Not knowing the specific details of the case. Can someone explain to me why it is illegal for me to edit a work of art that I have purposed in any way I choose before displaying it for myself and my children? Why is it illegal for me to pay someone else to do said mods and then destroy the original copy for me if that is what I want?
My suspicion is there are more details here then are being reported on. I guess one of which seems relivant although only hinted at in the artilce is that these copies are being provided for rental stores.
The quote further demostrates my point: "Audiences can now be assured that the films they buy or rent are the vision of the filmmakers who made them and not the arbitrary choices of a third-party editor."
Why would I want to be assured of watching someting I don't want to see? I guessing that is the question of confusion is only applicable if they buy or rent something. i can understand that. On the other hand if the idividual consumer directly request said sanitation then it seems it should really be nobodies business.
Artificial Birth Control methods are exactly what we do not need in order to survive the next 100 years. Why 2 reasons
1) survival means reproduction
2) The use of artificial birth control vs good old fashioned self control to regulate human population is encourages the attitude that is exactly what is responsible for the destruction of the environment we are seeing today. People are not willing to suffer for the common good or even the good of one another. Few people have any interest in learning or having self control and pleasure and convince are their primary goals in life because they consider suffering and self sacrifice the worst possible things that can happen to anyone.
When you take an action as personally significant as sex and then make it primarily about self pleasure the result spills over into the rest of life. The proliferation of artificial birth control encourages a pleasure centric view of the sexual act which in turn leads to pleasure centric view of other aspects of life. Who cares what is good for the environment and future generations my SUV is comfortable and I won't be there to see their problems.
The problem with being centered on self pleasure is so bad that as I write this I find myself not feeling much expectation that many of the readers will even understand what I'm talking about.
But let me clarify by simply saying this. Selfishness is the case of war , manmade famine , crime and poverty as well as the corporate greed and self centeredness that are destroying our environment. The popularity and proliferation of artificial birth control and abortion, besides being natural effects of teach and encourage the same selfishness that causes all those thing. Human selfishness is the greatest enemy of the survival of mankind. Artificial birth control makes it so much easier to be selfish.
I think Tom Anderson or John smith would be excellent names for Muslim children. A partial problem with these text filters is there are potentailly millions of people with the same name or variants there of. Especially in the islamic speaking world given the popularity of using names from thier religion.
Might as well filter out anderson in the midwest and risso in new york. Gauronteed to get at least 1 bad guy if you do that.
No I'm quite certain your statement is incorrect, we used to raise chickens. We never clipped their wings. they could not fly. It is possible that something other then domesticated chickens usually used to eat and produce eggs can fly , but the ones used for normal commercial purposes can at best glide a few yards after flapping vigorously into the air.
More accurately: "For what profit has a man, if he gets all the world with the loss of his life? or what will a man give in exchange for his life?" The book of Mathew chapter 16 verse 26;)
ahh I had misunderstood that. some previous statements lead me to believe he was in trouble for talking about it.
do you suppose that would include telling people how to find gambling sites using Google?
besides that since when does a link DO anything. seems to me you should be able to link to a gambling site because you are criticizing and want to references it even if you are explicitly discouraging gambling.
I guess if it is linking and only linking I'm kind on the fence about that. I don't see where providing information should ever be a crime. Now should you be civilly liable for things like ( damage done because someone followed your advice.) or cost of cleaning up including police salary after someone kills themselves using information you provided. I'd say certainly. Should you be jailed for saying it... I'm kind of iffy on that. but I do see the distinction.
I wonder if it is illegal to offer a online gambling to ip addressing coming from Mexico on a server running in Washington state ( but inaccessible from that state.)
Time to raid the server farms everyone.
(how to get your competing server farm or web host if they are located in WA). 1) rent from the space 2) but up gambling sight ( using IP routed through foreign country.) 3) report to WA the violation ( rinse repeate).
Thus driving up your competitors operating costs because now they have to monitor every sight they host or be shut down.
( i know I know not that terribly realist but the thought was funny;)
I'm sorry this is as bad as the DMCA. I don't mind people deciding what kind of regulations they want to have on gambling. There is a type of addiction some people can have to it which argues for some restrictions, but I would do my utmost to oppose stopping someone from talking about it.
It is crossing a line and is undoubtedly unconstitutional. then again I'm not sure that has stopped people when it came to the DMCA.
I don't like Nazi's but I'll support their right to tell people what they believe. I don't like abortionist but I'll support their legal right to tell people what they believe.
What the conservatives pushing these laws don't realize is they are enabling the same kind of thing as the Canadian 'anti-hate speech' legislation which has made it very difficult to talk about the 'immorality' of homosexuality. (something I'd be pretty certain they would not want to see happen here.)
in some ways they are cutting their own throats. the problem is that not enough people are united on a topic everyone should agree on.
I may not support what you say but I am certainly going to support you right to say it.
I wonder if anyone has ever considered if the political spectrum is more like a circle then a line. The closer you get to the far left or the far right the more you resemble the opposite.
Myself I oppose Fascism I don't care if it is couched as 'conservative values' or 'broad minded liberal ideas'
this will be intresting, because if ESRB and ESA are acuratlely rating games according to the court there should be no problem. It also seems like it would have to find the rating was in error wouldn't it?
it might give rise to some intresting statistics about how often the court finds and existing ratting to be in error.
also, there is a second problem. This is not being marketed to (most) TV owners. What percentage of TV owners own HDTV. half to a quarter would be my guess. So unlike the DVD the market that can actually use this technology is smaller as we..
could you explain to me what makes something bad? is it bad to kill people ? why? what is a person anyway? is a fetus a person? is a 1 year old a person? why is it bad to stop one of those things for living?
you have a faith in the idea that there is such a thing as bad.
by the way a non-theist and a materialistic atheist are not the same thing. and exstistential atheist for instance is something different. I restricted my statement specifically.
could you please prove to me why it is you have an obligation to do anything you don't want to? If you want to find but you have not obligation.
if you can't prove it starting with basic assumptions/facts then you believe it entirely on faith. I have no question you believe as you say that you have an obligation but if you are truly a materialistic atheist ( believe in nothing more then the material world) you are doing so on faith. Unless you can prove your moral obligation based on the laws of physics.
that however was not my point. My point was that the reason this debate is not more scientific is because it is something akin to a religious debate and that I believe Mr. Gore as he claims to be Christian has a higher level of responsibility to be scientific. If not he is being inconsistent.
The problem is you are holding to a philosophy without any reasonable justification. you are doing it only because you want to or because that is what you have been socially conditioned to do.
Why do the needs of the many out way the needs of the few or the one?
Don't get me wrong. I understand. I was an agnostic for some years and a near atheist.
But the fact remains what you are saying has no rational basis for belief. you believe it only because you want to not because it is right or wrong. Which brings me back to my original post in the fact that you believe it entirely on some kind of faith you have in it rather then something you can prove.
I could give you rational reason why i expect an atheist to have such a belief but I don't think you would like it as it come from a Christian context.
I did not say atheism precluded morals ( I have known some very moral atheist.) what I said was atheism precluded moral obligation.
seriously what's to prove. if the material universe is all that exists. ( materialistic atheism as opposed to some other kind)
prove to me ANYTHING at all is right or wrong. You can't because there is no standard by which to judge.
you and i are merely interesting chemical reactions with less consequence then stars and all consequences of our actions are no more relevant then any other mindless physical phenomenon occurring or not occurring.
that is part of what Pavlov meant when he said the sooner we get over the idea that free will exist the better off the whole race will be.
thus: you can not tell me anything is right or wrong because morality is the connection between motivation action and consequence but the consequences , and motivations are no more relevant than weather or not a wolf kills to eat or for pleasure. All that remains is self. assertion of ones own will as it pleases you and your strength allows. nothing more.
Mr. Gore however claims to hold himself to a higher standard then that.
Well I don't want to get too far off topic but you completely misunderstand the point of prayer. At least from my particular perspective. God doesn't change ( if he really created time how could he?). Prayer changes you and the world around you because of the way it changes you. The point isn't to get God to do anything. It's to co-operate with what God is already doing, because you love Him.
In any case you certainly have a lot of faith in your idea of what god is and is not, much of which you have no scientific proof for. that was my original thought pertaining the article and I think you sufficiently proved my point.
On the other hand. As I pointed out before why do you feel obligated to take care of yourself? I mean if you could manipulate other people into doing everything for you that you don't want to do are you saying there would be something wrong with that? Beyond the scope of your own life what difference does it make what happens to the planet or anyone else? It seems unlikely you will live long enough to be forced into starvation by global warming.
yes but al gore like so many people on both sides of the isle from the materialistic atheist to the born again Christian is a man of faith.
He has faith that WE are the cause of global warming far beyond what the science can support. Just as a Christian has faith in a God that cannon be proved and the materialistic atheist has faith that God does not exist beyond what can be proved.
My point is much of the action we take is based on faith not science. Politics is about emotion not science. Anyone who tells you otherwise is... er.. playing politics;)
I sometimes thing the environmental issue is as much a religious war as so many other issues from copy write to abortion seem to really be.
The interesting thing is that Gore as a born again Christian is bond by his ethics to seek what is real and true. An atheist has no such moral obligation.
10) It makes me happy so it can't be that bad 9) Sex ( and everything else ) has a meaning and therefore MORE meaning. 9) The more I think about Jesus the more I do what is right and good 8) The more I think about Jesus the more often I'm kind to others , especially those who attack me and act like my enemies. 7) It is of GREAT benefit to my friends and family because I stop being selfish and self absorbed 6) No withdrawal and you can stop at any time 5) No obligation and no cost 4) The ability to mentally survive any suffering life might through your way by embracing your cross and continuing to love 3) Being in love is wonderful 2) being loved by the cause of existence itself is even better 1) Heaven ( can you say one serious contact high)
; Perhaps many of us would understand it stated better this way ; this piece of code was taken from the secret scripting;language that is used to run manager training simulators
;WARNING: understanding this code may make you ; begin to understand management ; understanding management has been known to cause ; corruption to programmers minds and has been known to ; eventually cause promotion from programming to management DOLOOP
IF(want to make $money$)
write new software OR new features;
IF(time proposed to customer by manger LESSTHEN time to implement new feature) { Terminate ON(time proposed to customer by manger = current time)
{
test and fix;
update design documents;
keep organized;
} }
IF(time to implement new feature >= time to this point) time to implement new feature = Reduce By Half (time to implement new feature)
time proposed to customer = time to implement new feature END LOOP
I guess I can see the argument. It is best in times of war to be dependant on things no one else can take control of. It is however a blade that cuts both ways.
What effect would it have on the U.S. economy if ASIA were to be as paranoid about their government tech as this good senator.
The first smart thing they would do would be to dump MS Windows from all their machines. Just in case the NSA knows something the rest of us don't;)
Not that I'm a big believer in such things, but when you are talking about people like the CIA spooks paranoia about security doesn't begin to describe reality.
Bottom line is, if you are working in the type of environment where you can't have cell pones on because the shadow from your monitor superimposed on the signal might be carried far enough to be reconstructed by the enemy. You are much better off not buying things made by anyone but yourself.
I think it is time to start a movement to build encryption into all communications on the internet as a default user option.
Us geeks need to promote the use of web anonymizers through the use of a easy net scape plug-in and e-mail encryption by writing plug-in / managers for standard clients including outlook.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't be so sure. 'folks like me' probably have higher birth rate then 'folks like you'
Not knowing the specific details of the case.
Can someone explain to me why it is illegal for me to edit a work of art that I have purposed in any way I choose before displaying it for myself and my children? Why is it illegal for me to pay someone else to do said mods and then destroy the original copy for me if that is what I want?
My suspicion is there are more details here then are being reported on.
I guess one of which seems relivant although only hinted at in the artilce is that these copies are being provided for rental stores.
The quote further demostrates my point:
"Audiences can now be assured that the films they buy or rent are the vision of the filmmakers who made them and not the arbitrary choices of a third-party editor."
Why would I want to be assured of watching someting I don't want to see?
I guessing that is the question of confusion is only applicable if they buy or rent something. i can understand that. On the other hand if the idividual consumer directly request said sanitation then it seems it should really be nobodies business.
Artificial Birth Control methods are exactly what we do not need in order to survive the next 100 years.
Why 2 reasons
1) survival means reproduction
2) The use of artificial birth control vs good old fashioned self control to regulate human population is encourages the attitude that is exactly what is responsible for the destruction of the environment we are seeing today. People are not willing to suffer for the common good or even the good of one another. Few people have any interest in learning or having self control and pleasure and convince are their primary goals in life because they consider suffering and self sacrifice the worst possible things that can happen to anyone.
When you take an action as personally significant as sex and then make it primarily about self pleasure the result spills over into the rest of life.
The proliferation of artificial birth control encourages a pleasure centric view of the sexual act which in turn leads to pleasure centric view of other aspects of life. Who cares what is good for the environment and future generations my SUV is comfortable and I won't be there to see their problems.
The problem with being centered on self pleasure is so bad that as I write this I find myself not feeling much expectation that many of the readers will even understand what I'm talking about.
But let me clarify by simply saying this. Selfishness is the case of war , manmade famine , crime and poverty as well as the corporate greed and self centeredness that are destroying our environment. The popularity and proliferation of artificial birth control and abortion, besides being natural effects of teach and encourage the same selfishness that causes all those thing. Human selfishness is the greatest enemy of the survival of mankind. Artificial birth control makes it so much easier to be selfish.
odd to hear reality and games mentioned in the same sentence ;)
just made me chuckle a bit the juxtaposition.
I think Tom Anderson or John smith would be excellent names for Muslim children.
A partial problem with these text filters is there are potentailly millions of people with the same name or variants there of. Especially in the islamic speaking world given the popularity of using names from thier religion.
Might as well filter out anderson in the midwest and risso in new york.
Gauronteed to get at least 1 bad guy if you do that.
No I'm quite certain your statement is incorrect, we used to raise chickens. We never clipped their wings. they could not fly. It is possible that something other then domesticated chickens usually used to eat and produce eggs can fly , but the ones used for normal commercial purposes can at best glide a few yards after flapping vigorously into the air.
More accurately: ;)
"For what profit has a man, if he gets all the world with the loss of his life? or what will a man give in exchange for his life?"
The book of Mathew chapter 16 verse 26
what profits a man if he should gain the whole world and lose his immortal soul ;)
ahh I had misunderstood that. some previous statements lead me to believe he was in trouble for talking about it.
... I'm kind of iffy on that. but I do see the distinction.
do you suppose that would include telling people how to find gambling sites using Google?
besides that since when does a link DO anything. seems to me you should be able to link to a gambling site because you are criticizing and want to references it even if you are explicitly discouraging gambling.
I guess if it is linking and only linking I'm kind on the fence about that.
I don't see where providing information should ever be a crime.
Now should you be civilly liable for things like ( damage done because someone followed your advice.) or cost of cleaning up including police salary after someone kills themselves using information you provided. I'd say certainly.
Should you be jailed for saying it
I wonder if it is illegal to offer a online gambling to ip addressing coming from Mexico on a server running in Washington state ( but inaccessible from that state.)
;)
Time to raid the server farms everyone.
(how to get your competing server farm or web host if they are located in WA).
1) rent from the space
2) but up gambling sight ( using IP routed through foreign country.)
3) report to WA the violation ( rinse repeate).
Thus driving up your competitors operating costs because now they have to monitor every sight they host or be shut down.
( i know I know not that terribly realist but the thought was funny
I'm sorry this is as bad as the DMCA.
I don't mind people deciding what kind of regulations they
want to have on gambling. There is a type of addiction some people
can have to it which argues for some restrictions, but I would do my utmost to oppose stopping someone from talking about it.
It is crossing a line and is undoubtedly unconstitutional.
then again I'm not sure that has stopped people when it came to the DMCA.
I don't like Nazi's but I'll support their right to tell people what they believe.
I don't like abortionist but I'll support their legal right to tell people what they believe.
What the conservatives pushing these laws don't realize is they are enabling the same kind of thing as the Canadian 'anti-hate speech' legislation which has made it very difficult to talk about the 'immorality' of homosexuality.
(something I'd be pretty certain they would not want to see happen here.)
in some ways they are cutting their own throats.
the problem is that not enough people are united on a topic everyone should agree on.
I may not support what you say but I am certainly going to support you right to say it.
I wonder if anyone has ever considered if the political spectrum is more like a circle then a line. The closer you get to the far left or the far right the more you resemble the opposite.
Myself I oppose Fascism I don't care if it is couched as 'conservative values' or 'broad minded liberal ideas'
this will be intresting, because if ESRB and ESA are acuratlely rating games according to the court there should be no problem. It also seems like it would have to find the rating was in error wouldn't it?
it might give rise to some intresting statistics about how often the court finds and existing ratting to be in error.
also, there is a second problem. This is not being marketed to (most) TV owners. What percentage of TV owners own HDTV. half to a quarter would be my guess. So unlike the DVD the market that can actually use this technology is smaller as we..
could you explain to me what makes something bad?
is it bad to kill people ? why?
what is a person anyway? is a fetus a person? is a 1 year old a person?
why is it bad to stop one of those things for living?
you have a faith in the idea that there is such a thing as bad.
by the way a non-theist and a materialistic atheist are not the same thing.
and exstistential atheist for instance is something different. I restricted my statement specifically.
could you please prove to me why it is you have an obligation to do anything you don't want to? If you want to find but you have not obligation.
if you can't prove it starting with basic assumptions/facts then you believe it entirely on faith. I have no question you believe as you say that you have an obligation but if you are truly a materialistic atheist ( believe in nothing more then the material world) you are doing so on faith. Unless you can prove your moral obligation based on the laws of physics.
that however was not my point. My point was that the reason this debate is not more scientific is because it is something akin to a religious debate and that I believe Mr. Gore as he claims to be Christian has a higher level of responsibility to be scientific. If not he is being inconsistent.
The problem is you are holding to a philosophy without any reasonable justification. you are doing it only because you want to or because that is what you have been socially conditioned to do.
Why do the needs of the many out way the needs of the few or the one?
Don't get me wrong. I understand. I was an agnostic for some years and a near atheist.
But the fact remains what you are saying has no rational basis for belief.
you believe it only because you want to not because it is right or wrong.
Which brings me back to my original post in the fact that you believe it entirely on some kind of faith you have in it rather then something you can prove.
I could give you rational reason why i expect an atheist to have such a belief but I don't think you would like it as it come from a Christian context.
of coarse if you drink orange juice it breaks down into more flamadahyde then the average does of aspertane in your soda.
I did not say atheism precluded morals ( I have known some very moral atheist.) what I said was atheism precluded moral obligation.
seriously what's to prove.
if the material universe is all that exists.
( materialistic atheism as opposed to some other kind)
prove to me ANYTHING at all is right or wrong.
You can't because there is no standard by which to judge.
you and i are merely interesting chemical reactions with less consequence then stars and all consequences of our actions are no more relevant then any other mindless physical phenomenon occurring or not occurring.
that is part of what Pavlov meant when he said the sooner we get over the idea that free will exist the better off the whole race will be.
thus: you can not tell me anything is right or wrong because morality is the connection between motivation action and consequence but the consequences , and motivations are no more relevant than weather or not a wolf kills to eat or for pleasure. All that remains is self. assertion of ones own will as it pleases you and your strength allows. nothing more.
Mr. Gore however claims to hold himself to a higher standard then that.
Well I don't want to get too far off topic but you completely misunderstand the point of prayer. At least from my particular perspective. God doesn't change ( if he really created time how could he?). Prayer changes you and the world around you because of the way it changes you. The point isn't to get God to do anything. It's to co-operate with what God is already doing, because you love Him.
In any case you certainly have a lot of faith in your idea of what god is and is not, much of which you have no scientific proof for. that was my original thought pertaining the article and I think you sufficiently proved my point.
On the other hand. As I pointed out before why do you feel obligated to take care of yourself? I mean if you could manipulate other people into doing everything for you that you don't want to do are you saying there would be something wrong with that?
Beyond the scope of your own life what difference does it make what happens to the planet or anyone else? It seems unlikely you will live long enough to be forced into starvation by global warming.
yes but al gore like so many people on both sides of the isle from the materialistic atheist to the born again Christian is a man of faith.
... er.. playing politics ;)
He has faith that WE are the cause of global warming far beyond what the science can support. Just as a Christian has faith in a God that cannon be proved and the materialistic atheist has faith that God does not exist beyond what can be proved.
My point is much of the action we take is based on faith not science.
Politics is about emotion not science. Anyone who tells you otherwise is
I sometimes thing the environmental issue is as much a religious war as so many other issues from copy write to abortion seem to really be.
The interesting thing is that Gore as a born again Christian is bond by his ethics to seek what is real and true. An atheist has no such moral obligation.
10 things I like about my Jesus addiction:
10) It makes me happy so it can't be that bad
9) Sex ( and everything else ) has a meaning and therefore MORE meaning.
9) The more I think about Jesus the more I do what is right and good
8) The more I think about Jesus the more often I'm kind to others , especially those who attack me and act like my enemies.
7) It is of GREAT benefit to my friends and family because I stop being selfish and self absorbed
6) No withdrawal and you can stop at any time
5) No obligation and no cost
4) The ability to mentally survive any suffering life might through your way
by embracing your cross and continuing to love
3) Being in love is wonderful
2) being loved by the cause of existence itself is even better
1) Heaven ( can you say one serious contact high)
; Perhaps many of us would understand it stated better this way ;language that is used to run manager training simulators
;WARNING: understanding this code may make you
; this piece of code was taken from the secret scripting
; begin to understand management
; understanding management has been known to cause
; corruption to programmers minds and has been known to
; eventually cause promotion from programming to management
DOLOOP
IF(want to make $money$)
write new software OR new features;
IF(time proposed to customer by manger LESSTHEN time to implement new feature)
{
Terminate ON(time proposed to customer by manger = current time)
{
test and fix;
update design documents;
keep organized;
}
}
IF(time to implement new feature >= time to this point)
time to implement new feature = Reduce By Half (time to implement new feature)
time proposed to customer = time to implement new feature
END LOOP
I guess I can see the argument. It is best in times of war to be dependant on things no one else can take control of. It is however a blade that cuts both ways.
;)
What effect would it have on the U.S. economy if ASIA were to be as paranoid about their government tech as this good senator.
The first smart thing they would do would be to dump MS Windows from all their machines. Just in case the NSA knows something the rest of us don't
Not that I'm a big believer in such things, but when you are talking about people like the CIA spooks paranoia about security doesn't begin to describe reality.
Bottom line is, if you are working in the type of environment where
you can't have cell pones on because the shadow from your monitor superimposed on the signal might be carried far enough to be reconstructed by the enemy. You are much better off not buying things made by anyone but yourself.
I think it is time to start a movement to build encryption into all communications on the internet as a default user option.
Us geeks need to promote the use of web anonymizers through the use of
a easy net scape plug-in and e-mail encryption by writing plug-in / managers for standard clients including outlook.