Well, it's not black and white. I support copyright law too - but not the excessive terms we have (anything over 30 years seems too long for me). Then there is the issue of DRM that prevents me from being able to buy material that people in other countries can (if any other industry refused sale to people based on their country - i.e., it's not just that they didn't sell it there, but they used legal and technological means to prevent them - it would be seen as outright racism).
Then there are people who've only downloaded material that's on the TV we pay for anyway (e.g., I pay a licence fee for the BBC, along with cable fees for a range of channels on top of that - in some cases, I'm forced to pay twice for the same content, when old BBC shows are sold off to other networks). Those people still pay the same money, still watch the same TV, just at a time and schedule that's convenient for them.
There is also the question of proportionality: a prison sentence for hosting torrents? And a fine of millions of dollars (which wasn't even all of what the companies were asking for)?
(I like how making a copy is seen as "theft", but taking millions of dollars isn't...)
it can go into the public domain after I'm dead, but not before.
And even that view is far less strict than the excessive copyright laws that we do have...
The reaction I get from a lot of the people who still download a lot of music from TPB and other places is "$1 is too much for a song!" So what? I think $80,000 is too much for a car, which is why I don't own aa $80,000 car. Not liking the price is NOT justification for taking it anyway.
You have a method of duplicating cars at no cost, but you just choose not to because you can't afford to pay the price that the original one had? Well, that's very nice of you, but perhaps you could share this revolutionary invention with the rest of the world?
Microsoft arranges their cash flow to either a loss or break even all the time as does quite a few other commercial enterprises.
Whilst it's true that many companies may normally make zero profit, the point is that there's still people who are making an income (i.e., the income is factored out so it isn't included in "profit").
I would hope that TPB could show that revenue equals costs, without including them paying themselves a wage out of it.
Perhaps, but it ought to be possible to do all sorts of things, such as donating to legal fees or a political party, without being publically identified (and I would be very worried if the courts did allow the police to go fishing through such data - let alone record companies).
I cannot buy a Microsoft computer, not mini, not laptop, not desktop.
No one claims this - I was just being brief with my wording because I assumed people would get the meaning, but let me spell it out: Microsoft point out that buying a PC with Windows is cheaper than buying a Mac.
I cannot buy an Apple OS and install it on a third party computer (true if I constrain myself to the EULA).
Which is exactly the point that Microsoft are making.
If it is true that Linux is a Microsoft Windows competitor, Microsoft could never point out that they are lower cost. We can lament that Linux prepackaged on a Dell is more expensive than Windows prepackaged on a Dell - but that's not what I said. I can download Linux for free - I cannot do the same for Windows.
Sure, Linux is even cheaper. If someone wants to run Linux ads pointing this out, good luck to them. I wouldn't expect Microsoft too, though. Their adverts are targetting at mainstream users, where Linux is minimal competition. The choice for these people is "PCs being sold in a shop" which tends to be PCs running Windows, and a couple of Macs. Their adverts are targetted against Mac users, so the benefits of Linux, BSD, BeOS or whatever else aren't a concern.
Sometimes, my personal best has been a system based on OS2 Warp. Sometimes, DOS. Sometimes, CP/M. Sometimes, AppleDOS. Sometimes, Windows. Sometimes, OS X. Sometimes, DESQviewX. Sometimes, BSD. Sometimes, HP-UX. Sometimes, Linux. Sometimes, FreeBSD. I have purchased all of the above in my time.
Well sure, but I wouldn't expect Microsoft to spend money on advertising against most of these, as they're not much in the way of competition.
Insightful? I think suggesting that having to use Windows is remotely comparable to poor conditions in developing countries is outright offensive.
And I see no justification for the analogy anyway. Here, let me try: I'd rather use Windows, it's like living in a Europe with low taxes and where I make lots of money, as opposed to an African country with high taxes and where everyone is dying of plague. See, if we can merely make assertions of what an OS is comparable to, it's easy!
Because the vast majority of people don't give a damn about the OS - if they even know what it is.
Yes, we know that a niche of geeks may prefer to run a specific OS, OS X, AmigaOS, whatever, but the point is that those people have already made up their might, and are unlikely to be swayed by a simple advert.
I entirely agree. Whilst one might be thankful if Microsoft gets less promotion from the media, this is more than simply being anti-MS: as you note, Linux doesn't get any attention either. Back in the 80s and 90s when there were other major platforms around, I remember that much of the mainstream press pretended there was a Windows/Mac duopoly (they had to cover DOS/Windows/PCs, because they were mainstream in business, but they also had to cover the Mac too - but nothing else).
The Iphone shows how the pro-Apple bias applies even when Microsoft aren't around. There are billions of phones being sold, from major companies like Nokia. Features such as 3G and Internet access have been standard on even basic phones for years. Yet the Iphone comes along, and gets all the free press.
but if Apple can command that price and have people pay it, what's wrong with that?
I don't think anyone is claiming it's wrong in the sense of it being unethical!
But if Microsoft want to point out they are lower cost that competitors, what's wrong with that?
Just as Apple have every right to make their products expensive if they wish, people have a right to point this out when arguing about which computer is best. The issue is about what platform is best, not whether companies have a legal or ethical right to make their products expensive.
The right is *by definition* control freaks. By definition the right are fans of big government. Hell, theocratic feudalism is the canonical right wing government. You can not have a small right wing government.
Nope, right wing economically simply means things such as capitalism, private control of the means of production and so on - as opposed to left wing, which is ideas such as socialism, state funded production, and so on.
Quite how you get from that to "big government", I frankly I have no idea. Laissez-faire capitalism and libertarianism are right wing with small Government. Communism would be an example of left wing with big Government.
You can have a *Liberal* government which is what you are attempting to describe as "right wing", but that's the center.
Liberal - as opposed to authoritarianism - is a independent axis to being economically left or right wing. You could be liberal centre, liberal left wing, or liberal right wing.
I suspect you are confusing concepts such as right-wing and liberal, with the fact that some people have overloaded these terms to mean very specific things. So some people use right-wing to mean authoritarianism - but other people use left-wing in the same sense.
I know it's nice to pretend that everyone's views can be pigeon-holed into a one dimensional axis, so that you can argue against straw men, but the real world doesn't work that way.
Left: Fundamentally agrees with that one sentence description of Liberalism, but goes further and thinks the power of the state should be used against the individual to enforce that equality.
And that isn't "big government"?
Right: Fundamentally disagrees with that sentence and feels instead that certain elites are born superior to the masses (generally based on race or religion) and that the power of the state should be used against the individual in order to enforce that inequality.
That's one description of "The Right" as used by some in the United States, but it certainly does not cover right wing views in general, especially outside of the US.
Liberalism, of course, doesn't think the power of the state should be used against the individual *at all*.
This is getting more towards anarchism, which can be left wing (e.g., anarcho-communism) or right wing (e.g., anarcho-capitalism).
If 100 people confess to seeing a crime, and their stories match up very closely, then through logic and reasoning, the truth is discovered. There are no scientific hypotheses or tests performed....
Why is it we readily accept things proven scientifically, yet reject those things that cannot be proven scientifically, but can be proven with other valid means (e.g., logic and reasoning)?
There's nothing unscientific about that approach - you're still making observations (the witnesses make observations, we make observations of the witnesses), and forming a model about what happened. That's still following the scientific method - we just don't think of it as "science" because it's not at very high tech, you don't need a scientist in a white coat to explain it to the jury, and the "science" involved is rather trivial.
If we find out about something through observations, forming hypotheses, testing - that's science.
"Science never will be able to observe or explain such concepts as love, hate, sorrow, or joy. Science never will be able to explain why a man in a foxhole during a war throws himself on a hand grenade to save his fellow soldiers."
Of course we can investigate these things scientifically. And if we can't - then no other method will help us find out either.
If think your confusion comes from confusing the scientific method, with a much more narrower usage of the term (i.e., meaning physics, chemistry or biology). When a historian or detective looks at evidence and works out what happened, we call that "history" or "crime solving" not "science", but it's still the same process as the scientific method.
And if you're using it as a desktop system...well, I hope god help you.
Er - why?
(Honestly, I find the Windows 2000 hate funny. I remember when XP first came out, people here hated it. In a few years' time, I bet Vista will be praised as the best OS ever, and anyone on XP will be mocked!)
Sure, some people do... but how many people are actually in this category? And is it worth the Mozilla Foundation's time and money to provide official support for it?
So they're going to drop Linux support too, right? No point wasting the Mozilla Foundation's time and money on it, according to you.
If you don't want to upgrade to XP or Vista because of the typical reasons I hear (don't like activation, too bloated, whatever), then switch to Linux or something
Why would I use Linux? I have nothing against XP, I just see no reason to pay out for an OS, when the one I have works perfectly fine. Maybe I will one day when it's no longer supported by anything I want, but I haven't yet.
Since Linux has even fewer users, I don't see how encouraging Windows 2000 users to switch to Linux will help. You might as well encourage Linux users to switch to Windows 2000...
You may want to consider getting a computer made in the last five years.
I think you misunderstand. He wasn't complaining that his hardware was too slow, he was pointing out that Windows 2000 runs as well, or in fact better, on his hardware.
I have one-year old dual core hardware, and it runs fine with Windows 2000.
Cry me a river, dickhead. I submitted some very valuable imagery to Commons and Wikipedia -- some PD, most GFDL -- to make their particular set of projects better. You wanna use them? The GFDL says you must GFDL your derived works. Incredible, isn't it? You don't like it? TOO FUCKING BAD. Shit happens, the world isn't always to your liking.
Cry me a river. The GFDL also states that it can be relicenced as CC-BY-SA. If you submitted the work under a previous version, then you still agreed under the "or any later version" clause.
Incredible, isn't it? You don't like it? TOO FUCKING BAD. Shit happens, the world isn't always to your liking.
Seriously - try reading the licencing that you submit your work under, before whining about it.
Really? So if someone wants to relicence the latest movie DVD they have under a Creative Commons licence, all they have to do is propose it in a public forum, and if the movie company doesn't object, it's okay?
During this time, having been given legally recognized reasonable notice, copyright holdeers can either agree to the change (by doing nothing) or they can object to the claim and withdraw copyrights to their works.
Firstly, what does "withdraw copyrights" mean?
If you mean refuse to allow their contributions to be distributed under the new licence, then that would create major problems too. Are you really suggesting that for everyone who's edited on Wikipedia, who opposes this change, then Wikipedia will have to remove all of their edits?
But it may be more simple than that: when you submitted your work(s) to wikipedia, dd you READ the license you were submitting it under? In many cases (not necessarily Wikipedia) you are granting the copyrights themselves to the receiver. AFAIK, WP doesn't work this way or they wouldn't have become so popular.
No, the way it works is that you agree your edits to be distributed under the GFDL. This is why Wikipedia can do what they do. AIUI, this change is allowed due to the "or any later version" clause.
But it doesn't mean that people can relicencing other people's content, just so long as they don't explicitly object! If so, that would be an immediate defence for anyone sharing files on bittorrent - "But they didn't object to me doing this".
But if that were the case, a work could basically NEVER be relicensed!
There are three ways to relicence a work: * Get the copyright assigned to you (done for most businesses). * Relicence under terms compatible with the licence you got them to submit the work as (what Wikipedia are doing, AIUI). * Require explicit permission from the copyright holder.
Sorry - for someone who claims "so many here are clueless about copyright licensing", you're talking complete rubbish I'm afraid. If copyright law worked the way you claimed, things would look very different.
Even if a state wanted to vigorously prosecute these laws, how would they go about doing so? If the act is between two consent adults in the privacy of their home, who is going to report the offense?
Police find private pics when searching your PC? Or you forget to keep it secret when being interviewed by a police officer on a completely different matter? Someone walks in on you?
In the UK at least, the police have managed to prosecute people for various private sexual acts, from Turing, to some recent case in the late 90s where people were found guilty, because same-sex sex was still illegal, even in private, if a 3rd person was present (whether or not they were also taking part) (the case thankfully led to the law finally being changed, in 2003 IIRC).
Indeed - I think the difference here is that these laws are not demanded by gay people, and gay people are not demanding that straight people not be allowed that right too (and on the contrary, they'd most likely be in favour of everyone being treated equally here too). As you say, it's due to a quirk in implementation - most likely implemented by straight people.
A quirk in the UK is that gay people can have civil partnerships, whilst straight people can't. But this isn't part of some anti-straight agenda, it's all part of the same problem where gay people and relationships are treated differently by the state.
(The example you refer to applies in the UK too - I noticed that when my brother got married and wanted to change his name. I think the problem there is that the original law itself is sexist - it assumes the woman will change her name, and penalises those who don't go along with it. I'm glad they've fixed this for gay marriages, and I think the answer is to fix it for all marriages.)
The question under debate (which we do not have an answer on, unlike the eye color question) is actually two questions in sequence: - Whether heterosexuality falls into the first, second, or third category from above. - Whether, dependent somewhat on the answer to the previous question, society has an interest (based on there being more good than harm, overall, to society) in the promotion of heterosexual pairings.
You insist that the answer to the primary question is "first cagetory", as evidenced by your (faulty) analogy prior. However, the question is not yet settled scientifically, nor is the rest of society yet convinced. Until that happens, answering the second question is going to remain very difficult.
- Yeah, see how that looks to you now? Now imagine you're in the minority, and that question is being asked by the rest of society.
If you are really interested in the science, then by all means look for the causes of sexuality. There is no reason to steer the agenda against just one particular sexuality here.
Please learn what a straw man is. No one is "promoting". It's those who oppose him who think that any tolerance is equivalent to "promoting" - your comment should be addressed to the other poster.
So you've shown that it could be due to environment. That's not what the OP said however - that's not what we mean by a "choice".
Perhaps "acquired taste" might be a better term - I don't choose my tastes, but we know that we can grow to like certain foods or drink if we keep trying them.
I suppose you could argue that someone could choose to do the experiment you describe, but seriously, how many people do you really think did this? How many straight people do you think were asexual, until they chose to do this experiment whilst thinking of women?
No. Describing sexuality[*] as a choice is ludicrous.
[*] And I specifically say "sexuality" not "being gay". The only fair question here is What affects or causes someone's sexuality. Asking what causes being gay wrongly assumes that being straight is the default, until something causes them to be otherwise.
Again, if someone's position is that homosexuality is not something society has vested interest in promoting, then the question of handing kids off to gays (as single or pair) is somewhat dicey is it not?
Who gets to speak for "society"? If we listen to those people who claim that homosexuality is wrong, then it's fair game for people to speak up in opposition to that. Your comparisons to other criteria for adoption are off-topic and irrelevant.
Until puberty or later pre-pubsecence, the rest of any "gender preferences" in terms of toys/games/recreation seem to be the result of cultural expectations enforced implicitly or explicitly by the surrounding adults (example: the women wear dresses, therefore the girls want to wear dresses), rather than anything hard-wired.
You're missing the point. I entirely agree that these things are cultural and not hardwired, but intolerance against homosexuality comes from culture too.
It sounds more to me like the problem is in exposing the youngest minds to sexual propaganda in general, including the pro-gay stuff.
Rubbish. There is no pro-gay agenda here, people only ask that homosexuality is treated alongside heterosexuality. The problem is with those who demand it to be censored (e.g., Section 28 in the UK).
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it's not black and white. I support copyright law too - but not the excessive terms we have (anything over 30 years seems too long for me). Then there is the issue of DRM that prevents me from being able to buy material that people in other countries can (if any other industry refused sale to people based on their country - i.e., it's not just that they didn't sell it there, but they used legal and technological means to prevent them - it would be seen as outright racism).
Then there are people who've only downloaded material that's on the TV we pay for anyway (e.g., I pay a licence fee for the BBC, along with cable fees for a range of channels on top of that - in some cases, I'm forced to pay twice for the same content, when old BBC shows are sold off to other networks). Those people still pay the same money, still watch the same TV, just at a time and schedule that's convenient for them.
There is also the question of proportionality: a prison sentence for hosting torrents? And a fine of millions of dollars (which wasn't even all of what the companies were asking for)?
(I like how making a copy is seen as "theft", but taking millions of dollars isn't...)
it can go into the public domain after I'm dead, but not before.
And even that view is far less strict than the excessive copyright laws that we do have...
Ah, a car analogy!
The reaction I get from a lot of the people who still download a lot of music from TPB and other places is "$1 is too much for a song!" So what? I think $80,000 is too much for a car, which is why I don't own aa $80,000 car. Not liking the price is NOT justification for taking it anyway.
You have a method of duplicating cars at no cost, but you just choose not to because you can't afford to pay the price that the original one had? Well, that's very nice of you, but perhaps you could share this revolutionary invention with the rest of the world?
Microsoft arranges their cash flow to either a loss or break even all the time as does quite a few other commercial enterprises.
Whilst it's true that many companies may normally make zero profit, the point is that there's still people who are making an income (i.e., the income is factored out so it isn't included in "profit").
I would hope that TPB could show that revenue equals costs, without including them paying themselves a wage out of it.
Perhaps, but it ought to be possible to do all sorts of things, such as donating to legal fees or a political party, without being publically identified (and I would be very worried if the courts did allow the police to go fishing through such data - let alone record companies).
I've no idea. I was just making up an analogy, just like the OP was.
Which is why we need a -1 Big Puss mod for posts like yours. Get over yourself.
Says the one who's complaining about my post. We evidently need a -1 Big Puss mod for posts like yours. Get over yourself.
And if you if you really have nothing better to do than troll, and have nothing to add to the discussion, at least have the decency to log in.
I cannot buy a Microsoft computer, not mini, not laptop, not desktop.
No one claims this - I was just being brief with my wording because I assumed people would get the meaning, but let me spell it out: Microsoft point out that buying a PC with Windows is cheaper than buying a Mac.
I cannot buy an Apple OS and install it on a third party computer (true if I constrain myself to the EULA).
Which is exactly the point that Microsoft are making.
If it is true that Linux is a Microsoft Windows competitor, Microsoft could never point out that they are lower cost. We can lament that Linux prepackaged on a Dell is more expensive than Windows prepackaged on a Dell - but that's not what I said. I can download Linux for free - I cannot do the same for Windows.
Sure, Linux is even cheaper. If someone wants to run Linux ads pointing this out, good luck to them. I wouldn't expect Microsoft too, though. Their adverts are targetting at mainstream users, where Linux is minimal competition. The choice for these people is "PCs being sold in a shop" which tends to be PCs running Windows, and a couple of Macs. Their adverts are targetted against Mac users, so the benefits of Linux, BSD, BeOS or whatever else aren't a concern.
Sometimes, my personal best has been a system based on OS2 Warp. Sometimes, DOS. Sometimes, CP/M. Sometimes, AppleDOS. Sometimes, Windows. Sometimes, OS X. Sometimes, DESQviewX. Sometimes, BSD. Sometimes, HP-UX. Sometimes, Linux. Sometimes, FreeBSD. I have purchased all of the above in my time.
Well sure, but I wouldn't expect Microsoft to spend money on advertising against most of these, as they're not much in the way of competition.
Insightful? I think suggesting that having to use Windows is remotely comparable to poor conditions in developing countries is outright offensive.
And I see no justification for the analogy anyway. Here, let me try: I'd rather use Windows, it's like living in a Europe with low taxes and where I make lots of money, as opposed to an African country with high taxes and where everyone is dying of plague. See, if we can merely make assertions of what an OS is comparable to, it's easy!
Because the vast majority of people don't give a damn about the OS - if they even know what it is.
Yes, we know that a niche of geeks may prefer to run a specific OS, OS X, AmigaOS, whatever, but the point is that those people have already made up their might, and are unlikely to be swayed by a simple advert.
I entirely agree. Whilst one might be thankful if Microsoft gets less promotion from the media, this is more than simply being anti-MS: as you note, Linux doesn't get any attention either. Back in the 80s and 90s when there were other major platforms around, I remember that much of the mainstream press pretended there was a Windows/Mac duopoly (they had to cover DOS/Windows/PCs, because they were mainstream in business, but they also had to cover the Mac too - but nothing else).
The Iphone shows how the pro-Apple bias applies even when Microsoft aren't around. There are billions of phones being sold, from major companies like Nokia. Features such as 3G and Internet access have been standard on even basic phones for years. Yet the Iphone comes along, and gets all the free press.
but if Apple can command that price and have people pay it, what's wrong with that?
I don't think anyone is claiming it's wrong in the sense of it being unethical!
But if Microsoft want to point out they are lower cost that competitors, what's wrong with that?
Just as Apple have every right to make their products expensive if they wish, people have a right to point this out when arguing about which computer is best. The issue is about what platform is best, not whether companies have a legal or ethical right to make their products expensive.
The right is *by definition* control freaks. By definition the right are fans of big government. Hell, theocratic feudalism is the canonical right wing government. You can not have a small right wing government.
Nope, right wing economically simply means things such as capitalism, private control of the means of production and so on - as opposed to left wing, which is ideas such as socialism, state funded production, and so on.
Quite how you get from that to "big government", I frankly I have no idea. Laissez-faire capitalism and libertarianism are right wing with small Government. Communism would be an example of left wing with big Government.
You can have a *Liberal* government which is what you are attempting to describe as "right wing", but that's the center.
Liberal - as opposed to authoritarianism - is a independent axis to being economically left or right wing. You could be liberal centre, liberal left wing, or liberal right wing.
I suspect you are confusing concepts such as right-wing and liberal, with the fact that some people have overloaded these terms to mean very specific things. So some people use right-wing to mean authoritarianism - but other people use left-wing in the same sense.
I know it's nice to pretend that everyone's views can be pigeon-holed into a one dimensional axis, so that you can argue against straw men, but the real world doesn't work that way.
Left: Fundamentally agrees with that one sentence description of Liberalism, but goes further and thinks the power of the state should be used against the individual to enforce that equality.
And that isn't "big government"?
Right: Fundamentally disagrees with that sentence and feels instead that certain elites are born superior to the masses (generally based on race or religion) and that the power of the state should be used against the individual in order to enforce that inequality.
That's one description of "The Right" as used by some in the United States, but it certainly does not cover right wing views in general, especially outside of the US.
Liberalism, of course, doesn't think the power of the state should be used against the individual *at all*.
This is getting more towards anarchism, which can be left wing (e.g., anarcho-communism) or right wing (e.g., anarcho-capitalism).
If 100 people confess to seeing a crime, and their stories match up very closely, then through logic and reasoning, the truth is discovered. There are no scientific hypotheses or tests performed. ...
Why is it we readily accept things proven scientifically, yet reject those things that cannot be proven scientifically, but can be proven with other valid means (e.g., logic and reasoning)?
There's nothing unscientific about that approach - you're still making observations (the witnesses make observations, we make observations of the witnesses), and forming a model about what happened. That's still following the scientific method - we just don't think of it as "science" because it's not at very high tech, you don't need a scientist in a white coat to explain it to the jury, and the "science" involved is rather trivial.
If we find out about something through observations, forming hypotheses, testing - that's science.
"Science never will be able to observe or explain such concepts as love, hate, sorrow, or joy. Science never will be able to explain why a man in a foxhole during a war throws himself on a hand grenade to save his fellow soldiers."
Of course we can investigate these things scientifically. And if we can't - then no other method will help us find out either.
If think your confusion comes from confusing the scientific method, with a much more narrower usage of the term (i.e., meaning physics, chemistry or biology). When a historian or detective looks at evidence and works out what happened, we call that "history" or "crime solving" not "science", but it's still the same process as the scientific method.
And if you're using it as a desktop system...well, I hope god help you.
Er - why?
(Honestly, I find the Windows 2000 hate funny. I remember when XP first came out, people here hated it. In a few years' time, I bet Vista will be praised as the best OS ever, and anyone on XP will be mocked!)
Sure, some people do... but how many people are actually in this category? And is it worth the Mozilla Foundation's time and money to provide official support for it?
More people use Windows 2000 than Linux.
So they're going to drop Linux support too, right? No point wasting the Mozilla Foundation's time and money on it, according to you.
If you don't want to upgrade to XP or Vista because of the typical reasons I hear (don't like activation, too bloated, whatever), then switch to Linux or something
Why would I use Linux? I have nothing against XP, I just see no reason to pay out for an OS, when the one I have works perfectly fine. Maybe I will one day when it's no longer supported by anything I want, but I haven't yet.
Since Linux has even fewer users, I don't see how encouraging Windows 2000 users to switch to Linux will help. You might as well encourage Linux users to switch to Windows 2000...
I do have a new computer.
I think you are confusing hardware with the OS. Why should I buy XP when 2000 still works fine, just because of Firefox?
More people use Windows 2000 than Linux. Should Linux users "BUY A NEW COMPUTER"?
Indeed - in fact more use Vista than OS X and Linux combined. By almost a factor of 4.
And more people still use Windows 2000 than any version of Linux.
You may want to consider getting a computer made in the last five years.
I think you misunderstand. He wasn't complaining that his hardware was too slow, he was pointing out that Windows 2000 runs as well, or in fact better, on his hardware.
I have one-year old dual core hardware, and it runs fine with Windows 2000.
Cry me a river, dickhead. I submitted some very valuable imagery to Commons and Wikipedia -- some PD, most GFDL -- to make their particular set of projects better. You wanna use them? The GFDL says you must GFDL your derived works. Incredible, isn't it? You don't like it? TOO FUCKING BAD. Shit happens, the world isn't always to your liking.
Cry me a river. The GFDL also states that it can be relicenced as CC-BY-SA. If you submitted the work under a previous version, then you still agreed under the "or any later version" clause.
Incredible, isn't it? You don't like it? TOO FUCKING BAD. Shit happens, the world isn't always to your liking.
Seriously - try reading the licencing that you submit your work under, before whining about it.
Really? So if someone wants to relicence the latest movie DVD they have under a Creative Commons licence, all they have to do is propose it in a public forum, and if the movie company doesn't object, it's okay?
During this time, having been given legally recognized reasonable notice, copyright holdeers can either agree to the change (by doing nothing) or they can object to the claim and withdraw copyrights to their works.
Firstly, what does "withdraw copyrights" mean?
If you mean refuse to allow their contributions to be distributed under the new licence, then that would create major problems too. Are you really suggesting that for everyone who's edited on Wikipedia, who opposes this change, then Wikipedia will have to remove all of their edits?
But it may be more simple than that: when you submitted your work(s) to wikipedia, dd you READ the license you were submitting it under? In many cases (not necessarily Wikipedia) you are granting the copyrights themselves to the receiver. AFAIK, WP doesn't work this way or they wouldn't have become so popular.
No, the way it works is that you agree your edits to be distributed under the GFDL. This is why Wikipedia can do what they do. AIUI, this change is allowed due to the "or any later version" clause.
But it doesn't mean that people can relicencing other people's content, just so long as they don't explicitly object! If so, that would be an immediate defence for anyone sharing files on bittorrent - "But they didn't object to me doing this".
But if that were the case, a work could basically NEVER be relicensed!
There are three ways to relicence a work:
* Get the copyright assigned to you (done for most businesses).
* Relicence under terms compatible with the licence you got them to submit the work as (what Wikipedia are doing, AIUI).
* Require explicit permission from the copyright holder.
Sorry - for someone who claims "so many here are clueless about copyright licensing", you're talking complete rubbish I'm afraid. If copyright law worked the way you claimed, things would look very different.
Rarely enforced laws are bad laws.
Even if a state wanted to vigorously prosecute these laws, how would they go about doing so? If the act is between two consent adults in the privacy of their home, who is going to report the offense?
Police find private pics when searching your PC? Or you forget to keep it secret when being interviewed by a police officer on a completely different matter? Someone walks in on you?
In the UK at least, the police have managed to prosecute people for various private sexual acts, from Turing, to some recent case in the late 90s where people were found guilty, because same-sex sex was still illegal, even in private, if a 3rd person was present (whether or not they were also taking part) (the case thankfully led to the law finally being changed, in 2003 IIRC).
Indeed - I think the difference here is that these laws are not demanded by gay people, and gay people are not demanding that straight people not be allowed that right too (and on the contrary, they'd most likely be in favour of everyone being treated equally here too). As you say, it's due to a quirk in implementation - most likely implemented by straight people.
A quirk in the UK is that gay people can have civil partnerships, whilst straight people can't. But this isn't part of some anti-straight agenda, it's all part of the same problem where gay people and relationships are treated differently by the state.
(The example you refer to applies in the UK too - I noticed that when my brother got married and wanted to change his name. I think the problem there is that the original law itself is sexist - it assumes the woman will change her name, and penalises those who don't go along with it. I'm glad they've fixed this for gay marriages, and I think the answer is to fix it for all marriages.)
The question under debate (which we do not have an answer on, unlike the eye color question) is actually two questions in sequence:
- Whether heterosexuality falls into the first, second, or third category from above.
- Whether, dependent somewhat on the answer to the previous question, society has an interest (based on there being more good than harm, overall, to society) in the promotion of heterosexual pairings.
You insist that the answer to the primary question is "first cagetory", as evidenced by your (faulty) analogy prior. However, the question is not yet settled scientifically, nor is the rest of society yet convinced. Until that happens, answering the second question is going to remain very difficult.
- Yeah, see how that looks to you now? Now imagine you're in the minority, and that question is being asked by the rest of society.
If you are really interested in the science, then by all means look for the causes of sexuality. There is no reason to steer the agenda against just one particular sexuality here.
Please learn what a straw man is. No one is "promoting". It's those who oppose him who think that any tolerance is equivalent to "promoting" - your comment should be addressed to the other poster.
So you've shown that it could be due to environment. That's not what the OP said however - that's not what we mean by a "choice".
Perhaps "acquired taste" might be a better term - I don't choose my tastes, but we know that we can grow to like certain foods or drink if we keep trying them.
I suppose you could argue that someone could choose to do the experiment you describe, but seriously, how many people do you really think did this? How many straight people do you think were asexual, until they chose to do this experiment whilst thinking of women?
No. Describing sexuality[*] as a choice is ludicrous.
[*] And I specifically say "sexuality" not "being gay". The only fair question here is What affects or causes someone's sexuality. Asking what causes being gay wrongly assumes that being straight is the default, until something causes them to be otherwise.
Again, if someone's position is that homosexuality is not something society has vested interest in promoting, then the question of handing kids off to gays (as single or pair) is somewhat dicey is it not?
Who gets to speak for "society"? If we listen to those people who claim that homosexuality is wrong, then it's fair game for people to speak up in opposition to that. Your comparisons to other criteria for adoption are off-topic and irrelevant.
Until puberty or later pre-pubsecence, the rest of any "gender preferences" in terms of toys/games/recreation seem to be the result of cultural expectations enforced implicitly or explicitly by the surrounding adults (example: the women wear dresses, therefore the girls want to wear dresses), rather than anything hard-wired.
You're missing the point. I entirely agree that these things are cultural and not hardwired, but intolerance against homosexuality comes from culture too.
It sounds more to me like the problem is in exposing the youngest minds to sexual propaganda in general, including the pro-gay stuff.
Rubbish. There is no pro-gay agenda here, people only ask that homosexuality is treated alongside heterosexuality. The problem is with those who demand it to be censored (e.g., Section 28 in the UK).