Oh I don't know, back in the late 70's I was paying $2/min + operator's fee to call the UK from Oz, equivalent to about an hour's minimum wage per min. Now it's about $4/hr and min wage is ~$15/hr. By my reckoning that's a couple of orders of magnitude drop in prices over the last 35yrs.
I though you had staked out the moral high ground very neatly, but in the last paragraph you went all self-indulgence about WP and fell back to the level of choosing sides based on personal prejudice, like the rest of us mere mortals.
The fact is that most people believe they are doing TheRightThing(TM) most of the time. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ivan the terrible, OBL, George Washington, you, me, grandma, and the wiggles, did not get to where they did by believing what they were doing was evil. For example if you could ask OBL what he did with his life he would probably tell you with genuine sincerity that he spent it "fighting evil". So from my POV good intentions are not a valid excuse for supporting racketeering via congressional decree, particularly for a corporation one would expect has the expertise to build decision trees that would likely foresee the potential harm. If it wasn't on their decision tree before all the hoohaa, it is now.
Being generous I'd say GD displayed admirable self-skepticisim on the issue. Being cynical I'd say GD are like any other company, what they fear most is becoming a public pariah.
Skeptcisim is a philosophy, not a for/against position. Someone who disbelieves by default is a contrarian not a skeptic. Healthy skepticisim occupies the vast grey area that exists between black and white beliefs. The skeptic can be lead toward one position or the other by evidence and reasoned argument but will rarely claim absolute certainty.
I think the mistaken idea that skepticisim is "disbelief by default" is easy to believe for people who do not practice that most important and useful part of skepticisim, self-skeptcisim.
I recall reading a similar thing about the surface of a yatch hull being made to resemble "rough" shark skin. The ineventor claimed that a surface with a bit of roughness has less drag than a smooth surface and that evolution had done a very good job of optimising a sharks surface to minimze its drag.
If you still believe the hyperbole from the "climategate" beat up then you are not a skeptic, you are a useful idiot who will swallow and regurgitate any old propaganda that fits your politics. Google "anthony watts dcma" to find out how Watts thinks critics (of his ideas) should be silenced, hint - it's not via intellectually honest debate.
So how many times do you answer the same question before you realise you're dealing with a troll or a shill? How many people still link and quote Anthont Watts thoughroghly descredited claims? Should the time cube guy be allowed to chew up research dollars just because he has a bunch of ideas contrary to modern physics?
I think you are also bluring the "argument from authority" thing (which is about relying on a single source), science does in fact carry a certain authority in it's calim to have the best answer, if not the correct answer. It's authority comes from a meritocricy that Popper called "the republic of science" and what everyone else calls "consensus". It's the difference between "science says" and "a scientist says".
Re:They made their money and they're running.
on
BTJunkie No More?
·
· Score: 1
Take the money and run
Please don't tell me a story about Jack and Diane.
How about a little ditty, or has the trill of living already gone?
For a community which seems so passionate and open about free communication, it certainly seems to shut down people who don't agree with the majority pretty quickly.
Depends on the veracity of your point and how you word it. At worst you will get modded down, which is very different to shut down, and the complete opposite of the insightful tag your post is currently displaying. Sure there are plenty of immature black/white posts on slashdot, my guess is most of them are from people (say) under 25 who still have not outgrown the belief in silver bullets.
However, I disagree with your entire premise, in fact I would go so far as to say that most slashdotters who earn a living in IT do not want to throw the copyright baby out with the bath scum. And this goes doubly so for developers like me who have made a comfortable living writing copyrighted software and building corporate systems from other peoples copyrighted software. I would consider any developer (independent or corporate) to be under-qualified if they couldn't tell the difference between a proprietary license and a OSS licence. As a developer you may often have the responsibility to advise your boss/client of the costs/benefits of competing third party software providers, the type of license can (and often does) have a large impact on that analysis. Of course both the boss and the developer know that IP law is a complete dog's breakfast so they also get their interpretation ratified by the lawyers to armour plate their arses.
Just to round it out, I'd say there is a third major category of copyright posts on slashdot; the complainer. Like the government complainer, or the AGW psuedo-skeptic, they believe any fault (real or imagined, titanic or trivial) is reason enough to nuke the whole thing from orbit
But I suspect at a much deeper "social order" level, people in general subconsciously see the internet as a public space, and by extension downloading becomes - "I found it on the commons". And to a very large degree that is how the law works in most places. If not by letter then at least in practice, since everything is copyright by default and there is no authoritative 'evil bit' that allows the down-loader to discern if he is forbidden to download it before he has downloaded it. I'm sure someone will post a link to contradict the following claim but - I'm not aware of anyone who has been prosecuted anywhere for downloading alone, (re)distribution is always the rope they hang you with.
Having said that, the nuking of megaupload has sent a political chill across the net like a cruise missile hitting Al-Jazzera, they've demonstrated they don't need SOPA or the ISP's to start a 'war on pirates', I expect more sites will have received that message via more explicit private channels and will 'voluntarily' close down in the near future. OTOH, the whole thing is yet to be tested in court and I can't see how the search giants will lay down and let the MAFIAA and Murdoch steam-roll them with a "linking is theft" precedent set against a weak competitor.
They're doing it because they hate Hollywood, not because they love the internet. From my POV that makes them "right" in the same way a broken clock is sometimes right.
My point was government is not ALWAYS bad (as the OP had opined), the day-to-day mundane infrastructure of modern life that they provide are right in front of your face. And yeah, as others have pointed out it could (theoretically) be done privately, but it wasn't, and historical events such as the Dark Ages strongly suggest that it wouldn't.
You nailed #1, those arguments (in different words) were used against the first modern sewerage system deployed to clean up London's 19th century filth.
The problem is *why* they claim that power.
Irrelevant, they have the power, how they got it is ancient history. The question is, are they using it wisely? - If you think not, then why not?
this sort of bullshit is why I oh so badly want states to have their constitutionally granted rights back
But speaking of history; the ideological absurdity that shifting power from one group to many smaller groups will somehow result in unicorns farting rainbows flies in the face of 10,000yrs of human history. What it generally results in, is a collapse of infrastructure and an abundance of local warlords.
Yep, the "market" is not a physical place, it is a set of rules that makes trade possible, the most basic of these rules in a capitalistic market are property rights. Also "free" does not mean free of regulation, it means anyone can play. Wether you are free not to play is debatable.
You do realise there are big differences between a court jester and a clown, right? For one thing, you, and more importantly the "nobility", are supposed to seriously contemplate the grains of truth that make the jester's jokes possible.
...[people who vote] are brainwashed [into thinking] the government will make everything better despite them always making it worse right in front of them
Caution; answering "no" to any of the following questions may reveal that it's you who has been brainwashed into denying what is right in front of you...
Do you really think a public sewerage system is worse than emptying your bedpan on the street?
Do you really think chlorinated water is worse than cholera and dysentery?
Do you really think crossing a public bridge is worse than travelling 200miles out of your way to ford a river?
Disclaimer: I have been homeless but I've never been so mindless as to take government mandated 'luxuries' for granted.
I don't know about ACTA in particular, but treaties in general are signed first and ratified later. For example Kyoto was signed by the US but was never ratified.
Re:This is why religion is still popular
on
Pac-Man Is NP-Hard
·
· Score: 1
There are some good interviews/clips on YT with all sorts of scientific personalities both past and present. Feynman, Attenbourough, Sagan, and Julius Sumner-Miller, are some of my favourite "info-tainers".
Now you're just trolling, or have you climbed so far out on a limb of anti-AGW irrationality that you now have to deliberately forget that trees reproduce?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but how can I write a song with "purple monkey dishwasher"?
Talent! - The Beatles managed to get 'custard', 'walrus', and 'egg-man' all into one song.
I'm a pissed-off American
Is there any other kind these days?
Oh I don't know, back in the late 70's I was paying $2/min + operator's fee to call the UK from Oz, equivalent to about an hour's minimum wage per min. Now it's about $4/hr and min wage is ~$15/hr. By my reckoning that's a couple of orders of magnitude drop in prices over the last 35yrs.
I though you had staked out the moral high ground very neatly, but in the last paragraph you went all self-indulgence about WP and fell back to the level of choosing sides based on personal prejudice, like the rest of us mere mortals.
The fact is that most people believe they are doing TheRightThing(TM) most of the time. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ivan the terrible, OBL, George Washington, you, me, grandma, and the wiggles, did not get to where they did by believing what they were doing was evil. For example if you could ask OBL what he did with his life he would probably tell you with genuine sincerity that he spent it "fighting evil". So from my POV good intentions are not a valid excuse for supporting racketeering via congressional decree, particularly for a corporation one would expect has the expertise to build decision trees that would likely foresee the potential harm. If it wasn't on their decision tree before all the hoohaa, it is now.
Being generous I'd say GD displayed admirable self-skepticisim on the issue. Being cynical I'd say GD are like any other company, what they fear most is becoming a public pariah.
Skeptcisim is a philosophy, not a for/against position. Someone who disbelieves by default is a contrarian not a skeptic. Healthy skepticisim occupies the vast grey area that exists between black and white beliefs. The skeptic can be lead toward one position or the other by evidence and reasoned argument but will rarely claim absolute certainty.
I think the mistaken idea that skepticisim is "disbelief by default" is easy to believe for people who do not practice that most important and useful part of skepticisim, self-skeptcisim.
I recall reading a similar thing about the surface of a yatch hull being made to resemble "rough" shark skin. The ineventor claimed that a surface with a bit of roughness has less drag than a smooth surface and that evolution had done a very good job of optimising a sharks surface to minimze its drag.
If you still believe the hyperbole from the "climategate" beat up then you are not a skeptic, you are a useful idiot who will swallow and regurgitate any old propaganda that fits your politics. Google "anthony watts dcma" to find out how Watts thinks critics (of his ideas) should be silenced, hint - it's not via intellectually honest debate.
So how many times do you answer the same question before you realise you're dealing with a troll or a shill? How many people still link and quote Anthont Watts thoughroghly descredited claims? Should the time cube guy be allowed to chew up research dollars just because he has a bunch of ideas contrary to modern physics?
I think you are also bluring the "argument from authority" thing (which is about relying on a single source), science does in fact carry a certain authority in it's calim to have the best answer, if not the correct answer. It's authority comes from a meritocricy that Popper called "the republic of science" and what everyone else calls "consensus". It's the difference between "science says" and "a scientist says".
Take the money and run
Please don't tell me a story about Jack and Diane.
How about a little ditty, or has the trill of living already gone?
For a community which seems so passionate and open about free communication, it certainly seems to shut down people who don't agree with the majority pretty quickly.
Depends on the veracity of your point and how you word it. At worst you will get modded down, which is very different to shut down, and the complete opposite of the insightful tag your post is currently displaying. Sure there are plenty of immature black/white posts on slashdot, my guess is most of them are from people (say) under 25 who still have not outgrown the belief in silver bullets.
However, I disagree with your entire premise, in fact I would go so far as to say that most slashdotters who earn a living in IT do not want to throw the copyright baby out with the bath scum. And this goes doubly so for developers like me who have made a comfortable living writing copyrighted software and building corporate systems from other peoples copyrighted software. I would consider any developer (independent or corporate) to be under-qualified if they couldn't tell the difference between a proprietary license and a OSS licence. As a developer you may often have the responsibility to advise your boss/client of the costs/benefits of competing third party software providers, the type of license can (and often does) have a large impact on that analysis. Of course both the boss and the developer know that IP law is a complete dog's breakfast so they also get their interpretation ratified by the lawyers to armour plate their arses.
Just to round it out, I'd say there is a third major category of copyright posts on slashdot; the complainer. Like the government complainer, or the AGW psuedo-skeptic, they believe any fault (real or imagined, titanic or trivial) is reason enough to nuke the whole thing from orbit
But I suspect at a much deeper "social order" level, people in general subconsciously see the internet as a public space, and by extension downloading becomes - "I found it on the commons". And to a very large degree that is how the law works in most places. If not by letter then at least in practice, since everything is copyright by default and there is no authoritative 'evil bit' that allows the down-loader to discern if he is forbidden to download it before he has downloaded it. I'm sure someone will post a link to contradict the following claim but - I'm not aware of anyone who has been prosecuted anywhere for downloading alone, (re)distribution is always the rope they hang you with.
Having said that, the nuking of megaupload has sent a political chill across the net like a cruise missile hitting Al-Jazzera, they've demonstrated they don't need SOPA or the ISP's to start a 'war on pirates', I expect more sites will have received that message via more explicit private channels and will 'voluntarily' close down in the near future. OTOH, the whole thing is yet to be tested in court and I can't see how the search giants will lay down and let the MAFIAA and Murdoch steam-roll them with a "linking is theft" precedent set against a weak competitor.
They're doing it because they hate Hollywood, not because they love the internet. From my POV that makes them "right" in the same way a broken clock is sometimes right.
My point was government is not ALWAYS bad (as the OP had opined), the day-to-day mundane infrastructure of modern life that they provide are right in front of your face. And yeah, as others have pointed out it could (theoretically) be done privately, but it wasn't, and historical events such as the Dark Ages strongly suggest that it wouldn't.
You nailed #1, those arguments (in different words) were used against the first modern sewerage system deployed to clean up London's 19th century filth.
Opps, fucked up the quote tags.
The problem is *why* they claim that power. Irrelevant, they have the power, how they got it is ancient history. The question is, are they using it wisely? - If you think not, then why not?
this sort of bullshit is why I oh so badly want states to have their constitutionally granted rights back
But speaking of history; the ideological absurdity that shifting power from one group to many smaller groups will somehow result in unicorns farting rainbows flies in the face of 10,000yrs of human history. What it generally results in, is a collapse of infrastructure and an abundance of local warlords.
What really is the problem here?
Scale.
You are right, I saw a rabbit plague first hand as a kid in the 60's.
suddenly! flies everywhere
More flies!!! - I'm going to need a machete to go outside.
Yep, the "market" is not a physical place, it is a set of rules that makes trade possible, the most basic of these rules in a capitalistic market are property rights. Also "free" does not mean free of regulation, it means anyone can play. Wether you are free not to play is debatable.
You do realise there are big differences between a court jester and a clown, right? For one thing, you, and more importantly the "nobility", are supposed to seriously contemplate the grains of truth that make the jester's jokes possible.
You obviously don't have enough money to pay CG tax, if you did you might actually know something about it.
...[people who vote] are brainwashed [into thinking] the government will make everything better despite them always making it worse right in front of them
Caution; answering "no" to any of the following questions may reveal that it's you who has been brainwashed into denying what is right in front of you...
Do you really think a public sewerage system is worse than emptying your bedpan on the street?
Do you really think chlorinated water is worse than cholera and dysentery?
Do you really think crossing a public bridge is worse than travelling 200miles out of your way to ford a river?
Disclaimer: I have been homeless but I've never been so mindless as to take government mandated 'luxuries' for granted.
I don't know about ACTA in particular, but treaties in general are signed first and ratified later. For example Kyoto was signed by the US but was never ratified.
There are some good interviews/clips on YT with all sorts of scientific personalities both past and present. Feynman, Attenbourough, Sagan, and Julius Sumner-Miller, are some of my favourite "info-tainers".
Now you're just trolling, or have you climbed so far out on a limb of anti-AGW irrationality that you now have to deliberately forget that trees reproduce?