As much as I'd like to see Microsoft cease to exist, having the company gutted and run into the ground after an LBO is a cure FAR worse than the disease.
First, they flat out pocket the cash reserves.
Second, they borrow huge amounts of money against MS capital - and pocket that.
Weird Al does this because he is a decent guy and smart enough to know that he is part of an industry that relies on personal relationships, and he wants to keep good relations.
In the instance you pointed out ("Amish Paradise", I believe), lawsuits were never even mentioned. Just a pissed off rapper mouthing off. Is that redundant?
I believe the concept of fair use specifically and clearly covers exactly the situation you describe - modifying a copywrited work for parody or satire. Check the "Wind Done Gone" case.
The doctored photos of Kerry were different - they weren't satire or parody. And the furor over them wasn't about copyright violation - it was over the intent to deceive.
Never "correct" your teacher in public. Answer questions accurately. If the teacher says you are wrong, and you believe you are right, tell me about it. I'll take care of it.
Are you aware that fruit and vegetables naturally grow in seasons, dependent on the local climate cycle? The year round availability of fruits and vegetables is a huge luxury, wholly dependent on massive expenditures of resources for shipping and irrigation. And the vitamins and other carefully selected foodstuffs that substitute for some components of meat are a result of an industrialized culture?
Read "Guns, Germs, and Steel." Get some perspective.
Oh yeah - you may think your shit (literally AND figuratively) doesn't stink, but most of the healthy eaters I've known have also had the most rancid asses. Go figure.
I second that emotion...entering high school, I was about as nerdy as possible - real smart, physically inept, and a poor dresser. I joined the wrestling team taht year because I wanted to learn a quasi-combat sport (I was a soccer player prior to that).
The transformation was amazing. I stopped slouching, walked straighter, and carried myself with authority. I went from being inable to complete the Physical Fitness Test (not one pullup, 2-3 push ups) to being recruited by the gym coach for interscholastic competition. I never realized it, though - when a friend referred to me as "the second biggest guy in the sophmore class", I thought he was joking (the first biggest was my best friend).
The wrestling team still wasn't cool (we had an awful record), but NOBODY fucked with us. Anyone got uppity, we politely invited them to a practice. No one ever came back, and we didn't even do anything special - typically they didn't make it through the PT portion of the practice, much less actually wrestling. I was still a geek, and socially inept, but I was spared the bullying part.
Geeks tend to disdain physical conditioning as somehow "unworthy" of their efforts, but being in shape can make you *feel* different about yourself.
You hit the nail on the head. The Circuit City/DivX fiasco should be the textbook business case that we push to the public and Congress whenever the **AA's start trotting out the "piracy is killing us" line.
There is nothing like pain as a negative reinforcement, and Circuit City took it up the ass (no lube, either) directly due to the overly restrictive controls on their product. They KNOW how much it hurt business, and can point straight to the balance sheet. So I'm not surprised they are looking in the other direction.
As for pissing off the **AA's, I seem to recall that Disney was their partner in the DivX fiasco, and once things started going sour, Disney hung them out to dry. Maybe that's why Disney never learned from it - they never experiencede teh pain, and so are still in love with DRM. I can't see any love lost between Circuit City and the content producers.
Bullshit. You are describing enabling. Taking all the blame to "save the relationship" has been the plaintive cry of abused spouses an spouses of alcoholics and drug abusers since time immemorial. Certainly this situation isn't as serious, but the framework is there.
If this person follows your advice, it won't turn out like you suggest. Why? Because she KNOWS he is a competent tech, and that the problems are her fault. She will keep the computer, in its crappy state, and she will still complain about the shit job he did, but now she'll add "And now he won't fix it. Waaahhhh!"
Stand up for your dignity. If the sister cuts off the relationship, she obviously doesn't value it very much (although he should be able to figure that out already).
Starts strong, ends pathetic. Some judicious editing:
"This is not working. I try to do my best helping you with your computer problems in any way I can; I even built your last computer to save you some money. I have been at your beck and call, day and night, for years. What I get from you is a constant stream of complaints."
"Clearly, what I can offer you in help is not good enough by far.[cut] So from now on I will not interfere. [cut] Buy your next computer from a [cut]vendor, with a service contract, and contact their professionals if you ever experience a problem with your new machine. "
Now walk away.
As stated somewhere above, your sister is the problem. You don't have to tell he that to her face, but DON'T take the blame on yourself, even sarcastically. That would be playing into her game (and it IS a game).
"The 'bits and bytes in the aether' are very relevant here. Those bits say "Wireless network here, without security, and here's a DHCP lease just to be sure you can use it!"
No, they don't say that. That is your interpretation of the activities of the devices. They don't "say" anything. I could almost agree with the physical analogy you are making, until you get to the last part: "just to be sure you can use it". Wher does the first part of your statement lead to the second part. Don't say "It's obvious", for it isn't obvious to me at all. Please explain exactly how knowledge of the presence of a wireless network without security and a DHCP lease grants permission to use those services.
I'm trying to focus the debate on whether the implied permission that the network devices dish out (aka broadcasting the availability of a service) should extend to show legal permission. I'm sick of stupid physical analogies that don't fit."
Well, you are stuck with them. People have tried to say "this situation is different, so the existing rules don't apply". If that were true, we'd still be living with only the Code of Hammurabi (sp?). Laws change to adapt to new situation, while being informed by the old - it's called precedent. Morality works the same way, too.
"You, the owner of that computer equipment, have set it up explicitly. How you set it up is VERY relevant to this debate. If you explicitly allow public access and you are the owner of the equipment, how does that impact the implied permission? You set up the equipment to broadcast those electrons, so to say that what the boxes do with those electrons is irrelevant is absurd.
Funny, I happen to be of the opinion that the owner of the computer equipment just *might* be responsbile for how it is used. What a fucking crazy thought."
The word "explicitly allow" presumes that the Owner knew what he or she was doing, and had to do something active to grant permission. For most of the users of this equipment, neither is the case. You want to be using the term "implicitely", which is more passive.
I'm not saying that all moochers should be drawn and quartered - there's a reason judges and prosecutors have leeway to make rational judgements on severity and punishment. But it is wrong to draw the conclusion that using an open WIFI connection without the owner's explicit (and I use that word intentionally)permission is correct just because a trivial use would be considered harmless and not prosecuted (legal) or condemned (moral).
Let's look at this another way. Let's suppose you are using your neighbor's connection, and he calls you up and asks for advise. He doesn't want people using the device, but mentions that he won't be securing it, because he doesn't really understand how.
Do you:
a) Stop, because he has explicitely said he does not wish to grant permission for others to use it. b) Ignore him, because his explicit denial of permission is overridden by his implicit granting of permission in allowing his WAP to remain unsecured. c) Tell him to fuck off, you'll stop using his connection when he figures out how to keep you out. He's a technological idiot, he gets what he deserves.
Let me give you a hint - the answer should not depend on whether he called you or not. That's what morality is about - doing the right thing when no one is looking.
Not under most systems of law. With some exceptions (Montana's open range law comes to mind) walking on another's property is trespassing. Period. The law allows for flexible sentencing regarding teh nature of the crime, and there are juries to consider, but trespassing is pretty straightforward under most legal systems, and walking into my garden, sign or fence notwithstanding, qualifies.
"Please, people, stop using these inane physical analogies."
Who is using inane physical analogies here?
"It does not compare to the 'visibility' of your garden. You are broadcasting radio waves, advertising a service for public consumption. If you had a sign on your garden saying "Public Garden" then, yes, the analogy fits. Stop comparing this to private property. Your radio broadcasts, leaving your private property, are not protected as if they were physical items you own. Do not pretend this is the case. This is about more than private property, this is about advertised services."
Advertising a service for public consumption? No it isn't - it is sending bits and bytes through the aether. It is you who are identifying these these electronic happenings with the real world of permissions, rights, law, and morality.
It is wholly irrelevant what the boxes are doing with their electrons - if one has not received express permission to use services paid for or otherwise possessed by another, then the use of those services is wrong both legally and morally. Trying to justify it by saying "their box gave me permission" is both disingenuous and deceitful: first, because permission to use the Internet services wasn't what was given, only that a connection to a private network was established, and second, "permission" can't be granted or implied by devices interacting with each otehr in the absense of some other agreement.
You cannot give your computer power of attorney, and you cannot assume I am giving my router that same power to grant the "permission" you are saying it is granting.
Yes, the computer is "asking" the router "permission", and the router is "granting permission" - the only problem is, the words we use to describe these actions may appear to be descriptive of thinking and volition, but they really mean neither. Computers and routers simply CANNOT give "permission" in any legal or moral sense.
To use the yard analogy that seems to be popular for these threads, lets supposed your neighbor's massively retarded child asks your massively retarded child for permission for his Daddy to use your yard, and your child agrees. Neighbor then comes over and stages a cookout on your lawn, or for that matter just walks across it.
When you confront him, he says "But my kid asked your kid, and he said yes." This is binding? Common sense and the law would say no, yet you would allow devices with an order of magnitude less analytical power than a retarded child to give and receive similar permissions.
Repeat after me folks: devices CANNOT give and receive permission for human actions without those permissions EXPRESSly being granted via some other means.
A traffic light doesn't give you permission to cross the street; the government(that you studied to get your license) gives you permission to cross the intersection when a light is green, and denies it when red.
Your ID badge doesn't ask permission to enter your building, and the security system doesn't grant permission; YOU ask for permission by presenting the badge, and your employer grants it by programming said system to accept your request.
The analogy is not flawed. So the router is "visible", with an option to make it invisible. Big deal. My garden is visible from the street, but I can put a tarp around it to obscure its existence. What you are saying is that, unles I put a tarp up around my garden, everyone has a right to use it.
Wireless networks may make themselves conspicuous, but that does not confer an invitation to use them. The connection between "visible" and "inviting" is not legally or morally valid. (I am excepting the concept of "attractive nuisance", but I don't think open routers will come under that area of liability)
"Yes. Take away the credit cards, checkbook, ATM/debit cards, etc."
Did it. My relationship with my wife is more strained, but I stopped having mini heart attacks when overdraw notices stopped appearing with metronomic regularity.
My sister in law had a similar experience: 2 miscarriages, 1 daughter by IVF, twin boys via Clomid (had to have Snotty Wasp Name the Fourth). After securing the heir and a spare WHAMMO - surprise preganacy. Apparently, after they blew the rust out of her pipes her natural fertility took over (family breeds like rabbits - *indescriminant* rabbits).
Was your first child conceived via in vitro or other infertility treatment methods? If so, you may not have payed more than $12k, but someone did. Just because it's low cost to an individual doesn't mean the cost doesn't exist.
50 hours? BFD - a bargain compared to the time some treatments cost, not to mention 9 months of nausea and irritibility (I hear that women have it bad, too).
Option #1: You are a male. No, you don't want Lesbian Overlords. Not only won't you be getting any, it's not like they will let you watch.
Option #2: You are a female
2A: Lesbian female: You're at the top of the food chain - of course you welcome it. 2B: Hetero Female: It's awful - the LO's have banned sex with men, and (contrary to male fantasy everywhere) you have no interest in muff diving.
Slashdot Mirror
As much as I'd like to see Microsoft cease to exist, having the company gutted and run into the ground after an LBO is a cure FAR worse than the disease.
First, they flat out pocket the cash reserves.
Second, they borrow huge amounts of money against MS capital - and pocket that.
Third, sell off parts of MS. Pocket that.
Fourth, declare bankruptcy. Retire to Bahamas.
Weird Al does this because he is a decent guy and smart enough to know that he is part of an industry that relies on personal relationships, and he wants to keep good relations.
In the instance you pointed out ("Amish Paradise", I believe), lawsuits were never even mentioned. Just a pissed off rapper mouthing off. Is that redundant?
I believe the concept of fair use specifically and clearly covers exactly the situation you describe - modifying a copywrited work for parody or satire. Check the "Wind Done Gone" case.
The doctored photos of Kerry were different - they weren't satire or parody. And the furor over them wasn't about copyright violation - it was over the intent to deceive.
Rules for my kids:
Never "correct" your teacher in public. Answer questions accurately. If the teacher says you are wrong, and you believe you are right, tell me about it. I'll take care of it.
Show scientists that did otehr things as well:
Heddy Lamar (sp?)
I like the Asimov suggestion.
Da Vinci
Bacon (not Kevin)
Franklin
Are you aware that fruit and vegetables naturally grow in seasons, dependent on the local climate cycle? The year round availability of fruits and vegetables is a huge luxury, wholly dependent on massive expenditures of resources for shipping and irrigation. And the vitamins and other carefully selected foodstuffs that substitute for some components of meat are a result of an industrialized culture?
Read "Guns, Germs, and Steel." Get some perspective.
Oh yeah - you may think your shit (literally AND figuratively) doesn't stink, but most of the healthy eaters I've known have also had the most rancid asses. Go figure.
I second that emotion...entering high school, I was about as nerdy as possible - real smart, physically inept, and a poor dresser. I joined the wrestling team taht year because I wanted to learn a quasi-combat sport (I was a soccer player prior to that).
The transformation was amazing. I stopped slouching, walked straighter, and carried myself with authority. I went from being inable to complete the Physical Fitness Test (not one pullup, 2-3 push ups) to being recruited by the gym coach for interscholastic competition. I never realized it, though - when a friend referred to me as "the second biggest guy in the sophmore class", I thought he was joking (the first biggest was my best friend).
The wrestling team still wasn't cool (we had an awful record), but NOBODY fucked with us. Anyone got uppity, we politely invited them to a practice. No one ever came back, and we didn't even do anything special - typically they didn't make it through the PT portion of the practice, much less actually wrestling. I was still a geek, and socially inept, but I was spared the bullying part.
Geeks tend to disdain physical conditioning as somehow "unworthy" of their efforts, but being in shape can make you *feel* different about yourself.
"My name is Aaron Krill, and I use Linux."
Hi Aaron. And remember, no last names.
Dammit - my mod points just expired.
You hit the nail on the head. The Circuit City/DivX fiasco should be the textbook business case that we push to the public and Congress whenever the **AA's start trotting out the "piracy is killing us" line.
There is nothing like pain as a negative reinforcement, and Circuit City took it up the ass (no lube, either) directly due to the overly restrictive controls on their product. They KNOW how much it hurt business, and can point straight to the balance sheet. So I'm not surprised they are looking in the other direction.
As for pissing off the **AA's, I seem to recall that Disney was their partner in the DivX fiasco, and once things started going sour, Disney hung them out to dry. Maybe that's why Disney never learned from it - they never experiencede teh pain, and so are still in love with DRM. I can't see any love lost between Circuit City and the content producers.
Don't forget:
Principal's who think their shit doesn't stink... Check.
Claims that "This time, it's different"... Check.
Is their anyway we can invest in these idiots' inevitable collapse? 'Cause we KNOW it's coming.
Bullshit. You are describing enabling. Taking all the blame to "save the relationship" has been the plaintive cry of abused spouses an spouses of alcoholics and drug abusers since time immemorial. Certainly this situation isn't as serious, but the framework is there.
If this person follows your advice, it won't turn out like you suggest. Why? Because she KNOWS he is a competent tech, and that the problems are her fault. She will keep the computer, in its crappy state, and she will still complain about the shit job he did, but now she'll add "And now he won't fix it. Waaahhhh!"
Stand up for your dignity. If the sister cuts off the relationship, she obviously doesn't value it very much (although he should be able to figure that out already).
Starts strong, ends pathetic. Some judicious editing:
"This is not working. I try to do my best helping you with your computer problems in any way I can; I even built your last computer to save you some money. I have been at your beck and call, day and night, for years. What I get from you is a constant stream of complaints."
"Clearly, what I can offer you in help is not good enough by far.[cut] So from now on I will not interfere. [cut] Buy your next computer from a [cut]vendor, with a service contract, and contact their professionals if you ever experience a problem with your new machine. "
Now walk away.
As stated somewhere above, your sister is the problem. You don't have to tell he that to her face, but DON'T take the blame on yourself, even sarcastically. That would be playing into her game (and it IS a game).
"The 'bits and bytes in the aether' are very relevant here. Those bits say "Wireless network here, without security, and here's a DHCP lease just to be sure you can use it!"
No, they don't say that. That is your interpretation of the activities of the devices. They don't "say" anything. I could almost agree with the physical analogy you are making, until you get to the last part: "just to be sure you can use it". Wher does the first part of your statement lead to the second part. Don't say "It's obvious", for it isn't obvious to me at all. Please explain exactly how knowledge of the presence of a wireless network without security and a DHCP lease grants permission to use those services.
I'm trying to focus the debate on whether the implied permission that the network devices dish out (aka broadcasting the availability of a service) should extend to show legal permission. I'm sick of stupid physical analogies that don't fit."
Well, you are stuck with them. People have tried to say "this situation is different, so the existing rules don't apply". If that were true, we'd still be living with only the Code of Hammurabi (sp?). Laws change to adapt to new situation, while being informed by the old - it's called precedent. Morality works the same way, too.
"You, the owner of that computer equipment, have set it up explicitly. How you set it up is VERY relevant to this debate. If you explicitly allow public access and you are the owner of the equipment, how does that impact the implied permission? You set up the equipment to broadcast those electrons, so to say that what the boxes do with those electrons is irrelevant is absurd.
Funny, I happen to be of the opinion that the owner of the computer equipment just *might* be responsbile for how it is used. What a fucking crazy thought."
The word "explicitly allow" presumes that the Owner knew what he or she was doing, and had to do something active to grant permission. For most of the users of this equipment, neither is the case. You want to be using the term "implicitely", which is more passive.
I'm not saying that all moochers should be drawn and quartered - there's a reason judges and prosecutors have leeway to make rational judgements on severity and punishment. But it is wrong to draw the conclusion that using an open WIFI connection without the owner's explicit (and I use that word intentionally)permission is correct just because a trivial use would be considered harmless and not prosecuted (legal) or condemned (moral).
Let's look at this another way. Let's suppose you are using your neighbor's connection, and he calls you up and asks for advise. He doesn't want people using the device, but mentions that he won't be securing it, because he doesn't really understand how.
Do you:
a) Stop, because he has explicitely said he does not wish to grant permission for others to use it.
b) Ignore him, because his explicit denial of permission is overridden by his implicit granting of permission in allowing his WAP to remain unsecured.
c) Tell him to fuck off, you'll stop using his connection when he figures out how to keep you out. He's a technological idiot, he gets what he deserves.
Let me give you a hint - the answer should not depend on whether he called you or not. That's what morality is about - doing the right thing when no one is looking.
Why, thank you, I think...
Not under most systems of law. With some exceptions (Montana's open range law comes to mind) walking on another's property is trespassing. Period. The law allows for flexible sentencing regarding teh nature of the crime, and there are juries to consider, but trespassing is pretty straightforward under most legal systems, and walking into my garden, sign or fence notwithstanding, qualifies.
"Please, people, stop using these inane physical analogies."
Who is using inane physical analogies here?
"It does not compare to the 'visibility' of your garden. You are broadcasting radio waves, advertising a service for public consumption. If you had a sign on your garden saying "Public Garden" then, yes, the analogy fits. Stop comparing this to private property. Your radio broadcasts, leaving your private property, are not protected as if they were physical items you own. Do not pretend this is the case. This is about more than private property, this is about advertised services."
Advertising a service for public consumption? No it isn't - it is sending bits and bytes through the aether. It is you who are identifying these these electronic happenings with the real world of permissions, rights, law, and morality.
It is wholly irrelevant what the boxes are doing with their electrons - if one has not received express permission to use services paid for or otherwise possessed by another, then the use of those services is wrong both legally and morally. Trying to justify it by saying "their box gave me permission" is both disingenuous and deceitful: first, because permission to use the Internet services wasn't what was given, only that a connection to a private network was established, and second, "permission" can't be granted or implied by devices interacting with each otehr in the absense of some other agreement.
You cannot give your computer power of attorney, and you cannot assume I am giving my router that same power to grant the "permission" you are saying it is granting.
Yes, the computer is "asking" the router "permission", and the router is "granting permission" - the only problem is, the words we use to describe these actions may appear to be descriptive of thinking and volition, but they really mean neither. Computers and routers simply CANNOT give "permission" in any legal or moral sense.
To use the yard analogy that seems to be popular for these threads, lets supposed your neighbor's massively retarded child asks your massively retarded child for permission for his Daddy to use your yard, and your child agrees. Neighbor then comes over and stages a cookout on your lawn, or for that matter just walks across it.
When you confront him, he says "But my kid asked your kid, and he said yes." This is binding? Common sense and the law would say no, yet you would allow devices with an order of magnitude less analytical power than a retarded child to give and receive similar permissions.
Repeat after me folks: devices CANNOT give and receive permission for human actions without those permissions EXPRESSly being granted via some other means.
A traffic light doesn't give you permission to cross the street; the government(that you studied to get your license) gives you permission to cross the intersection when a light is green, and denies it when red.
Your ID badge doesn't ask permission to enter your building, and the security system doesn't grant permission; YOU ask for permission by presenting the badge, and your employer grants it by programming said system to accept your request.
The analogy is not flawed. So the router is "visible", with an option to make it invisible. Big deal. My garden is visible from the street, but I can put a tarp around it to obscure its existence. What you are saying is that, unles I put a tarp up around my garden, everyone has a right to use it.
Wireless networks may make themselves conspicuous, but that does not confer an invitation to use them. The connection between "visible" and "inviting" is not legally or morally valid. (I am excepting the concept of "attractive nuisance", but I don't think open routers will come under that area of liability)
"I'm done trying to figure you out."
Heads up - that is the preliminary salvo in a breakup.
My advice - start getting all the sex you can and when the axe falls, don't look back.
Absolutely! I for one am going to ignore everything with a 2.0 in it, for everything with 2.0 in the name is stupid.
Hey, wait a minute...
"Yes. Take away the credit cards, checkbook, ATM/debit cards, etc."
Did it. My relationship with my wife is more strained, but I stopped having mini heart attacks when overdraw notices stopped appearing with metronomic regularity.
Good luck to you.
My sister in law had a similar experience: 2 miscarriages, 1 daughter by IVF, twin boys via Clomid (had to have Snotty Wasp Name the Fourth). After securing the heir and a spare WHAMMO - surprise preganacy. Apparently, after they blew the rust out of her pipes her natural fertility took over (family breeds like rabbits - *indescriminant* rabbits).
Was your first child conceived via in vitro or other infertility treatment methods? If so, you may not have payed more than $12k, but someone did. Just because it's low cost to an individual doesn't mean the cost doesn't exist.
50 hours? BFD - a bargain compared to the time some treatments cost, not to mention 9 months of nausea and irritibility (I hear that women have it bad, too).
Option #1: You are a male. No, you don't want Lesbian Overlords. Not only won't you be getting any, it's not like they will let you watch.
Option #2: You are a female
2A: Lesbian female: You're at the top of the food chain - of course you welcome it.
2B: Hetero Female: It's awful - the LO's have banned sex with men, and (contrary to male fantasy everywhere) you have no interest in muff diving.
Where was I going with this?
Depends which feminist you ask.