I disagree. This nation was founded on principles of individual liberty - if we can no longer uphold those while defending our nation, our nation is no longer worth defending.
That's one hell of a brazen dodge. He asked you a pretty simple and direct question - PMuse observed what seems to him to be two contradictory statements in the bible. He then asked you which of these statements you believe to be true, or alternately, why you feel there is no contradiction at all. I can't imagine why you would refuse to answer this simple question, except that perhaps you have realized that you cannot logically defend something your narrow worldview compels you to defend.
Um, nope, it pretty specifically says "militia" and "the people". As previously observed in this topic, the U.S. legal definition of the citizen militia is very broad, encompassing pretty much every male capable of bearing arms. The need for a citizen militia is very different from the need for a professional army - the latter is for protecting our country from foreign threats, the former is for protecting our liberties from our country.
For example if I search for "semi-automatic rifle" (which I have a second amendment right to own), falafel recipe, and Syria, does that make me a potential terrorist?
No, it just means you're serious about defending your falafels. Mmm... falafels.
Doesn't seem very confusing to me. Google is standing up for the rule of law as it currently applies in each of those two countries, respectively. I don't think the laws in China are things that should necessarily be supported, but the fact that there are different laws in the United States and China does not confuse me one bit.;-)
I agree with you, but I'd just like to note that in the RIAA example, no crime has been committed either. What happens when somebody downloads music they haven't paid for is called "copyright infringement," and is a civil matter, not criminal. Come on, this is Slashdot. I thought we'd been over this a million times already.:-)
There's a logical disconnect here - "I don't understand how it happened, therefore a higher intelligence compelled it to happen."
How do you intend to "prove" a designer simply from observation of physical patterns? What is it about those patterns makes it impossible for them to have come about through the action of natural law? You commit the logical fallacy of assuming that, since we as intelligent beings are capable of designing complex structures, other complex structures must also have been designed.
Furthermore, if we are talking about God here (and I'm assuming we are), then we are talking about He who created those very natural laws from which all observable behavior arises. The nature of those laws is beyond our perception - we would have no way of knowing the laws are there just because they're there, or because some intelligence outside of the universe put them there. What would be the difference, anyway? We're discussing something that, by definition, is beyond any possible empircal experience. Unless, of course, you're positing a "clumsy hacker god", who had to go back and make changes against his original design after realizing he had made a mistake...
Further still, what's your definition of "intelligence"? Intelligence and complexity are both abstract concepts that we have created - they are not intrinsic properties of anything except as we define them.
sure bear arms. sure, if you are part of a state millitia.
I usually don't like to debate the Second amendment with people on the Internet, but sometimes I just feel like sayin' stuff, you know?:-P
Let's disregard for the moment the fact that the Second Amendment does not explicitly restrict the right to bear arms to members of the militia. Let's forget the fact that the Department of Justice has specifically asserted that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, not a collective one. Let's assume that only members of the militia are authorized by the Constitution to bear arms.
Okay?
Okay.
Well, there's still the fact that every male citizen between the ages of 17 and 45 is a member of the militia of the United States of America. You're probably a member yourself (making some assumptions about members of this site's typical demographic). It's law. See 10 USC 13, S.311.
More on topic, what part of "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" does not imply some right to privacy? But then, maybe you're right. If the protection we have is too vague and too easy to circumvent, then maybe what we need is a much more clear and defensive protection of the privacy of citizens, perhaps as a Constitutional amendment.
Argumentum ad consequentiam, and a nice way to put words in his mouth. He simply doesn't want to see the day when the revolutionary right of the people is irrevocably crushed, that's all. Freedom has always been a double-edged sword. There are freedom fighters and then there are "freedom fighters", you know?
Parent is modded funny, but I think it's dead serious. Honestly, how long can it be before these absurd attempts at repressive policy lead to open cyber-warfare? I know whose side I'll be on.
That would really suck if that were the case, since I think the kid has earned that $117,000 for sticking it out for two whole years. Seems like there might be some justification for stupidly-high multi-million-dollar jury-awarded settlements after all: after the inevitable appeals, expenses, and legal bills, there's just not that much left!
I still believe that programming will eventually require a license, but I now think that lobbying by the big media
companies will be the cause. Depressing, huh?
Oh, I very much doubt that. (Or at least, I hope I can safely doubt that...) Amateur / hobby coding is too well-established to let that happen - after all, much of what we have in the computing industry today had its seeds in the tinkering of geeks and hobbyists. Restricting the "Right to Code" to the licensed (and you'd better believe the larger corporations would be on top of it first) would stifle a very valuable source of innovation.
In closing, I leave you with this thought: My compiler is my tool, but if someone tries to take it away from me, it's my weapon. <evil grin>
Quite right, and I certainly don't disagree with you. I was just pointing out that a declaration of purpose, by way of justification, is not binding the way that the explicit directive of the law is. It certainly can (and should, in my opinion) be used as a guideline to aid in the interpretation of the operative portion.
Interesting point; however, strictly speaking, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" is a prefatory declaration, and does not explicitly place any restriction on the text that follows. This is similar to the case of the Second Amendment to the Constitution - the prefatory clause does not restrict the operative clause.
Wrong. The correctly told riddle doesn't specify which guard stands where. The truth-telling guard may stand in front of the death door.
...So? Did you even read Deathbane's solution, or are you maybe replying bizarrely to some other comment?;-)
It's perfectly valid, and doesn't depend upon the guards to stand at any specific place. One can merely ask either guard if a given door is the one it is guarding. If one asks about the life door, both will say "Yes"; the truth-teller, who does guard the life door, and the liar, who does not. If one asks about the death door, both will say no. It's an easy way to determine which door is which. Simple as that.
Add them up, you have your theft of intellectual property.
Theft of intellectual property? Just how do I do that? Go down to the local copyright office and command the clerks at gunpoint to transfer the RIAA's copyrights into my name? Maybe I should try that sometime.:-)
This is not a subtle nuance or a pedantic distinction. This should be very, very clear to anyone who really tries to understand it. When one downloads a copy of someone's work without paying for it, one has not stolen anything; the owner still holds the copyright to the work, as well as all copies that were already in their possession, and all the money they had already earned from that work.
What the copier has done is infringe upon the government-granted exclusive rights to that work, which can have the effect of reducing that work's market value. That is a civil liability, and has nothing to do with theft, which is a criminal offense.
The reason the RIAA doesn't file criminal charges against these people is because then you wind up sending your user base to prison where they are worthless.
No, the reason the RIAA doesn't file criminal charges against music downloaders is because no crime has been committed. If they wanted to file criminal charges, they would lose every case they tried to bring to court, not least because there are much higher standards of evidence required for a conviction in a criminal court as opposed to a civil one.
If the theft of intellectual property was not considered a crime, the counterfeiters and large piracy individuals (I am talking about the people that get content A, B, C and more to us.) would not be charged with crimes where the penalties are tantamount to actual theft.
Again, there's no such thing as "intellectual property theft." I can't steal someone's copyrights or trademarks from them. In any case, what you are describing is different. Selling counterfeited copies of copyrighted works is a crime, because there is specific legislation that criminalizes it. To the best of my knowledge, there is no legislation criminalizing the obtainment of copies without license, not even in the DMCA.
You say that the concept of theft is something that the "lowly masses" already understand, but I fail to see what public good is served by muddying the waters with incorrect legal terms and propaganda.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's what the 2nd is there for. :-)
I disagree. This nation was founded on principles of individual liberty - if we can no longer uphold those while defending our nation, our nation is no longer worth defending.
That's one hell of a brazen dodge. He asked you a pretty simple and direct question - PMuse observed what seems to him to be two contradictory statements in the bible. He then asked you which of these statements you believe to be true, or alternately, why you feel there is no contradiction at all. I can't imagine why you would refuse to answer this simple question, except that perhaps you have realized that you cannot logically defend something your narrow worldview compels you to defend.
Really? Don't let the investors hear you say that. ;-)
Then I suppose the misuse of "whom" was also intentional? :-)
Um, nope, it pretty specifically says "militia" and "the people". As previously observed in this topic, the U.S. legal definition of the citizen militia is very broad, encompassing pretty much every male capable of bearing arms. The need for a citizen militia is very different from the need for a professional army - the latter is for protecting our country from foreign threats, the former is for protecting our liberties from our country.
No, it just means you're serious about defending your falafels. Mmm... falafels.
Doesn't seem very confusing to me. Google is standing up for the rule of law as it currently applies in each of those two countries, respectively. I don't think the laws in China are things that should necessarily be supported, but the fact that there are different laws in the United States and China does not confuse me one bit. ;-)
I agree with you, but I'd just like to note that in the RIAA example, no crime has been committed either. What happens when somebody downloads music they haven't paid for is called "copyright infringement," and is a civil matter, not criminal. Come on, this is Slashdot. I thought we'd been over this a million times already. :-)
I'd just like to take this opportunity to point out that "The Ruminant Entrails" would be a great name for a rock band.
There's a logical disconnect here - "I don't understand how it happened, therefore a higher intelligence compelled it to happen."
How do you intend to "prove" a designer simply from observation of physical patterns? What is it about those patterns makes it impossible for them to have come about through the action of natural law? You commit the logical fallacy of assuming that, since we as intelligent beings are capable of designing complex structures, other complex structures must also have been designed.
Furthermore, if we are talking about God here (and I'm assuming we are), then we are talking about He who created those very natural laws from which all observable behavior arises. The nature of those laws is beyond our perception - we would have no way of knowing the laws are there just because they're there, or because some intelligence outside of the universe put them there. What would be the difference, anyway? We're discussing something that, by definition, is beyond any possible empircal experience. Unless, of course, you're positing a "clumsy hacker god", who had to go back and make changes against his original design after realizing he had made a mistake...
Further still, what's your definition of "intelligence"? Intelligence and complexity are both abstract concepts that we have created - they are not intrinsic properties of anything except as we define them.
I usually don't like to debate the Second amendment with people on the Internet, but sometimes I just feel like sayin' stuff, you know? :-P
Let's disregard for the moment the fact that the Second Amendment does not explicitly restrict the right to bear arms to members of the militia. Let's forget the fact that the Department of Justice has specifically asserted that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, not a collective one. Let's assume that only members of the militia are authorized by the Constitution to bear arms.
Okay?
Okay.
Well, there's still the fact that every male citizen between the ages of 17 and 45 is a member of the militia of the United States of America. You're probably a member yourself (making some assumptions about members of this site's typical demographic). It's law. See 10 USC 13, S.311.
More on topic, what part of "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" does not imply some right to privacy? But then, maybe you're right. If the protection we have is too vague and too easy to circumvent, then maybe what we need is a much more clear and defensive protection of the privacy of citizens, perhaps as a Constitutional amendment.
Argumentum ad consequentiam, and a nice way to put words in his mouth. He simply doesn't want to see the day when the revolutionary right of the people is irrevocably crushed, that's all. Freedom has always been a double-edged sword. There are freedom fighters and then there are "freedom fighters", you know?
No, not really. Last time I checked, legislation like The PATRIOT Act couldn't override the Constitution...
<flamebait type="fanboy"> ...Nintendo? </flamebait>
You numbered the sections starting at negative five?
You, sir, are a geek among geeks. I salute you.
Parent is modded funny, but I think it's dead serious. Honestly, how long can it be before these absurd attempts at repressive policy lead to open cyber-warfare? I know whose side I'll be on.
That would really suck if that were the case, since I think the kid has earned that $117,000 for sticking it out for two whole years. Seems like there might be some justification for stupidly-high multi-million-dollar jury-awarded settlements after all: after the inevitable appeals, expenses, and legal bills, there's just not that much left!
Oh, I very much doubt that. (Or at least, I hope I can safely doubt that...) Amateur / hobby coding is too well-established to let that happen - after all, much of what we have in the computing industry today had its seeds in the tinkering of geeks and hobbyists. Restricting the "Right to Code" to the licensed (and you'd better believe the larger corporations would be on top of it first) would stifle a very valuable source of innovation.
In closing, I leave you with this thought: My compiler is my tool, but if someone tries to take it away from me, it's my weapon. <evil grin>
Yeah, and one of the principles of our society is that there are some things more important than security.
Quite right, and I certainly don't disagree with you. I was just pointing out that a declaration of purpose, by way of justification, is not binding the way that the explicit directive of the law is. It certainly can (and should, in my opinion) be used as a guideline to aid in the interpretation of the operative portion.
Interesting point; however, strictly speaking, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" is a prefatory declaration, and does not explicitly place any restriction on the text that follows. This is similar to the case of the Second Amendment to the Constitution - the prefatory clause does not restrict the operative clause.
It's perfectly valid, and doesn't depend upon the guards to stand at any specific place. One can merely ask either guard if a given door is the one it is guarding. If one asks about the life door, both will say "Yes"; the truth-teller, who does guard the life door, and the liar, who does not. If one asks about the death door, both will say no. It's an easy way to determine which door is which. Simple as that.
Theft of intellectual property? Just how do I do that? Go down to the local copyright office and command the clerks at gunpoint to transfer the RIAA's copyrights into my name? Maybe I should try that sometime. :-)
This is not a subtle nuance or a pedantic distinction. This should be very, very clear to anyone who really tries to understand it. When one downloads a copy of someone's work without paying for it, one has not stolen anything; the owner still holds the copyright to the work, as well as all copies that were already in their possession, and all the money they had already earned from that work. What the copier has done is infringe upon the government-granted exclusive rights to that work, which can have the effect of reducing that work's market value. That is a civil liability, and has nothing to do with theft, which is a criminal offense.
No, the reason the RIAA doesn't file criminal charges against music downloaders is because no crime has been committed. If they wanted to file criminal charges, they would lose every case they tried to bring to court, not least because there are much higher standards of evidence required for a conviction in a criminal court as opposed to a civil one.
Again, there's no such thing as "intellectual property theft." I can't steal someone's copyrights or trademarks from them. In any case, what you are describing is different. Selling counterfeited copies of copyrighted works is a crime, because there is specific legislation that criminalizes it. To the best of my knowledge, there is no legislation criminalizing the obtainment of copies without license, not even in the DMCA.
You say that the concept of theft is something that the "lowly masses" already understand, but I fail to see what public good is served by muddying the waters with incorrect legal terms and propaganda.