A nice generalisation. The vast majority that I bittorrent is TV that's already showing on TV channels I pay for (I just like the convience of watching when I want, and not having to wait several months for it to come out in the UK), and in particular, content that I've already paid for via the mandatory TV tax we have here in the UK.
And if copyright were a sensible term such as 30 years, I'd be happily download copyright free music, and making more sure that anything new is material that I buy (I do still buy plenty, after all).
Here in the UK, music retailers can sell vouchers, then decide that if they're in financial troubles, they can decide not to honour them, even though they're still trading. That's theft. Because, unlike your incorrect usage of the word, I am deprived of that money - it hasn't merely been "copied". Yet if I copy the equivalent content of what they stole from me, I'm the one accused of ruining the industry!
Indeed. If Facebook want to try enforcing this, then my website has a clause saying any company that tries such a stupid ToS on me owes me a million pounds.
Exactly - but I would still expect an encyclopedia to tell me what the current best estimates of its age are. This isn't something that is "proven", but you can give citations for what various scientists say.
So, how would this be "proven" using original research, instead of citations?
Things like dates of birth or population counts should be backed by references to the most authoritative documentation possible.
Which is a citation. Which is what would be used on Wikipedia.
it is still better than citing a newspaper or other "unofficial" sources which might even have used an earlier version of Wikipedia as their source
Wikipedia doesn't allow any source - the requirement is reliable sources. So if an unreliable source is quoted, then that's a problem with not following the system. It's not clear how your suggestion is any different to what is meant to be done on Wikipedia? Note, often the problem is that telling what constitutes a "reliable" source is not trivial - but again, I don't see that you are suggesting anything to solve this problem. Saying "it should use the most reliable sources possible" is a statement of the obvious, and is what people already should be trying to do. But unfortunately, sometimes a newspaper is the best that someone can find for some things.
A proper proof does not rely on trust. You can verify it yourself, if it is presented to you.
So Wikipedia should contain complete instructions on how to independently verify something? It's an encyclopedia, not a manual to teach you how to do everything.
But if you mean, contain a reference to something that tells you how to verify it yourself - then that's a citation, and again, is exactly what sbould be done on Wikipedia.
A correct proof from an AC is as good as a correct proof by Einstein.
Again, this is nothing new. The whole point of Wikipedia is that it shouldn't matter who the editor is - what counts is whether it's proven with sources.
If some fact is not accessible to proof methods, the source(s) should be chosen such that they are authoritative and/or verifiable by others.
You mean just like already happens on Wikipedia? Verifiability is the fundamental requirement for inclusion on Wikipedia.
So all in all, I'm still unclear what on earth you are suggestion. For things that can be proven (like mathematics), Wikipedia already presents the proofs. For things that can only be shown with a source, Wikipedia rules are that you should give a source.
(If instead you're quibbling that a lot of material on Wikipedia is unsourced - the general consensus is that it's okay to have material there so that other people can find sources, or remove it - then that's a separate issue.)
At first sight, Wikipedia's approach looks like it's about verifiability, but a citation is not proof.
It's still not clear to me how you would prove it? Sure, this works for logic such as a mathematical proof, but what about the vast amount of other information? How would you prove - without being able to just rely on citations - that someone was born on a particular date, for example? Or the age of the Universe?
An actual proof constitutes original research and, unless it is in itself noteworthy, will therefore not find its way into Wikipedia.
If you mean the reader must do the original research, then that defeats the point of having an encyclopedia. If you mean the editor does the original research, then you're relying on "He said it and therefore I believe it" (since how can you trust he did the original research?) If you rely on a reliable source doing the original research, then that's a citation, which is how Wikipedia does work.
That wouldn't be much of a problem if only proven facts could be entered into Wikipedia, but Wikipedia actually uses a simple truth-by-discussion approach, weighed by the dedication which people are willing to put behind their point of view.
No, it's about verifiable sources. You shouldn't be discussing what's true, you should be discussing what's supported by references. That's a fundamental Wikipedia policy.
This approach is cemented by the "no original research" rule.
Allowing original research would give the problem you claim exists - as then you would have people claiming that what they say is true based on their "research", despite a lack of any sources.
A citation is not proof, just a deference to an external evaluation mechanism.
What would constitute a proof?
It is therefore no surprise that any one Wikipedia article isn't at the top of its field.
Well, if the worst that can be said of Wikipedia is that it's not the number 1 best reference, I don't think that's too bad for something that's free on the web.
What about looking at whether it evolves, i.e., adapts to become fitter in their environment? Doesn't apply to fire, nor rocks (which change, but these changes don't make them more likely to survive).
I wonder if another definition could be made in terms of energy - an entity that uses energy to decrease entropy in a local region. Of course, a fridge would also come under this - but then fridges are products of living entities.
At the end of the day, if we came across a complex chemistry that contained characteristics such as self-replication, then that would be interesting. Saying "but you can't give me a definition that includes this, and mules, but not fire!" is just playing word games.
There are lots of things that defy a strict definition, especially when it comes to lifeforms - e.g., there isn't even a decent definition of "species" (and the mule is one counter example to the definition "if they can produce fertile offspring, they're of the same species). This obviously doesn't stop the word having any meaning at all, nor has it stopped us finding and categorising new species. You can't give me a strict definition of "Macintosh" (is the original Macintosh the same platform as an x86 "Mac" running OS X? If not, where is the line drawn?) Just because our language is fuzzy and not always well-defined doesn't mean the concepts are useless.
If consumers were willing to pay extra for decent pay and conditions, then capitalism ought to work out fine - a company that did this would get more sales. If consumers aren't, then they are just as much to blame.
If capitalism is so flawed, why aren't Governments helping them out? Probably because "Government spends money on China" would, sadly, not be a vote winner. So I don't see that socialist countries would do any better here either.
The problem here is not capitalism. The problem is that life sucks for most of the people in the planet, and most people in western countries aren't bothered to do anything about it (and yes, I'll admit I'm included there too). Bitching about "capitalism" or these companies is the easy option - you can pretend that it's all their fault, and things would be better if it wasn't for them, all the while doing nothing yourself to help. But unless you're giving money to China in order to support at least one person at a decent wage, then you're in no position to criticise.
* The Chinese Government. * People who work in western countries. * Consumers in western countries.
And you blame "capitalism"? Evidently, the fault is with people in general. Where are all the decent well paid jobs being offered from socialist countries?
OOI, how much do you give to charity for people in poorer countries? Is it at least 0.82 dollars an hour?
It may be that you do, in which case, fair enough. But it's easy to criticise companies for not paying them 0.82 dollars an hour extra, whilst the individual saying this doesn't give anything.
That's in spite of all these "horrible work conditions" (by our standards, that we erroneously think nobody would want to work under) all over the place.
Yes. We have this perception that working on a farm producing your food must be better than these working conditions, but I wonder if that's to do with what to we can relate to? I mean, we know what it's like to work in a job for so many hours, that sometimes might be boring. So if we think of longer hours, crappy pay, and boring work, we know how bad that is. But we have no idea at all of just how bad it is for billions of people on the planet, who struggle to grow food to eat, have no running water and so on. I guess it's easy to forget all that, and think that before factories came along, people were having happy lives living off the land.
The real horror here is not simply how these workers are treated - but the fact that even this is better than what most people in the world have. Blaming the companies is the easy option - the uncomfortable truth is that we are so lucky compared with most of the world's population.
True, although in this case, the blame lies with the Government for doing this, and not the companies, or "capitalism", as is commonly blamed for this.
On a similar note, we have all sorts of regulations on worker conditions. It seems an inconsistency to me to say that employers in this country have to follow all sorts of rules, but it's then perfectly fine to import goods that avoid those regulations. Not all the rules are appropriate of course (e.g., it wouldn't make sense to have the same minimum wage levels in different countries), but some of them should apply anywhere.
But it's not all so easy: the unfortunate problem is that, no matter how awful the conditions are comparable to our society, the employees in these countries are still choosing to work there because it's better than what they had before. The danger is that imposing any rules will mean that companies have less reason to offer jobs in these countries in the first place.
To be fair, most commercial games are rip offs of each other - it's rare to find original games. You mention WormUx - but Worms itself was just a rip off of Tanks.
Also bear in mind that for programmers who are learning game programming, it's a much better process to try reimplementing a classic game (be it anything from Tetris, to a full blow FPS) than trying to come up with some super-duper original idea that actually turns out to be unplayable or otherwise doomed to failure. I'd much rather a finished game that works - even if it's not original - to the "I've got a great idea for a game that no one's ever done before" that never goes anywhere. So the intention is not about trying to rip people off.
And since when was offering the same as your competitors, but at a lower price, called "ripping off"? Last time I looked, that was the very opposite of a rip off.
Opinions may vary, of course, but 'PDAs' aren't dead, they've just been absorbed into other products, namely phones and MP3 players.
Which had happened long before the Iphone came along. Even non-"smart" phones have many of these functions - the distinction between smart and non-smart doesn't really apply anymore.
So I can't even use my own video camera to get street scenes without infringing on your privacy?
If you were there, they'd see you, and it would be their decision if they continue to do whatever they were planning to do. This is distinct from having a small camera situated somewhere.
If you're in public don't do anything you wouldn't want your mother to know about.
Even if my mother isn't around?
The right to privacy in public is oxymoronic.
It's not about "right to privacy in public", just as I could equally dispute your "right to put up cameras in public".
For most of history, the expectation in public was that whilst you didn't get absolute privacy, your actions would be seen by those around you. It doesn't follow that therefore, it's no different to having everyone's actions recorded everywhere.
As it happens, I think there are worse civil liberty issues to worry about than public CCTV. But I think some of the arguments put up in favour, suggesting if you step out your front door it's okay for the world and your mother to see you at all times, rather weak.
It's also worth noting that some CCTV-heavy countries such as the UK do not like it when individuals take photos of the police, or even public buildings - the police may harrass you to delete the photo, and there was even a publicity campaign urging to report people who took photos of buildings, branding them as terrorists. But wait, what happened to there being no right to privacy in a public place?
Clearly, it's nothing to do with right to privacy - it's about what we as a society want going on in public. If that means CCTV everywhere, fair enough. But if people don't want it, then they shouldn't be there.
It doesn't matter which it is - it's a perfectly valid argument to say "Either X is true or it isn't", and then provide a reason against either scenario.
"If they work they invade privacy (by letting cops identify people). If they don't, they aren't effective for identifying people."
There's no need for any argument between the two clauses: neither side is making a claim that they work or not, they are just pointing out the consequences.
Did you not even read my comment? You've just repeated your original straw man argument.
I clearly stated: where did I say we are not affected at all?
As I stated, there are three major problems with your comparison.
Now, I'm still waiting for that evidence of harm of the material being banned here? Not evidence of adverts, because (a) it isn't adverts being banned, and (b) they don't cause harm.
Not this straw man argument again - where did I say we are not affected at all? I asked for evidence of harm. Obviously our behaviour can be affected - for example, me reading your post causes me to write this reply. But it is nonsensical to say that your post will cause me to commit a crime.
There are three major problems with your comparison to advertising:
1. Just because people are influenced by being informed about something doesn't mean that reading something will make them commit a crime that they wouldn't have otherwise. More generally, it is a fallacy to say "Because A causes B, then C causes D", especially when the latter is a much stronger and more dubious claim.
2. If people were influenced to this extent, then how come it's only the unpopular things that are banned? How about we ban all depictions and stories of violence, sex, nudity, oh and religion, just in case. And let's ban all adverts too. And your Slashdot posts. Clearly, even if people are influenced by media, we need some stronger argument to justify why a ban is needed in only certain cases, otherwise we end up banning everything!
3. And the biggest problem is, one can equally make the reverse claim: what if viewing media makes people less likely to commit crime? You see, if you play the "media affects us" card, and claim advertising as evidence, then that argument works both ways.
Now, I'm still waiting for that evidence of harm of the material being banned here? Not evidence of adverts, because (a) it isn't adverts being banned, and (b) they don't cause harm.
"actually, the film doesn't interest me enough to just spend a couple of hours watching a film".
No, that's a non-sequitor. Enjoying a drink or food at the same time doesn't imply the film isn't interesting.
Sure, if someone wanted to watch a film naked, then that would be a reason why cinemas have less value. However, laws regarding public nudity are not dictated by the cinema, so that's out of their control. The choice to ban food other than their own expensive offerings is a conscious choice. Moreover, the fact that plenty of people do eat and drink whilst watching a movie (indeed, the cinema makes plenty of money from it) suggests that people do want to do this. I'm not convinced that "pay money to be able to take off your clothes" will be as popular.
I'm not sure what's so controversial here. If cinemas are whining about falling popularity, maybe they should look at the restrictions they are placing on people - which has nothing to do with "getting your old man out".
but it doesn't make cinema dead
I'm not claiming that. If the cinema is doing a roaring trade, good luck to them. I'll remember that next time I hear them whining about piracy.
Anyway, have you ever seen someone chucked out for discreetly drinking some bottled water or chewing on a sweet? I'm not talking about bringing in a Big Mac and fries - if you do that then I'll be happy to help you out the way you came in, as I don't want to hear and smell you throughout the film.
Because obviously, the only two possibilities are a little sweet or bottled water; and smelly food.
Oh, and lol@the argument that cinema is dead because they must make the money on the accessories. By the same argument, open source is dead because the base product is always free.
Where did I claim that? And what on earth has OS got to do with anything?
Finally, it's also depressing to see how spoilt people are on Slashdot that they think everyone can afford a home cinema experience. I speak as someone who had an uncle working in broadcasting build a real cinema in the attic of the old family home in the '60s, using furnishings from a former commercial cinema. That, for its time, was a home cinema experience - I expect most people's "home cinema" today is just a moderately large widescreen TV and surround sound. Oh well, you put long hours into paying for a couple of ready-made boxes and sticking a few cables together, I guess you have to justify it somehow.
Oh heaven forbid. And I spent 25 hours a day for the last ten years building my own home cinema from scratch. What has that got to do with anything I said? Your entire comment is just a long list of straw man arguments, and doesn't address what I wrote.
Apple has a history of virtually 100% secure operating systems, especially OS X
Especially OS X? Leaving aside the debate of whether that's true, what other "virtually 100% secure" operating systems has Apple released? Your memory of their history seems to leave out "classic" MacOS, which had viruses, and didn't even support memory protection.
Indeed. Note how it's only the unpopular things in society that ever get censored "for the children". I'd say religious preaching has far more effect on children, so by their reasoning, how about we censor that?
and often had more friends from the 'deviant' groups like homosexuals, transsexuals or so on.
The sad thing is that pro-censorship people claim that this sort of an effect is itself a bad thing.
This is a good point. In the UK, I followed the progress of the recent law that criminalises possession of "extreme" pr0n involving consenting adults. It was noticeable that the Government consultation involved large numbers of religious lobby groups (not just Christian - there was a response from the "National Council of Hindu Temples"), needless to say arguing fully in support of a law, despite them having no expertise in this area, or any indication that their reponse is representative. But among my friends, I know plenty of Christians who think the law is mad (and none who support it).
Similarly, when there's an issue involving religion in the media, the organisation Christian Voice is asked to give their opinion. They'd more accurately be called Stephen Green's Voice, as it's just one person spouting his right wing fundamentalist views, which (I hope) are in no way representative of Christians.
Although note in the UK, we already have internet filtering from the Internet Watch Foundation (think of the recent fiasco with Wikipedia), so we could blame it on that:)
Yes you're right - it's not like the Middle Ages. Because in the Middle Ages, people weren't obsessed about what individuals looked at or read in their own homes. There were better things to worry about.
Rolling out the OMFG!!!1111 wagon every time anything happens just make anyone concerned about the topic look like a interweb dramaqueen.
No. The only ones rolling out the "OMFG!!!111 wagon" are those people calling for censorship - they are the ones who think that some great harm is caused by people looking at or reading things. But for some reason, they never get labelled dramaqueens.
Slashdot Mirror
A nice generalisation. The vast majority that I bittorrent is TV that's already showing on TV channels I pay for (I just like the convience of watching when I want, and not having to wait several months for it to come out in the UK), and in particular, content that I've already paid for via the mandatory TV tax we have here in the UK.
And if copyright were a sensible term such as 30 years, I'd be happily download copyright free music, and making more sure that anything new is material that I buy (I do still buy plenty, after all).
Here in the UK, music retailers can sell vouchers, then decide that if they're in financial troubles, they can decide not to honour them, even though they're still trading. That's theft. Because, unlike your incorrect usage of the word, I am deprived of that money - it hasn't merely been "copied". Yet if I copy the equivalent content of what they stole from me, I'm the one accused of ruining the industry!
Indeed. If Facebook want to try enforcing this, then my website has a clause saying any company that tries such a stupid ToS on me owes me a million pounds.
The age of the Universe is unknown.
Exactly - but I would still expect an encyclopedia to tell me what the current best estimates of its age are. This isn't something that is "proven", but you can give citations for what various scientists say.
So, how would this be "proven" using original research, instead of citations?
Things like dates of birth or population counts should be backed by references to the most authoritative documentation possible.
Which is a citation. Which is what would be used on Wikipedia.
it is still better than citing a newspaper or other "unofficial" sources which might even have used an earlier version of Wikipedia as their source
Wikipedia doesn't allow any source - the requirement is reliable sources. So if an unreliable source is quoted, then that's a problem with not following the system. It's not clear how your suggestion is any different to what is meant to be done on Wikipedia? Note, often the problem is that telling what constitutes a "reliable" source is not trivial - but again, I don't see that you are suggesting anything to solve this problem. Saying "it should use the most reliable sources possible" is a statement of the obvious, and is what people already should be trying to do. But unfortunately, sometimes a newspaper is the best that someone can find for some things.
A proper proof does not rely on trust. You can verify it yourself, if it is presented to you.
So Wikipedia should contain complete instructions on how to independently verify something? It's an encyclopedia, not a manual to teach you how to do everything.
But if you mean, contain a reference to something that tells you how to verify it yourself - then that's a citation, and again, is exactly what sbould be done on Wikipedia.
A correct proof from an AC is as good as a correct proof by Einstein.
Again, this is nothing new. The whole point of Wikipedia is that it shouldn't matter who the editor is - what counts is whether it's proven with sources.
If some fact is not accessible to proof methods, the source(s) should be chosen such that they are authoritative and/or verifiable by others.
You mean just like already happens on Wikipedia? Verifiability is the fundamental requirement for inclusion on Wikipedia.
So all in all, I'm still unclear what on earth you are suggestion. For things that can be proven (like mathematics), Wikipedia already presents the proofs. For things that can only be shown with a source, Wikipedia rules are that you should give a source.
(If instead you're quibbling that a lot of material on Wikipedia is unsourced - the general consensus is that it's okay to have material there so that other people can find sources, or remove it - then that's a separate issue.)
At first sight, Wikipedia's approach looks like it's about verifiability, but a citation is not proof.
It's still not clear to me how you would prove it? Sure, this works for logic such as a mathematical proof, but what about the vast amount of other information? How would you prove - without being able to just rely on citations - that someone was born on a particular date, for example? Or the age of the Universe?
An actual proof constitutes original research and, unless it is in itself noteworthy, will therefore not find its way into Wikipedia.
If you mean the reader must do the original research, then that defeats the point of having an encyclopedia. If you mean the editor does the original research, then you're relying on "He said it and therefore I believe it" (since how can you trust he did the original research?) If you rely on a reliable source doing the original research, then that's a citation, which is how Wikipedia does work.
That wouldn't be much of a problem if only proven facts could be entered into Wikipedia, but Wikipedia actually uses a simple truth-by-discussion approach, weighed by the dedication which people are willing to put behind their point of view.
No, it's about verifiable sources. You shouldn't be discussing what's true, you should be discussing what's supported by references. That's a fundamental Wikipedia policy.
This approach is cemented by the "no original research" rule.
Allowing original research would give the problem you claim exists - as then you would have people claiming that what they say is true based on their "research", despite a lack of any sources.
A citation is not proof, just a deference to an external evaluation mechanism.
What would constitute a proof?
It is therefore no surprise that any one Wikipedia article isn't at the top of its field.
Well, if the worst that can be said of Wikipedia is that it's not the number 1 best reference, I don't think that's too bad for something that's free on the web.
What about looking at whether it evolves, i.e., adapts to become fitter in their environment? Doesn't apply to fire, nor rocks (which change, but these changes don't make them more likely to survive).
I wonder if another definition could be made in terms of energy - an entity that uses energy to decrease entropy in a local region. Of course, a fridge would also come under this - but then fridges are products of living entities.
At the end of the day, if we came across a complex chemistry that contained characteristics such as self-replication, then that would be interesting. Saying "but you can't give me a definition that includes this, and mules, but not fire!" is just playing word games.
There are lots of things that defy a strict definition, especially when it comes to lifeforms - e.g., there isn't even a decent definition of "species" (and the mule is one counter example to the definition "if they can produce fertile offspring, they're of the same species). This obviously doesn't stop the word having any meaning at all, nor has it stopped us finding and categorising new species. You can't give me a strict definition of "Macintosh" (is the original Macintosh the same platform as an x86 "Mac" running OS X? If not, where is the line drawn?) Just because our language is fuzzy and not always well-defined doesn't mean the concepts are useless.
If consumers were willing to pay extra for decent pay and conditions, then capitalism ought to work out fine - a company that did this would get more sales. If consumers aren't, then they are just as much to blame.
If capitalism is so flawed, why aren't Governments helping them out? Probably because "Government spends money on China" would, sadly, not be a vote winner. So I don't see that socialist countries would do any better here either.
The problem here is not capitalism. The problem is that life sucks for most of the people in the planet, and most people in western countries aren't bothered to do anything about it (and yes, I'll admit I'm included there too). Bitching about "capitalism" or these companies is the easy option - you can pretend that it's all their fault, and things would be better if it wasn't for them, all the while doing nothing yourself to help. But unless you're giving money to China in order to support at least one person at a decent wage, then you're in no position to criticise.
Sustainability perhaps?
In what sense do you mean?
So let's get this straight. To blame is:
* The Chinese Government.
* People who work in western countries.
* Consumers in western countries.
And you blame "capitalism"? Evidently, the fault is with people in general. Where are all the decent well paid jobs being offered from socialist countries?
OOI, how much do you give to charity for people in poorer countries? Is it at least 0.82 dollars an hour?
It may be that you do, in which case, fair enough. But it's easy to criticise companies for not paying them 0.82 dollars an hour extra, whilst the individual saying this doesn't give anything.
That's in spite of all these "horrible work conditions" (by our standards, that we erroneously think nobody would want to work under) all over the place.
Yes. We have this perception that working on a farm producing your food must be better than these working conditions, but I wonder if that's to do with what to we can relate to? I mean, we know what it's like to work in a job for so many hours, that sometimes might be boring. So if we think of longer hours, crappy pay, and boring work, we know how bad that is. But we have no idea at all of just how bad it is for billions of people on the planet, who struggle to grow food to eat, have no running water and so on. I guess it's easy to forget all that, and think that before factories came along, people were having happy lives living off the land.
The real horror here is not simply how these workers are treated - but the fact that even this is better than what most people in the world have. Blaming the companies is the easy option - the uncomfortable truth is that we are so lucky compared with most of the world's population.
True, although in this case, the blame lies with the Government for doing this, and not the companies, or "capitalism", as is commonly blamed for this.
On a similar note, we have all sorts of regulations on worker conditions. It seems an inconsistency to me to say that employers in this country have to follow all sorts of rules, but it's then perfectly fine to import goods that avoid those regulations. Not all the rules are appropriate of course (e.g., it wouldn't make sense to have the same minimum wage levels in different countries), but some of them should apply anywhere.
But it's not all so easy: the unfortunate problem is that, no matter how awful the conditions are comparable to our society, the employees in these countries are still choosing to work there because it's better than what they had before. The danger is that imposing any rules will mean that companies have less reason to offer jobs in these countries in the first place.
To be fair, most commercial games are rip offs of each other - it's rare to find original games. You mention WormUx - but Worms itself was just a rip off of Tanks.
Also bear in mind that for programmers who are learning game programming, it's a much better process to try reimplementing a classic game (be it anything from Tetris, to a full blow FPS) than trying to come up with some super-duper original idea that actually turns out to be unplayable or otherwise doomed to failure. I'd much rather a finished game that works - even if it's not original - to the "I've got a great idea for a game that no one's ever done before" that never goes anywhere. So the intention is not about trying to rip people off.
And since when was offering the same as your competitors, but at a lower price, called "ripping off"? Last time I looked, that was the very opposite of a rip off.
the best smartphone is the iPhone.
In your opinion.
Opinions may vary, of course, but 'PDAs' aren't dead, they've just been absorbed into other products, namely phones and MP3 players.
Which had happened long before the Iphone came along. Even non-"smart" phones have many of these functions - the distinction between smart and non-smart doesn't really apply anymore.
So I can't even use my own video camera to get street scenes without infringing on your privacy?
If you were there, they'd see you, and it would be their decision if they continue to do whatever they were planning to do. This is distinct from having a small camera situated somewhere.
If you're in public don't do anything you wouldn't want your mother to know about.
Even if my mother isn't around?
The right to privacy in public is oxymoronic.
It's not about "right to privacy in public", just as I could equally dispute your "right to put up cameras in public".
For most of history, the expectation in public was that whilst you didn't get absolute privacy, your actions would be seen by those around you. It doesn't follow that therefore, it's no different to having everyone's actions recorded everywhere.
As it happens, I think there are worse civil liberty issues to worry about than public CCTV. But I think some of the arguments put up in favour, suggesting if you step out your front door it's okay for the world and your mother to see you at all times, rather weak.
It's also worth noting that some CCTV-heavy countries such as the UK do not like it when individuals take photos of the police, or even public buildings - the police may harrass you to delete the photo, and there was even a publicity campaign urging to report people who took photos of buildings, branding them as terrorists. But wait, what happened to there being no right to privacy in a public place?
Clearly, it's nothing to do with right to privacy - it's about what we as a society want going on in public. If that means CCTV everywhere, fair enough. But if people don't want it, then they shouldn't be there.
So now any random person can stalk where I go?
I appreciate the point you are making, but I would find that even worse.
It doesn't matter which it is - it's a perfectly valid argument to say "Either X is true or it isn't", and then provide a reason against either scenario.
"If they work they invade privacy (by letting cops identify people). If they don't, they aren't effective for identifying people."
There's no need for any argument between the two clauses: neither side is making a claim that they work or not, they are just pointing out the consequences.
Did you not even read my comment? You've just repeated your original straw man argument.
I clearly stated: where did I say we are not affected at all?
As I stated, there are three major problems with your comparison.
Now, I'm still waiting for that evidence of harm of the material being banned here? Not evidence of adverts, because (a) it isn't adverts being banned, and (b) they don't cause harm.
Not this straw man argument again - where did I say we are not affected at all? I asked for evidence of harm. Obviously our behaviour can be affected - for example, me reading your post causes me to write this reply. But it is nonsensical to say that your post will cause me to commit a crime.
There are three major problems with your comparison to advertising:
1. Just because people are influenced by being informed about something doesn't mean that reading something will make them commit a crime that they wouldn't have otherwise. More generally, it is a fallacy to say "Because A causes B, then C causes D", especially when the latter is a much stronger and more dubious claim.
2. If people were influenced to this extent, then how come it's only the unpopular things that are banned? How about we ban all depictions and stories of violence, sex, nudity, oh and religion, just in case. And let's ban all adverts too. And your Slashdot posts. Clearly, even if people are influenced by media, we need some stronger argument to justify why a ban is needed in only certain cases, otherwise we end up banning everything!
3. And the biggest problem is, one can equally make the reverse claim: what if viewing media makes people less likely to commit crime? You see, if you play the "media affects us" card, and claim advertising as evidence, then that argument works both ways.
Now, I'm still waiting for that evidence of harm of the material being banned here? Not evidence of adverts, because (a) it isn't adverts being banned, and (b) they don't cause harm.
"actually, the film doesn't interest me enough to just spend a couple of hours watching a film".
No, that's a non-sequitor. Enjoying a drink or food at the same time doesn't imply the film isn't interesting.
Sure, if someone wanted to watch a film naked, then that would be a reason why cinemas have less value. However, laws regarding public nudity are not dictated by the cinema, so that's out of their control. The choice to ban food other than their own expensive offerings is a conscious choice. Moreover, the fact that plenty of people do eat and drink whilst watching a movie (indeed, the cinema makes plenty of money from it) suggests that people do want to do this. I'm not convinced that "pay money to be able to take off your clothes" will be as popular.
I'm not sure what's so controversial here. If cinemas are whining about falling popularity, maybe they should look at the restrictions they are placing on people - which has nothing to do with "getting your old man out".
but it doesn't make cinema dead
I'm not claiming that. If the cinema is doing a roaring trade, good luck to them. I'll remember that next time I hear them whining about piracy.
Anyway, have you ever seen someone chucked out for discreetly drinking some bottled water or chewing on a sweet? I'm not talking about bringing in a Big Mac and fries - if you do that then I'll be happy to help you out the way you came in, as I don't want to hear and smell you throughout the film.
Because obviously, the only two possibilities are a little sweet or bottled water; and smelly food.
Oh, and lol@the argument that cinema is dead because they must make the money on the accessories. By the same argument, open source is dead because the base product is always free.
Where did I claim that? And what on earth has OS got to do with anything?
Finally, it's also depressing to see how spoilt people are on Slashdot that they think everyone can afford a home cinema experience. I speak as someone who had an uncle working in broadcasting build a real cinema in the attic of the old family home in the '60s, using furnishings from a former commercial cinema. That, for its time, was a home cinema experience - I expect most people's "home cinema" today is just a moderately large widescreen TV and surround sound. Oh well, you put long hours into paying for a couple of ready-made boxes and sticking a few cables together, I guess you have to justify it somehow.
Oh heaven forbid. And I spent 25 hours a day for the last ten years building my own home cinema from scratch. What has that got to do with anything I said? Your entire comment is just a long list of straw man arguments, and doesn't address what I wrote.
Apple has a history of virtually 100% secure operating systems, especially OS X
Especially OS X? Leaving aside the debate of whether that's true, what other "virtually 100% secure" operating systems has Apple released? Your memory of their history seems to leave out "classic" MacOS, which had viruses, and didn't even support memory protection.
Indeed. Note how it's only the unpopular things in society that ever get censored "for the children". I'd say religious preaching has far more effect on children, so by their reasoning, how about we censor that?
and often had more friends from the 'deviant' groups like homosexuals, transsexuals or so on.
The sad thing is that pro-censorship people claim that this sort of an effect is itself a bad thing.
This is a good point. In the UK, I followed the progress of the recent law that criminalises possession of "extreme" pr0n involving consenting adults. It was noticeable that the Government consultation involved large numbers of religious lobby groups (not just Christian - there was a response from the "National Council of Hindu Temples"), needless to say arguing fully in support of a law, despite them having no expertise in this area, or any indication that their reponse is representative. But among my friends, I know plenty of Christians who think the law is mad (and none who support it).
Similarly, when there's an issue involving religion in the media, the organisation Christian Voice is asked to give their opinion. They'd more accurately be called Stephen Green's Voice, as it's just one person spouting his right wing fundamentalist views, which (I hope) are in no way representative of Christians.
Although note in the UK, we already have internet filtering from the Internet Watch Foundation (think of the recent fiasco with Wikipedia), so we could blame it on that :)
Yes you're right - it's not like the Middle Ages. Because in the Middle Ages, people weren't obsessed about what individuals looked at or read in their own homes. There were better things to worry about.
Rolling out the OMFG!!!1111 wagon every time anything happens just make anyone concerned about the topic look like a interweb dramaqueen.
No. The only ones rolling out the "OMFG!!!111 wagon" are those people calling for censorship - they are the ones who think that some great harm is caused by people looking at or reading things. But for some reason, they never get labelled dramaqueens.