a level where this ceases to happen and "expensive image" takes over from "actual quality". Is a Lexus really much better than a Toyota?
The top end, and the bottom end are generally not worth the money.
Nuclear power plants are a tool.
Nuclear bombs are a tool.
Both morally neutral.
Which was my point.
But hurr durr [citation needed]!
It's like a 5 year old saying "oh yeah? prove it!" when you tell them to brush their damned teeth or they'll get cavities.
Actually, it was more like a reasonable response from just about anyone when confronted by someone trying to make an argument support with statistics that they pulled from their ass. I'm guessing that a majority of torrents are copyright violations, but I'm not going to state that anything around 99.99% of torrents are. I'm not going to stick a number on this, and I'm not going to state it like a fact, since that would also fall under the sin of talking out of my ass and trying to pass it on as gospel.
We don't actually know the full extent of piracy, nor do we know what the actual ratio of copyrighted material vs. legitimate material is at TPB. This debate is also enriched a bit by adding the caveat "illegal by whose laws".
Nuclear bombs are nothing more than a tool.
And completely legal and morally neutral.
The USE of the tool is a case by case thing, blah blah blah.
Actually, nuclear technology is a tool, and morally ambivalent. If you make a bomb from it then you might be falling into the "bad" use area (though one could argue that the scientists in the Manhattan Project were building it for the right reason, to combat Hitler), where using it for power is a morally "good" use. In a WWII scenario we can see the creation of the bomb as another morally neutral argument, it was originally going to be used to combat Hitler (before he could develop like), which in the eyes of most of those involved was a "good" use. Later when Hitler was defeated, a lot of the scientists objected it to being used on Japan, on a civilian target. Obviously the bomb was a bad thing in the Cold War, though many argue that nuclear weapons were a deterrent for actual violence, and thus a good thing at best, and a regretfully necissary gray thing at worst.
There is a lot of nuance out there.
Lets say that piracy is a bad thing, and torrents facilitate piracy. Lets also say, now, that the content industry finally joined the 21st century and decided to use torrents to distribute content, would torrents still be bad?
Though personally I don't care about piracy anyone. I'm completely in favor of piracy. I don't even bother to have a weak moral justification. Companies are out to screw me, so I have no problem with screwing them.
I mean, the forefathers put copyright into the Constitution for a reason.
Copyright, though is a very different beast today from what it was in the Constitution. We've revised it into:
To promote the Profit of International Corporations, by securing for unlimited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
I doubt this, and [citation needed]. A lot of non-piracy based things are using torrent these days as a means for distributing patches, and downloading content. There is also Linux distros, and several sites that offer torrents old old movies in the public domain.
Torrents are nothing more than a tool, and is completely legally and morally neutral. The USE of the tool is a case by case thing, and wholly dependent on how people use it, and thus culpability falls onto individuals, and not the tool itself. Torrent's, in themselves, are nothing more than a bandwidth effiecient way of moving data around, just like every other protocol on the Internet. People use FTP, HTTP, and Usenet to pirate data too, should there be demonized just like torrents?
By all means, go after individual violators, but leave the tool alone.
Things out of copyright still have commercial value, you just lose the monopoly aspect. Look at Trent Reznor/Nine Inch Nails Creative Commons releases, there is nothing stopping the unwashed hordes from freely downloading the content, but he still made money hand over fist, even without copyright behind him (yes, he had a prexisting fan base, etc... but the argument still holds in this case). Even looking at the piracy ridden music scene today, these artists still make tons of money even while their whole catalog is freely-available online.
There might not be AS MUCH commercial value, but there still is a significant amount.
Also, the artist is dead, I doubt they care about their continued profit over their last 4 albums. Their family might, but this is of no concern, since the artist could have stashed some amount of their profits into a fund to provide
for them, just like the rest of us non-creative working stiffs.
I don't really care one bit about anyone in the equation outside of the actual content creator. They are the only ones that copyright exists for.
But...
HPL is long dead, and August Derleth is long dead. Most of HPL's writing is nearing 90+ years old, and 1970 is almost 40 years ago. There is no reason for Arkham House to still have any control over the writings of someone who has been dead for 73 years.
What useful function is Arkham House fulfilling (at least in light of being the sole holder of HPL's copyrights)?
If they aren't even making money off of them, then there is no need for this, the "people nebulously attached to content creators deserve a cut" argument dies when they can't even make money.
IP protections for the things you listed are separate, they exist on patents, whereas entertainment exists in the realm of copyright. Both systems are broken, but patents at least approach reasonable. Hell, most of us would be happy if copyright and patents had the same terms and conditions.
The figure was pulled from my ass, so I probably could live for 20+ years exactly as I am now, but wasn't quite sure, so I reduced the figure for safety (and to cover my lack of mathematical gumption).
If you were smart, and made decent investments, I'm guessing you could stretch that million for a lifetime of happy middle class living sans work. Though I doubt that life would be very fulfilling without work.
Considering that for 1Mil, I could live very happily for 10+ years without working (at my current standard of living), or 5+ years as a very happy indulgent moron, then yes, I would take it. But if I was in the top 1000 companies indexed on Google, I wouldn't take it, since A) I'm not an "I" but a company, B) 1Mil isn't much money for these behemoths, and probably not worth the millions in lost business, C) Microsoft is involved, and D) there might be hidden legal problems involved that my shareholders wouldn't like.
Even without copyright, artists still have some rights with regard to what they produce, specifically those that are based on contracts.
To pick nits; Aren't these rights based on contracts also only based on legal whim? There are no contracts without enforcement, and enforcement is a government thing (in the modern age).
Actually, I can't think of a single innate right that an artist would have, that I wouldn't. To be honest, I can't think of a single innate right. Rights generally are only those things that you can convince others you have, and convince enough people to protect, that is it. If the government decided to revoke copyright completely, then there would be no rights attached to the creation of insubstantial works.
So artists are the only ones to get a government enforced and mandated estate? When I, or anyone else who isn't dealing with eternal copyrights, die my estate will consist of my assets and savings, minus debt. When an "artist" dies, their estate is assets and savings, plus a government mandated money tree. There is nothing saying "artists" can save up money and leave it to their children just like the rest of us. I don't see why "saving money" is an onus that "artists" should be saved from?
Also, this is a bit of a misnomer, since most of these "artists" copyrights are not making money for their children, they are making money (for all eternity) for large corporations that had nothing to do with creating music in the first place.
Does Arkham House (for example) really deserve to have the rights (and thus get a cut) of most of H.P. Lovecrafts works? Why the hell did they do to deserve such an eternal money maker?
Personally I think copyright should be limited to the life of the "artist", and completely non-transferable. And if you opt out of the non-transferable bit, it should be a flat, non-renewable, 30 years. I know this will never happen, so in the spirit of compromise I like the idea of a 15 year copyright, with one free extension, and after that all extensions cost a rising amount of money (based on the market value of the property).
We forget that copyright was not created (at least in the US) for the good of the artist, but for the good of the public.