I think it also contributed greatly to the Swedish Pirate Party's success in the EU Parlament.
In any case, we're in a better position to do something about it now. That's how politics work: You slowly build up acceptance for your ideas, until you are able to win at the public voting booth/negotiations.
Freenet and I2P have different design goals. The unique thing about Freenet is its ability to store data in the network itself. You upload something to Freenet, and the data blocks are spread over the (currently) tens of thousands of nodes in encrypted form. This makes it impossible to stop something from being distributed by shutting down the source, but also makes the programmer's task harder.
Actually, here in Sweden, coordinated efforts from bloggers focused attention on a surveillance law our politicians tried to sneak through parlament without anyone noticing. In the end, the law was only delayed and slightly modified, but the newspapers started writing a lot more about the issue and people seem more aware of the problem now.
A small portion of the world's population is using most of its natural resources. It is only that small portion who needs to lower their demands.
Also remember that it is not a zero-sum game; with better technology we can get more use out of the same amount of natural resources. So far, we've used technology to increase the standard of living while consuming even more natural resources, but if we have to, we can learn to use technology to be more efficient instead.
You make it sound like these strategies are typical of pseudoscience... appeals to emotion, the use of strawmen, false dichotomies, and so on, are frequently used to argue correct and/or scientific viewpoints. The argument tactics have nothing to do with the theory itself.
Using well-known pseudoscience as examples may even detract from the point the teacher is trying to make. The student will know from the start what conclusion he/she is expected to arrive at, and doesn't have to look very hard at the actual arguments to determine their validity.
Well, that is largely how it is supposed to work, but passing a new law can restrict the power given by an old one. For example, if there is a law establishing the existence of a police force, a second law can limit what the police force is allowed to do.
I stand corrected. Still, nobody used multi-touch for their phones until Apple did, and as soon as the iPhone had it, everyone else wanted it too. Obviously Apple must have made some difference by digging up ideas and bringing them together in their product, even if the ideas themselves were old.
Bear in mind that copyright holders are using economics arguments, which are always going to be perceived as being much stronger than "I don't like this law because I don't think it's very nice" arguments.
It's ironic you should say that, because economic arguments are the strongest arguments against copyright.
For example, there is no doubt that copyright terms are far, far too long to be beneficial to society. One or two decades is more than enough to give creators an incentive to create; having longer copyright terms than necessary will only prevent society from enjoying the full benefits of the works already created. (Read Against Intellectual Monopoly for more economic arguments.)
It's mostly a matter of lobbying. For example, here in the EU, record companies approached politicians with scary-sounding numbers of how much the industry loses on pirating, explained how many people would lose their jobs if it continued, and got an extension to the copyright of music performances. So now Elvis Presley's recordings are kept out of the public domain for a few more decades (yes, the copyright to Elvis Presleys recordings are held by a German music company). The politicians themselves were too uninformed to see through the layers of bullshit.
To me, "science" is the social phenomenon that people refer to as "science": an abstract set of principles and methods for inquiry, a system for peer review, a body of universities, researchers and journals, and so on.
Slashdot Mirror
It must be nice to be so sure of the right answers.
Good point. Monopolists are the natural enemies of free speech.
I think it also contributed greatly to the Swedish Pirate Party's success in the EU Parlament.
In any case, we're in a better position to do something about it now. That's how politics work: You slowly build up acceptance for your ideas, until you are able to win at the public voting booth/negotiations.
Entering a business =/= gaining a dominance there
Don't worry, as long as they actually release those patches, they will be mirrored on plenty of pirate sites. :)
As usual, pirates provide a valuable service to the community.
But will it be abandonware anyone can actually use?
Robin Hood took from the rich and gave to to the poor.
Pirates give to everyone, including themselves, without taking away from anyone. That's the beauty of sharing.
As a laptop gamer without a CD drive, I download cracks for the games that I've legally bought.
Much like terrorists and legislators, then.
Going through history, I'm sure you can find plenty of similar odd couples.
But the point of publishing the blacklist on a website, was to show that many of the sites are, in fact, not child pornography sites.
Freenet and I2P have different design goals. The unique thing about Freenet is its ability to store data in the network itself. You upload something to Freenet, and the data blocks are spread over the (currently) tens of thousands of nodes in encrypted form. This makes it impossible to stop something from being distributed by shutting down the source, but also makes the programmer's task harder.
Actually, here in Sweden, coordinated efforts from bloggers focused attention on a surveillance law our politicians tried to sneak through parlament without anyone noticing. In the end, the law was only delayed and slightly modified, but the newspapers started writing a lot more about the issue and people seem more aware of the problem now.
But think of the children!
No wait! Don't think of the children!
A small portion of the world's population is using most of its natural resources. It is only that small portion who needs to lower their demands.
Also remember that it is not a zero-sum game; with better technology we can get more use out of the same amount of natural resources. So far, we've used technology to increase the standard of living while consuming even more natural resources, but if we have to, we can learn to use technology to be more efficient instead.
You make it sound like these strategies are typical of pseudoscience... appeals to emotion, the use of strawmen, false dichotomies, and so on, are frequently used to argue correct and/or scientific viewpoints. The argument tactics have nothing to do with the theory itself.
Using well-known pseudoscience as examples may even detract from the point the teacher is trying to make. The student will know from the start what conclusion he/she is expected to arrive at, and doesn't have to look very hard at the actual arguments to determine their validity.
Sorority chicks??!
The main problem is not the growing population, but rather the growing demands of a small segment of the population.
Of course. They couldn't allow made-up stories to make it into the Bible.
Well, that is largely how it is supposed to work, but passing a new law can restrict the power given by an old one. For example, if there is a law establishing the existence of a police force, a second law can limit what the police force is allowed to do.
I stand corrected. Still, nobody used multi-touch for their phones until Apple did, and as soon as the iPhone had it, everyone else wanted it too. Obviously Apple must have made some difference by digging up ideas and bringing them together in their product, even if the ideas themselves were old.
Good :)
Well, sometimes laws are passed which limit the government's freedom, effectively increasing everyone else's.
Bear in mind that copyright holders are using economics arguments, which are always going to be perceived as being much stronger than "I don't like this law because I don't think it's very nice" arguments.
It's ironic you should say that, because economic arguments are the strongest arguments against copyright.
For example, there is no doubt that copyright terms are far, far too long to be beneficial to society. One or two decades is more than enough to give creators an incentive to create; having longer copyright terms than necessary will only prevent society from enjoying the full benefits of the works already created. (Read Against Intellectual Monopoly for more economic arguments.)
It's mostly a matter of lobbying. For example, here in the EU, record companies approached politicians with scary-sounding numbers of how much the industry loses on pirating, explained how many people would lose their jobs if it continued, and got an extension to the copyright of music performances. So now Elvis Presley's recordings are kept out of the public domain for a few more decades (yes, the copyright to Elvis Presleys recordings are held by a German music company). The politicians themselves were too uninformed to see through the layers of bullshit.
The question is why copying should be illegal if we already pay for it.
To me, "science" is the social phenomenon that people refer to as "science": an abstract set of principles and methods for inquiry, a system for peer review, a body of universities, researchers and journals, and so on.