The response from makomk is correct - downloading is not only illegal, but considered "making". The case was R v. Bowden.
And also see this article with respect to new plans to criminalise all sexual images (even fictional non-realistic images) of under-18s. The Director of Public Prosecutions has confirmed that even for streamed material, you will get prosecuted - who knows if a court can be persuaded otherwise.
but this argument is ineffective: the list can be fixed. there can even be punitive damage costs delivered to anyone shown to be put on the list in error, which i would suggest, to make sure governments don't block carelessly.
And how do we know if a site is put on the list? Oh wait, we don't. Even if we try to access the site, it just returns a fake 404 error.
there is actually material on the internet that even the most socially liberal, libertarian-minded society would find objectionable, and has every right AND duty to block
Such as? If a crime was committed in its production, I have no problem banning or blocking it, but shouldn't the priority to be to go after the production and original abuse? And don't give me this crap about countries using child porn as a means to extort tanks, unless you have a citation. What about all the cases where images come from western countries, where there are clearly laws against child abuse?
but you WIN the argument if you say plenty of stuff is blocked wrongly
Um yes, that is what the argument is about. And since the IWF has (a) shown itself to block wrongly, and (b) is unwilling to tell us what sites are being blocked, it's fair game to question the entire existence of such a blocking mechanism, as it is currently implemented.
Note that they were so incompetent that the content they banned wasn't the image itself (which could still be viewed), but pages that had legal text. It seems rather stupid if a system designed to block child porn images can't actually block images...
The sex could even be perfectly legal depending on the state.
Indeed, and in the UK, this is the case. Not just some old law anomaly - in 2003, they explicitly raised the age of "child" porn to 18.
New laws are planned that will criminalise even drawings of any sexual act depicting someone who appears to be under 18 - so an act is legal, whilst a drawing of the same act is a criminal offence to possess.
Yes, more effort goes into a modern game, but the tools have vastly improved as well.
Sure, but not enough to cover the increased complexity. At the end of the day, 20 years ago a bedroom programmer could write a commercial quality game in a couple of months; now you're looking at a team of programmers working two or more years. The ludicrous assertion that this time is just "thrown away" by people tinkering on new ideas needs some evidence!
And since you mention tools, you forget that these cost money too - large amounts for a commercial licence (yes, there are reasonably good open source engines, but those writing cutting edge commercial games typically want to use the latest commercial engines). What tools did the 80s programmer have to spend money on? Um, a cheap assembler, and maybe a simple paint program.
So, you either have to spend significant amounts on an engine, or write your own which, even with no tinkering, and even with modern development environments, is a far more time consuming task than writing games 20 years ago was (and note, I emphasise time consuming - it's not necessary harder, I'm not trying to pretend that writing in assembler was easy - but game development these days simply takes up a lot of time, even when it isn't difficult).
You also have to generate a far larger amount of art data - textures, models, animation - when once, a few sprites at most would do you. And don't forget to take into account the prices of all those 3D modellers and Photoshop licences - I got Deluxe Paint free with my Amiga, but the software today doesn't come cheap. (I suppose we need an article for "Does Software Cost Too Much?"...)
If game developer companies were more focused, this would not have occurred.
So what's your track record - how many commercial games have you written on a shoestring budget?
Well, it's perhaps true that most games are crap and wouldn't last more than 10 hours' play - but then by that reasoning, most films are crap such that I wouldn't want to watch them for more than 5 minutes. When it comes to games I like, I easily get tens of hours out of them, where as with films that I like, I only watch them a few times at most. Hell, when it comes to the Civilization series, I dread to think how much time I've spent playing them...
(And, even at just 10 hours' play, that's still far more you get than watching a film, so the point still stands.)
But yes, the larger audience is another point. As is the fact that movies also can make money at the cinema, which has no analogy for computer games.
Ultimately, the optimal price is set by supply and demand, taking into account the cost of production. More precisely, it's where the marginal profit is zero.
Now having said that, if it's really true that sales increase by 3000% when the cost is halved, this seems a convincing argument that the cost is too high. We have to take into account what the actual profit is though. Presumably the variable costs on computer games are fairly low, although it's unclear how much of a chunk is eaten by distribution, the retailers, tax and so on.
Most of the comments in this article seem to be based around "Whine, they cost me too much!" when the issue is actually about whether a lower price would actually increase profit.
Actually, I believe that courts have ruled in some cases based on whether the person was a celebrity, and whether it was therefore in the public interest. Which I don't think is unreasonable, because these people get their fame (and hence, fortune) from all the publicity in the first place - they can't have it both ways.
If she had surrendered the phone upon the 1st request by the campus officer then detention would be appropriate. Since she continued to claim that she did not have a phone and further concealed it. She escalated it beyond detention or in-school suspension.
Disobeying a teacher once is beyond detention or suspension, and requires police to arrest them? I'd like to know what school you went to. I think most teachers would be glad to have the child do as they are told, and not receive a detention for it! If they don't, then that's what detention is for. Suspension is for most severe troublemakers.
And the police are for people who break the law.
You're missing the point. It's not about what level of punishment is appropriate. It's since when did breaking school rules become criminal offences?
I'm from the UK, so maybe things are different there - is it really routine to call the police everytime a child breaks a rule? I mean, there are certainly things from my school days that I can see would be breaking laws, and would therefore be something you could call the police for (vandalism, bullying, violence, theft) - but even there, it was almost always dealt with by the school. So what's so special about this case that texting requires police intervention, when other cases that do involve breaking the law don't require police intervention? It makes no sense. The only thing I hope is that we're not getting the full story - but it's bizarre just how many posters here seem to think that calling the police in the described situation is perfectly normal.
You're missing the point - namely, the issue is, since when does breaking a school rule constitute a criminal offence?
Yes, we can have the debate on how schools can deal with children, and how effective punishments are. But are you seriously suggesting the teachers dial 999 everytime a rule is broken?
For heaven's sake - we're talking about texting in class, not someone who's been suspended, anyway.
And if you're worried about pissing off the parents, having their child arrested is probably the last thing you want to do...
If someone disregards the authority of a teacher, what makes you think they'll suddenly start respecting it when the punishment is upped?
This is a complete non-sequitor. So we should call the police to arrest someone who hasn't broken a law, based on what they might do?
Blimey, if at my school the teachers dialed 999 everytime a pupil disobeyed a teacher, there wouldn't be enough police in the country to deal with it...
Oh, that. You don't think it is? I'm assuming, obviously, you making a publicly available post.
Which is a poor assumption. As I said: facebook isn't a "public site" - access to information can be restricted to only certain people, just like with email.
That was just my point. If you put "mad photos" of yourself on Facebook, that's it. You've done it. If you in half a year decide to remove your Facebook page, that doesn't make it as if you never published those pictures. They live on in caches, 4chan or whatever and personal hard drives forever. They don't just vanish. That the new TOS makes no difference in this respect, was precisely my point.
The bigger issue is Facebook republishing the information, which they could not do under the old ToS without breaking the law.
And "caches, 4chan or whatever and personal hard drives" are hardly the primary concern of data hanging around - that's not at all comparable to "still being on Facebook" (or published elsewhere by them).
Well perhaps - I was just responding to your claim that posting on Facebook was "no different than standing on a street corner yelling about your sex life".
Although I can see how it relates to privacy, among other things - if they have the right to republish and even relicence material you upload. The reason why the change in the ToS was important was that at least before, you could immediately stop them from doing this simply by closing the account (this fact would also probably make them less likely to do so, in the first place).
You also have to take into account that circumstances change - perhaps when you're a student, you don't care about your mad photos being on Facebook, but you do when you start applying for jobs. Before, you could always end your account, but not with the new ToS.
I see ads all the time - and more intrusive than many websites, as they sneak the adverts into things like feeds of what your friends are doing.
the fact is this ToS was just putting in writing something they probably already did. with all the people demanding clear and transparent EULAs,ToS etc. it's ironic that when a company does the right thing, they get blasted for it.
Not true - the wrong thing isn't necessarily having the data around on their servers, it would be saying they could republish, relicence and so on that information, even after the account was closed. AFAIK, they haven't done that (and moreover, if they tried, you'd be in a better position to argue copyright infringement, due to it not being in the ToS). But the new ToS allowed them to.
if you're putting your information, content, whatever on a FREE website, you are agreeing to surrender some privacy. Don't like it? DON'T AGREE TO THE ToS and use these sites.
Firstly, much of the problem is that people didn't agree to the ToS change - changing a contract retroactively is legally rather dubious. Secondly, even where a site has a right, equally, people have a right to inform others about it, and/or complain about it.
And if the site changes it's ToS back as a result, that's up to them as well. If people had just shut up as you suggest, then this wouldn't have happened.
Then the time from the big bang to the creation of the Earth (9 billion years) is one day.
Okay, so what about the second and later days? (In response to your other comments - yes, the period of a "day" has change over time, but this isn't anywhere near enough to allow for the complete evolution of all life up to humans in a mere six days - not even remotely close.)
And my point is, even if you can twist the interpretation to fit with scientific facts, the Bible itself then becomes useless. The information here is not derived from the Bible, it's derived from science. What facts come from the Bible, without you having to first know the independently derived scientific knowledge?
I'm sure if I wanted, I could twist the interpretation of Three Little Pigs to be a true story. But I don't see how it would be meaningful for me to say "I believe the story The Three Little Pigs is a true story".
So telling anyone anything is equivalent to yelling about it on a public street? I don't think so.
I hope you don't use email - after all, if that information goes through a company's servers, it's fair game for them to do what they like with it, as you might as well have published it on the front page of the news right?
(If you're going to say that email isn't a "public site", well, neither is facebook - access to information can be restricted to only certain people, just like with email.)
That would be even worse, as you could just mod down the person you disa
I agree with the other poster: debate, don't censor. Negative moderation is meant to get rid of people that aren't promoting debate - trolls and flamebait. A "clueless" mod doesn't make sense - and if it did, then apostrophesemicolon would be deserving of it.
How can you have a literal interpretation if you are reading an inaccurate translation?
Well that's all the more reason that it seems odd to believe in it. Which "inaccurate" version do you believe in then?
1) I haven't showered for days. 2) Who uses OS/2 in these days? Is one more literal than the other?
Yes, but the difference is clearly determined by context, and in both cases, "day" refers to the twenty four hour period. No amount of context will get "seven days" to mean "billions of years" - at least, not without throwing out all meaning altogether.
In what sense could they work together, that they aren't already doing?
You can't just put two particle accelerators together, and magically make one big one. Having twice as many scientists working on it doesn't necessarily improve things either. Sometimes doing things in parallel gives better chances than trying to have everyone working on the same thing. I mean, if one particle accelerator should fail to work properly for example, and get delayed for 12 months, you have another one that might find it...
The negative side of competition is when people keep secrets from each other, and so people have to reindependently discover solutions to problems. It's not clear that this is the case here - it seems a friendly competition, and perhaps there's shared research.
If you reread my initial comment, you'll see that I'm not complaining (except about that "no original research" rule excluding proofs).
But that rule doesn't exclude proofs - it only excludes a proof that isn't also backed with a verifiable source.
Articles for mathematics for example do give proofs as well. I can't think of a case where it is necessary to have a fact in an encyclopedia, that could be proven by text in the encyclopedia, but suspiciously doesn't have any reliable sources for it. Far more likely in that case is the risk that a proof is erroneous. There's a reason why in science, we trust things like peer-reviewed studies, rather than just assuming a scientist is right. If you have stumbled across a new proof, shouldn't your priority be to publish it in a paper, and not edit Wikipedia?
On the other hand, the way Wikipedia actually works alienates experts, people who have proven themselves in the real world and expect not to have their input overridden by someone who comes in from the street and can change what they've written, often making it worse, with the same ease as they changed what was there before.
But earlier, you said "a proof does not require trust", so why should it matter if someone is an expert? We should go by what they write - whether it is supported by reliable sources - and not by trusting them because they claim to be an "expert". If they can provide the "authoritative" sources for what they claim, then they won't have a problem. There's only a problem if they expect what they claim to be taken on trust "because I'm an expert". And as I say, if they're dealing with their own original research, they're better off publishing that through the normal routes, not trying to get it into Wikipedia - this is no different to any other encyclopedia. Britannica doesn't accept original research papers, AFAIK.
Do you have evidence of pages where experts were alienated? The only thing I've seen is people put off because they think they shouldn't have to provide sources, or they fear that someone might edit what they write (even though there's no evidence that what they write will be made worse).
my totally unproven and unsubstantiated opinion is that Wikipedia is very close to the optimum for its use-case and that trying to bring more experts on board will cause an extraordinary amount of infighting, politicizing, struggling for recognition and bureaucratic behavior which is so common in academic circles
I agree here, but:
It would drive ordinary users away who edit because they "know" but can't be bothered to back up or even check their facts.
I think "experts" are just as likely to fall foul of this. If there was an influx of experts, who also brought with them reliable sources, I don't think there'd be infighting, nor do I think they will have trouble getting their information put in. My experience is that material that is sourced is far less likely to be removed, than the "I know it but can't be bothered to source it" material. Yes, it's true that a lot of material is allowed on Wikipedia that isn't referenced, but that doesn't mean it displaces material that was sourced. (Sure, it can happen sometimes that you get an idiot who thinks his unsourced version is better than a sourced version, and there aren't enough editors watching to undo his edits, but this is in violation of fundamental Wikipedia policies; there are ways to raise the issue to get other editors to look at it, and they will prefer the sourced version.)
But as soon as you get experts expecting their edits to be accepted simply because they are experts, then you're going to get the infighting, and they're just as bad as any other user who claims to know something, but can't back it up.
If you invested your life savings as stock in a company, and the CEO did stupids that resulted in a rapid shrinkage of your life savings, you'd want to lynch him, wouldn't you?
Perhaps, but it's not theft.
If you wrote software that you intended to sell to a client, and somebody else stole the source by cracking your computer and selling it to your client at a greatly reduced cost, you'd want blood, wouldn't you?
That's illegal, although not theft.
If you bought a shiny new car, and six months later, a dirty congress-critter conspired with the evil car company CEOs to make gasoline illegal in favor of diesel, you'd be damned pissed, wouldn't you?
I might be annoyed, but that's legal, and certainly not theft.
But that doesn't mean that "copyright infringement" is ok, it's not.... Copyright infringement is still theft.
You're creating a straw man. Saying that copyright infringement is theft doesn't mean that they're saying it's okay. Nowhere did the OP claim this! Just as saying that dropping litter isn't the same as vandalism doesn't mean that littering is okay. It's just a statement of fact. Copyright infringement isn't theft, by definition. I agree that neither should be legal. I also agree with the law that states the former is a civil issue, whilst the latter is a criminal offence. I don't agree that they are on the same level, but if you do, that's up to you. But that they are not the same thing is simply a fact.
Are you seriously suggesting that the examples you list above are examples of theft? I'm not sure what you're saying - "If two things are not okay, they are the same"? That doesn't follow.
The marketplace works on supply/demand, and bootlegging music destroys the demand side of the marketplace
Whether something like the pirate bay "destroys" demand is up to the courts to determine. Whether a single instance of downloading affects demand depends on whether the person stops buying as a result of that (it might be that they wouldn't have otherwise bought it; it may be that they buy something else with the money).
I agree with you about the stupid copyright laws. But according to you, if we're annoyed by stupid copyright laws, doesn't that mean they're guilty of theft?
Any time we spend trying to justify piracy/theft/copyright-infringement is time we spend digging a deeper hole for ourselves
Again, you are arguing a straw man. Pointing out that copyright infringement isn't theft is stating a fact, and is important as part of rebutting the propaganda put out by the RIAA etc.
Slashdot Mirror
The response from makomk is correct - downloading is not only illegal, but considered "making". The case was R v. Bowden.
And also see this article with respect to new plans to criminalise all sexual images (even fictional non-realistic images) of under-18s. The Director of Public Prosecutions has confirmed that even for streamed material, you will get prosecuted - who knows if a court can be persuaded otherwise.
but this argument is ineffective: the list can be fixed. there can even be punitive damage costs delivered to anyone shown to be put on the list in error, which i would suggest, to make sure governments don't block carelessly.
And how do we know if a site is put on the list? Oh wait, we don't. Even if we try to access the site, it just returns a fake 404 error.
there is actually material on the internet that even the most socially liberal, libertarian-minded society would find objectionable, and has every right AND duty to block
Such as? If a crime was committed in its production, I have no problem banning or blocking it, but shouldn't the priority to be to go after the production and original abuse? And don't give me this crap about countries using child porn as a means to extort tanks, unless you have a citation. What about all the cases where images come from western countries, where there are clearly laws against child abuse?
but you WIN the argument if you say plenty of stuff is blocked wrongly
Um yes, that is what the argument is about. And since the IWF has (a) shown itself to block wrongly, and (b) is unwilling to tell us what sites are being blocked, it's fair game to question the entire existence of such a blocking mechanism, as it is currently implemented.
Note that they were so incompetent that the content they banned wasn't the image itself (which could still be viewed), but pages that had legal text. It seems rather stupid if a system designed to block child porn images can't actually block images...
The sex could even be perfectly legal depending on the state.
Indeed, and in the UK, this is the case. Not just some old law anomaly - in 2003, they explicitly raised the age of "child" porn to 18.
New laws are planned that will criminalise even drawings of any sexual act depicting someone who appears to be under 18 - so an act is legal, whilst a drawing of the same act is a criminal offence to possess.
Yes, more effort goes into a modern game, but the tools have vastly improved as well.
Sure, but not enough to cover the increased complexity. At the end of the day, 20 years ago a bedroom programmer could write a commercial quality game in a couple of months; now you're looking at a team of programmers working two or more years. The ludicrous assertion that this time is just "thrown away" by people tinkering on new ideas needs some evidence!
And since you mention tools, you forget that these cost money too - large amounts for a commercial licence (yes, there are reasonably good open source engines, but those writing cutting edge commercial games typically want to use the latest commercial engines). What tools did the 80s programmer have to spend money on? Um, a cheap assembler, and maybe a simple paint program.
So, you either have to spend significant amounts on an engine, or write your own which, even with no tinkering, and even with modern development environments, is a far more time consuming task than writing games 20 years ago was (and note, I emphasise time consuming - it's not necessary harder, I'm not trying to pretend that writing in assembler was easy - but game development these days simply takes up a lot of time, even when it isn't difficult).
You also have to generate a far larger amount of art data - textures, models, animation - when once, a few sprites at most would do you. And don't forget to take into account the prices of all those 3D modellers and Photoshop licences - I got Deluxe Paint free with my Amiga, but the software today doesn't come cheap. (I suppose we need an article for "Does Software Cost Too Much?"...)
If game developer companies were more focused, this would not have occurred.
So what's your track record - how many commercial games have you written on a shoestring budget?
Well, it's perhaps true that most games are crap and wouldn't last more than 10 hours' play - but then by that reasoning, most films are crap such that I wouldn't want to watch them for more than 5 minutes. When it comes to games I like, I easily get tens of hours out of them, where as with films that I like, I only watch them a few times at most. Hell, when it comes to the Civilization series, I dread to think how much time I've spent playing them...
(And, even at just 10 hours' play, that's still far more you get than watching a film, so the point still stands.)
But yes, the larger audience is another point. As is the fact that movies also can make money at the cinema, which has no analogy for computer games.
Ultimately, the optimal price is set by supply and demand, taking into account the cost of production. More precisely, it's where the marginal profit is zero.
Now having said that, if it's really true that sales increase by 3000% when the cost is halved, this seems a convincing argument that the cost is too high. We have to take into account what the actual profit is though. Presumably the variable costs on computer games are fairly low, although it's unclear how much of a chunk is eaten by distribution, the retailers, tax and so on.
Most of the comments in this article seem to be based around "Whine, they cost me too much!" when the issue is actually about whether a lower price would actually increase profit.
Yet, Apple "Just Works" with much higher probability
So it probably just works?
Not exactly a ringing endorsement, if that's the best that can be said of it. And if my computer didn't work, I'd take it back.
Actually, I believe that courts have ruled in some cases based on whether the person was a celebrity, and whether it was therefore in the public interest. Which I don't think is unreasonable, because these people get their fame (and hence, fortune) from all the publicity in the first place - they can't have it both ways.
If she had surrendered the phone upon the 1st request by the campus officer then detention would be appropriate. Since she continued to claim that she did not have a phone and further concealed it. She escalated it beyond detention or in-school suspension.
Disobeying a teacher once is beyond detention or suspension, and requires police to arrest them? I'd like to know what school you went to. I think most teachers would be glad to have the child do as they are told, and not receive a detention for it! If they don't, then that's what detention is for. Suspension is for most severe troublemakers.
And the police are for people who break the law.
You're missing the point. It's not about what level of punishment is appropriate. It's since when did breaking school rules become criminal offences?
I'm from the UK, so maybe things are different there - is it really routine to call the police everytime a child breaks a rule? I mean, there are certainly things from my school days that I can see would be breaking laws, and would therefore be something you could call the police for (vandalism, bullying, violence, theft) - but even there, it was almost always dealt with by the school. So what's so special about this case that texting requires police intervention, when other cases that do involve breaking the law don't require police intervention? It makes no sense. The only thing I hope is that we're not getting the full story - but it's bizarre just how many posters here seem to think that calling the police in the described situation is perfectly normal.
You're missing the point - namely, the issue is, since when does breaking a school rule constitute a criminal offence?
Yes, we can have the debate on how schools can deal with children, and how effective punishments are. But are you seriously suggesting the teachers dial 999 everytime a rule is broken?
For heaven's sake - we're talking about texting in class, not someone who's been suspended, anyway.
And if you're worried about pissing off the parents, having their child arrested is probably the last thing you want to do...
If someone disregards the authority of a teacher, what makes you think they'll suddenly start respecting it when the punishment is upped?
This is a complete non-sequitor. So we should call the police to arrest someone who hasn't broken a law, based on what they might do?
Blimey, if at my school the teachers dialed 999 everytime a pupil disobeyed a teacher, there wouldn't be enough police in the country to deal with it...
Oh, that. You don't think it is? I'm assuming, obviously, you making a publicly available post.
Which is a poor assumption. As I said: facebook isn't a "public site" - access to information can be restricted to only certain people, just like with email.
That was just my point. If you put "mad photos" of yourself on Facebook, that's it. You've done it. If you in half a year decide to remove your Facebook page, that doesn't make it as if you never published those pictures. They live on in caches, 4chan or whatever and personal hard drives forever. They don't just vanish. That the new TOS makes no difference in this respect, was precisely my point.
The bigger issue is Facebook republishing the information, which they could not do under the old ToS without breaking the law.
And "caches, 4chan or whatever and personal hard drives" are hardly the primary concern of data hanging around - that's not at all comparable to "still being on Facebook" (or published elsewhere by them).
Well perhaps - I was just responding to your claim that posting on Facebook was "no different than standing on a street corner yelling about your sex life".
Although I can see how it relates to privacy, among other things - if they have the right to republish and even relicence material you upload. The reason why the change in the ToS was important was that at least before, you could immediately stop them from doing this simply by closing the account (this fact would also probably make them less likely to do so, in the first place).
You also have to take into account that circumstances change - perhaps when you're a student, you don't care about your mad photos being on Facebook, but you do when you start applying for jobs. Before, you could always end your account, but not with the new ToS.
And similarly it's okay to pirate, because who expects to retain control after publishing their data to millions of people?
I see ads all the time - and more intrusive than many websites, as they sneak the adverts into things like feeds of what your friends are doing.
the fact is this ToS was just putting in writing something they probably already did. with all the people demanding clear and transparent EULAs,ToS etc. it's ironic that when a company does the right thing, they get blasted for it.
Not true - the wrong thing isn't necessarily having the data around on their servers, it would be saying they could republish, relicence and so on that information, even after the account was closed. AFAIK, they haven't done that (and moreover, if they tried, you'd be in a better position to argue copyright infringement, due to it not being in the ToS). But the new ToS allowed them to.
if you're putting your information, content, whatever on a FREE website, you are agreeing to surrender some privacy. Don't like it? DON'T AGREE TO THE ToS and use these sites.
Firstly, much of the problem is that people didn't agree to the ToS change - changing a contract retroactively is legally rather dubious. Secondly, even where a site has a right, equally, people have a right to inform others about it, and/or complain about it.
And if the site changes it's ToS back as a result, that's up to them as well. If people had just shut up as you suggest, then this wouldn't have happened.
Then the time from the big bang to the creation of the Earth (9 billion years) is one day.
Okay, so what about the second and later days? (In response to your other comments - yes, the period of a "day" has change over time, but this isn't anywhere near enough to allow for the complete evolution of all life up to humans in a mere six days - not even remotely close.)
And my point is, even if you can twist the interpretation to fit with scientific facts, the Bible itself then becomes useless. The information here is not derived from the Bible, it's derived from science. What facts come from the Bible, without you having to first know the independently derived scientific knowledge?
I'm sure if I wanted, I could twist the interpretation of Three Little Pigs to be a true story. But I don't see how it would be meaningful for me to say "I believe the story The Three Little Pigs is a true story".
True, it has that definition too. No definition of "day" includes a period of billions of years.
So telling anyone anything is equivalent to yelling about it on a public street? I don't think so.
I hope you don't use email - after all, if that information goes through a company's servers, it's fair game for them to do what they like with it, as you might as well have published it on the front page of the news right?
(If you're going to say that email isn't a "public site", well, neither is facebook - access to information can be restricted to only certain people, just like with email.)
That would be even worse, as you could just mod down the person you disa
I agree with the other poster: debate, don't censor. Negative moderation is meant to get rid of people that aren't promoting debate - trolls and flamebait. A "clueless" mod doesn't make sense - and if it did, then apostrophesemicolon would be deserving of it.
How can you have a literal interpretation if you are reading an inaccurate translation?
Well that's all the more reason that it seems odd to believe in it. Which "inaccurate" version do you believe in then?
1) I haven't showered for days.
2) Who uses OS/2 in these days?
Is one more literal than the other?
Yes, but the difference is clearly determined by context, and in both cases, "day" refers to the twenty four hour period. No amount of context will get "seven days" to mean "billions of years" - at least, not without throwing out all meaning altogether.
Find it first. And if no one can find it, that in itself is important information.
Not to mention all the other research they've done.
And not only do I believe in them both, I see very few contradictions.
A literal reading of the Old Testament is contradicted by science in a great many ways.
If you mean a non-literal interpretation, then I'm not sure in what sense you can be said to believe what it says.
In what sense could they work together, that they aren't already doing?
You can't just put two particle accelerators together, and magically make one big one. Having twice as many scientists working on it doesn't necessarily improve things either. Sometimes doing things in parallel gives better chances than trying to have everyone working on the same thing. I mean, if one particle accelerator should fail to work properly for example, and get delayed for 12 months, you have another one that might find it...
The negative side of competition is when people keep secrets from each other, and so people have to reindependently discover solutions to problems. It's not clear that this is the case here - it seems a friendly competition, and perhaps there's shared research.
If you reread my initial comment, you'll see that I'm not complaining (except about that "no original research" rule excluding proofs).
But that rule doesn't exclude proofs - it only excludes a proof that isn't also backed with a verifiable source.
Articles for mathematics for example do give proofs as well. I can't think of a case where it is necessary to have a fact in an encyclopedia, that could be proven by text in the encyclopedia, but suspiciously doesn't have any reliable sources for it. Far more likely in that case is the risk that a proof is erroneous. There's a reason why in science, we trust things like peer-reviewed studies, rather than just assuming a scientist is right. If you have stumbled across a new proof, shouldn't your priority be to publish it in a paper, and not edit Wikipedia?
On the other hand, the way Wikipedia actually works alienates experts, people who have proven themselves in the real world and expect not to have their input overridden by someone who comes in from the street and can change what they've written, often making it worse, with the same ease as they changed what was there before.
But earlier, you said "a proof does not require trust", so why should it matter if someone is an expert? We should go by what they write - whether it is supported by reliable sources - and not by trusting them because they claim to be an "expert". If they can provide the "authoritative" sources for what they claim, then they won't have a problem. There's only a problem if they expect what they claim to be taken on trust "because I'm an expert". And as I say, if they're dealing with their own original research, they're better off publishing that through the normal routes, not trying to get it into Wikipedia - this is no different to any other encyclopedia. Britannica doesn't accept original research papers, AFAIK.
Do you have evidence of pages where experts were alienated? The only thing I've seen is people put off because they think they shouldn't have to provide sources, or they fear that someone might edit what they write (even though there's no evidence that what they write will be made worse).
my totally unproven and unsubstantiated opinion is that Wikipedia is very close to the optimum for its use-case and that trying to bring more experts on board will cause an extraordinary amount of infighting, politicizing, struggling for recognition and bureaucratic behavior which is so common in academic circles
I agree here, but:
It would drive ordinary users away who edit because they "know" but can't be bothered to back up or even check their facts.
I think "experts" are just as likely to fall foul of this. If there was an influx of experts, who also brought with them reliable sources, I don't think there'd be infighting, nor do I think they will have trouble getting their information put in. My experience is that material that is sourced is far less likely to be removed, than the "I know it but can't be bothered to source it" material. Yes, it's true that a lot of material is allowed on Wikipedia that isn't referenced, but that doesn't mean it displaces material that was sourced. (Sure, it can happen sometimes that you get an idiot who thinks his unsourced version is better than a sourced version, and there aren't enough editors watching to undo his edits, but this is in violation of fundamental Wikipedia policies; there are ways to raise the issue to get other editors to look at it, and they will prefer the sourced version.)
But as soon as you get experts expecting their edits to be accepted simply because they are experts, then you're going to get the infighting, and they're just as bad as any other user who claims to know something, but can't back it up.
If you invested your life savings as stock in a company, and the CEO did stupids that resulted in a rapid shrinkage of your life savings, you'd want to lynch him, wouldn't you?
Perhaps, but it's not theft.
If you wrote software that you intended to sell to a client, and somebody else stole the source by cracking your computer and selling it to your client at a greatly reduced cost, you'd want blood, wouldn't you?
That's illegal, although not theft.
If you bought a shiny new car, and six months later, a dirty congress-critter conspired with the evil car company CEOs to make gasoline illegal in favor of diesel, you'd be damned pissed, wouldn't you?
I might be annoyed, but that's legal, and certainly not theft.
But that doesn't mean that "copyright infringement" is ok, it's not. ... Copyright infringement is still theft.
You're creating a straw man. Saying that copyright infringement is theft doesn't mean that they're saying it's okay. Nowhere did the OP claim this! Just as saying that dropping litter isn't the same as vandalism doesn't mean that littering is okay. It's just a statement of fact. Copyright infringement isn't theft, by definition. I agree that neither should be legal. I also agree with the law that states the former is a civil issue, whilst the latter is a criminal offence. I don't agree that they are on the same level, but if you do, that's up to you. But that they are not the same thing is simply a fact.
Are you seriously suggesting that the examples you list above are examples of theft? I'm not sure what you're saying - "If two things are not okay, they are the same"? That doesn't follow.
The marketplace works on supply/demand, and bootlegging music destroys the demand side of the marketplace
Whether something like the pirate bay "destroys" demand is up to the courts to determine. Whether a single instance of downloading affects demand depends on whether the person stops buying as a result of that (it might be that they wouldn't have otherwise bought it; it may be that they buy something else with the money).
I agree with you about the stupid copyright laws. But according to you, if we're annoyed by stupid copyright laws, doesn't that mean they're guilty of theft?
Any time we spend trying to justify piracy/theft/copyright-infringement is time we spend digging a deeper hole for ourselves
Again, you are arguing a straw man. Pointing out that copyright infringement isn't theft is stating a fact, and is important as part of rebutting the propaganda put out by the RIAA etc.