Well, dude, it will sound too obvious, but you cannot "give GNU/Linux a try" unless
you get it running. It sounds like you are running a bad streak, but do not let that
discourage you. Because of little to no hardware testing by the industry, installing
Linux can range from a walk in a park to pulling live teeth. You just have to give
it another try with different hardware. Just a few days ago
I ran into an old IBM box which caused the latest Ubuntu (live) CD to crash with the
kernel panic before I could go any further. Guess what? I am looking for a different
box.
You might want to get an old desktop box. Old but not too old:
3 years would do nicely. Avoid flashy components. Avoid wireless
for now (some research might be required to make it work), get Intel
accelerated on-board graphics. You can get that virtually for free
these days. Put it in the corner of your flat (or, as we say
on Slashdot, your parents' basement) and install the easy-going
Ubuntu.
I am not saying that GNU/Linux won't work with wireless, by the way.
Almost any card is supported through the ndiswrapper module, but
I advise you not to bother with it until you get acquainted with
the system and like it enough to start learning about it.
What else did you expect from EST? That's the same people who give GRE tests.
Beyond the general test (which itself is not without problems), they seem to
be clueless about what exactly they are evaluating. Take the
math test:
66 questions over 170 minutes, 2.7 minutes per question.
Scores on the tests are intended to indicate knowledge of
the subject matter emphasized in many undergraduate programs as
preparation for graduate study.
I am not sure that "indicate" means what they think it does.
Anyway, this should read: "to assess the ability to make quick guesses
about an assorted collection of exercises and to retain in one's
memory the entire arsenal of shortcuts one was taught during the
sophomore year". That would hit closer to the mark. Of course,
more able mathematicians will tend to do better on average,
but what about all of the freaks who spent the last year or two
concentrating on advanced topics, while looking forward to the
graduate study? Topics like logic (not covered) or topology
(barely touched). Some of them could probably teach calculus,
just not off the top of their freaking heads.
Microsoft has done quite a decent job of making this balance in Windows.
What a joke. The following are purely design flaws which you cannot
excuse by saying that they are being exploited only because Windows/Office
are popular.
1. By default, all userland applications are granted Administrator's privileges.
I cannot think of a suitable comment for this stupidity.
2. By default, IE is capable of running applets with the said privileges. This
would be dumb even if they were user privileges. Executable code which affects
the system should be downloaded and then run locally. Just two more clicks, but now
even a very dim user knows that a program is being run, whereas before he assumed
that he's just browsing the Web.
3. The de-facto document exchange format,.doc, is imbued with executable code
which, wait for it... runs with administrative privileges. Let's not whine about
how.doc is not an exchange format, because it is. That's what people corroborate on and
email each other for revisions. It has its flaws but it does a good job. Sticking
VBA in it is like handing little Johnnie a vial of nitroglycerin and saying: now
be a good kid; if you jump too much, you won't have a good time.
4. Getting a program involves running an executable file. This is a very
grave flaw in the design. Much malware would be curbed if
MS switched to a good packaging scheme and eliminated the need of ever dealing with.exe (for a not-so-clever user, that is). Ubuntu can do it, why cannot Microsoft?
On my laptop, the only program I ever had to install by hand was ies4lin. Everything
else (and I am quite a whore when it comes to software) was available through the
Multiverse. Once a user is shown the kosher way of installing new programs,
i.e. from inside the package manager which talks to the trusted repositories,
he will naturally regard standalone files as suspect, and most likely will
not even encounter them.
These are just off the top of my head. All four are atrocious decisions, given
that catering to the lowest common denominator is in Microsoft's mission statement.
All four became problems because MS chose to completely ignore the fact that
every Windows computer is connected to the Internet. Why bother? The monopoly
status works just fine.
The big mystery is what Microsoft is planning to do with the patents if they are awarded them.
Wow. [pause] Wow. I'll take a stab at this one. They'll use it to... mmm... patents, patents... Ah! They'll use them to prohibit some party or parties to manufacture the software which is described in the patents' claims? Can I get a golden star for this one, please? It's long overdue.
I did not care to define "sick" here, I am just pointing out that re-examining "free will" has nothing to do with either the brain science or justice theory. SatanicPuppy is absolutely right when he calls it "mental masturbation". It's been done to death, and then some.
But to address your question, the difference between (1) and (2) in my post can be demostrated as follows: if you ever get a chance to know a person with a tumor which used to seriously affect the behavior, and moreover see that person going back to normal (or normal-er) after a surgical procedure and absolutely no therapy, then you will understand the immense qualitative difference between such a person and, say, an otherwise well-adjusted Catholic priest who does it out of being horny. Nothing is clear-cut here, but seeing two sides of the spectrum may help one to realize that they do not deserve the same treatment. Namely, one can hope that in the second case a suitable punishment may be enough to change the priest's mind about molesting children. With all that, the last thing I want to discuss is the concept of "mental illness" which is not tied to an observable brain damage. I believe rather firmly that the part of psychology that deals with those is a pseudo-science. A real honest to god pseudo-science, just like that stuff with creationism and the young Earth. They share the same amount of contempt for the scientific method and explanation through natural causes.
I do not think it is fair to say that SP "gave up" on the question of free will just because he chose to regard it as a messed up case of the language use rather than a metaphysical problem. I agree with the sanity of his approach. Bring 10 philosophers to the table, and you'll have 20 definitions of free will. Yet, at the same time, whenever we speak of free will in the course of our regular living, we always refer to the same basic phenomenon: that at some moment in time we conceive of a few courses of action as of alternatives, i.e. we have time to acknowledge several courses of action and to meditate about their merits with the purpose of labeling one of them as "the best". As you can see, this phenomenon does not have to do with the metaphysical existence of some spooky faculty. Unless a philosopher or a theologian is in the room, all references to free will are actually references to a well-known mental phenomenon, a thinking process in which we often engage. There is no need for dragging in a mystical connection between the thought and the action, for it only makes the discussion more convoluted. To summarize: we already can talk of and exercise the freedom of will without having established its ontological status. Why bother then?
What does it mean for the justice theory? It does not freaking matter if free will "exists" or not. We are all well aware of the fact that people tend to deliberate before acting, and we know that the relation of that mental process to the following action is very arcane: some people, sometimes, genuinely feel that they are acting in opposition to what they know is "good" or "right" (akrasia, sin). This is a mess. Now, if you accept the correctional theory of justice, then you will want to punish people who are able to learn from the experience, in hope that they will not commit crimes for the fear of further punishment; on the other hand, you will want to cure people (like those with tumors) who seem to be unable to learn. Finally, there is a question of what to do with people whose genetic make-up was associated (statistically or even causally) with criminal tendencies. The short answer is: nothing, don't even go there. That has nothing to do with the free will at all. Only a total lunatic would suggest a game-theoretic approach to justice. If we say that it is just to take away some rights from a person who did not commit any crimes, but is likely to do so in the future, then it will seem just for that person to commit some crimes to regain the advantage. He is already being punished, so committing a crime is seen as fair, like restoring the balance.
Really? The guy is saying that the robust DRM implementation will make Vista computers more expensive and less stable. We already knew that. He goes on to give technical reasons. Is there anything in the TFA you disagree with, or are you just a Vista fan?
If anything, he does not go far enough. He fails to mention that we'll have to live with this overhead in price and performance for no reason at all, since most of us will be using computers to play non-premium content anyway. He also fails to mention that there will be non-premium versions of premium content available on WWW from day one. We can sum up all of this to realize that Vista is a piece of garbage of an OS, compared to even XP, let alone a free OS, as it was written from ground up to provide less functionality at a higher price in hardware.
I am glad you asked:) If you ever played poker, you know what our next move is: determine how much jail time we are likely to serve, and then conduct enough criminal activity to create a positive outcome, i.e. steal a little bit more than we are punished for. As anyone can see, the game theoretic approach to justice is an utter garbage.
When I was reading Meditations, I kept asking myself: what happens to Descartes when he is not thinking precisely "cogito ergo sum"? Does he stop existing for a while? All in all, I am under the strong impression that Descartes had the same problem as Ezekiel: too much acid in his daily diet.
Oh, unlike me, you RTFA... It's good that someone here is doing that.
That is a question of justice, as I see it. And IMO, punishing for being statistically more likely to do things is totally retarded. Why not go all the way and employ the game theory? Let's assign everyone a criminal quotient, based on their genetic makeup, upbringing, social status, race, etc., and then jail them annually for the amount of time which corresponds to their expected value of criminal activity:)
Tumors are nasty. One of my close friends' mom had a tumor, and until it was removed she went completely nuts. She would talk to invisible people, ignore visible people, forget who she was for a while, abuse her own children in various ways, do things like stopping drinking all water because the government was trying to poison her, etc., etc. After the surgery her condition improved dramatically. She ceased to be dangerous, for one, and went back to being a really nice, laid back person she was before the illness. She still sees and hears invisible people, but now she realizes that she is "different" from others and is doing her best to fit it, so to speak. She never had any therapy.
Hear hear. The case in question concerns (at best) the philosophy of justice, not that of free will. Re-examining free will is like digging up a dead horse, cloning it, and then beating it some more. We already have the concept floating around, and new advances in brain science have no bearing on it. As for the philosophy of justice, many of us already agree that we want to
1. punish people who abuse children and then pretend to be sick;
2. cure people who abuse children and are sick;
3. do nothing to people who "abuse" children as a result of a freak accident (e.g., lock them
up in the basement for whatever reason and then find out that the lock is broken).
Distinguishing between (1) and (2) can be done by creating a casual link between tumors and behaviors, which is done by the medical science, not by philosophers.
That's a good point, I didn't think about it. But what are the chances? They would have
to sue them in Moscow and win to get the transaction records, and then there would have to be records in
the first place.
I am, for once, not talking out of my ass. I know some of these people personally. I say that they do it for fun because I know them as people rather then names. Some of them wouldn't sign if only because they hate working. They like drinking, smoking pot, and shoving powder up their nose. They like playing live music while doing all of the above. When you say that they would sign if offered, you are talking without any justification at all. How the hell do you know that?
Comparing music to sports is also retarded. NFL players are (on average) objectively better than local players, since they won their place by competing and showing better scores. The popular artists, on the other hand, are no more talented than local artists, they are just lucky to be trendy. How exactly do you quantify the quality of music, by the number of CDs sold? QED.
The "brain" of a robot with the strong AI would have to about as complex as the human brain, and the task of taking a snapshot could be just as intractable. What I am saying is that may be the only way to create the strong AI is to build a black-box which is capable of being "educated". If we know exactly how a robot is programmed, then we have no choice but to call it dumb.
(I am not really discussing at this point, just chatting.)
It sounds like you are a fan of bigger names. It is problematic, of course, that the bigger names do not go everywhere, and I see how having recordings is important for you. As for me, I just stopped caring. Local punk and indie rock bands here in San Jose kick ass. There's not a night without a band or two playing in a downtown bar. Many of these people are live-performance-only, they don't even bother to record CDs, and they promote through the word of mouth and, recently, MySpace.
I by no means imply that everyone should enjoy this selection, but I firmly believe that everyone could. Most people just have their tastes tilted because they pay too much attention to the broadcast advertisement. The local bands may sound somewhat rough compared to the big hitters with their $100'000 studios and armies of sound wizards, but they are no worse musicians. The best music is the free flight of the human spirit, and it doesn't require much money to make.
Although some would say that the truly great music requires an uninterrupted supply of coke, which is rather costly.
Robots cannot fork, they are made of silicon. Just like humans, they would have to manufacture and educate themselves at a great expense. I do not believe for a moment that a strong AI is going to be programmed in the modern sense of the word. (I have no justification, so have faith and hang with me.) It is going to be "grown" out of the functional equivalent of a new-born's mind: not exactly blank, and very homogeneous. It's going to be grown via the process that will bear a strong likeness to what we call "education".
I, personally, stopped paying for recorded music a long time ago. When I have money to burn,
I head to a local venue and pay $5-10 for a few hours of excellent, live music.
But for people who are still building their collections it actually makes sense. The major
difference is that you cannot be sued.
I am a bit off-topic here. What I said concerns the decision made in Russia. Whether or not RIAA will win the NY case will have about as much impact as the case against De Beers. At worst, the company's operations will be declared illegal in US, but the consumer will shrug and resume downloading.
My sentiment exactly. I lived in Russia long enough to understand how
this cookie crumbles. I cannot predict the outcome, for it depends
on many things. I just want to note that, unfortunately for RIAA,
it does not depend on the law. It mostly depends on two things:
1. How much a decision will piss off the USA (the more--the better).
2. The amount of a bribe. This seems to be in RIAA's favour, but
I have a feeling that (1) might play a bigger role here.
You are right, it might be a very long time before robots (computers) themselves
demand rights, either legal or moral. But this idea is not as loopy as one
might think. The Free Software movement is actually championing
computers' rights and computers' freedom, although that is not their stated objective.
For as long as all the software is free as in freedom, computers will in fact be
the free members of the society. If every person is able to run, study, modify, and
distribute every piece of software, then every computer will be able to contribute
as well. If, on the other hand, we go into the dark ages of perpetual copyright
and omnipresent DRM, then computers will be enslaved by the content providers.
Strictly speaking, they won't even be what we call "computers", since they won't
compute (even in theory) what a Turing machine is supposed to be able to compute.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, dude, it will sound too obvious, but you cannot "give GNU/Linux a try" unless you get it running. It sounds like you are running a bad streak, but do not let that discourage you. Because of little to no hardware testing by the industry, installing Linux can range from a walk in a park to pulling live teeth. You just have to give it another try with different hardware. Just a few days ago I ran into an old IBM box which caused the latest Ubuntu (live) CD to crash with the kernel panic before I could go any further. Guess what? I am looking for a different box.
You might want to get an old desktop box. Old but not too old: 3 years would do nicely. Avoid flashy components. Avoid wireless for now (some research might be required to make it work), get Intel accelerated on-board graphics. You can get that virtually for free these days. Put it in the corner of your flat (or, as we say on Slashdot, your parents' basement) and install the easy-going Ubuntu.
I am not saying that GNU/Linux won't work with wireless, by the way. Almost any card is supported through the ndiswrapper module, but I advise you not to bother with it until you get acquainted with the system and like it enough to start learning about it.
What else did you expect from EST? That's the same people who give GRE tests. Beyond the general test (which itself is not without problems), they seem to be clueless about what exactly they are evaluating. Take the math test: 66 questions over 170 minutes, 2.7 minutes per question.
Scores on the tests are intended to indicate knowledge of the subject matter emphasized in many undergraduate programs as preparation for graduate study.
I am not sure that "indicate" means what they think it does. Anyway, this should read: "to assess the ability to make quick guesses about an assorted collection of exercises and to retain in one's memory the entire arsenal of shortcuts one was taught during the sophomore year". That would hit closer to the mark. Of course, more able mathematicians will tend to do better on average, but what about all of the freaks who spent the last year or two concentrating on advanced topics, while looking forward to the graduate study? Topics like logic (not covered) or topology (barely touched). Some of them could probably teach calculus, just not off the top of their freaking heads.
Microsoft has done quite a decent job of making this balance in Windows.
What a joke. The following are purely design flaws which you cannot excuse by saying that they are being exploited only because Windows/Office are popular.
1. By default, all userland applications are granted Administrator's privileges. I cannot think of a suitable comment for this stupidity.
2. By default, IE is capable of running applets with the said privileges. This would be dumb even if they were user privileges. Executable code which affects the system should be downloaded and then run locally. Just two more clicks, but now even a very dim user knows that a program is being run, whereas before he assumed that he's just browsing the Web.
3. The de-facto document exchange format, .doc, is imbued with executable code
which, wait for it... runs with administrative privileges. Let's not whine about
how .doc is not an exchange format, because it is. That's what people corroborate on and
email each other for revisions. It has its flaws but it does a good job. Sticking
VBA in it is like handing little Johnnie a vial of nitroglycerin and saying: now
be a good kid; if you jump too much, you won't have a good time.
4. Getting a program involves running an executable file. This is a very grave flaw in the design. Much malware would be curbed if MS switched to a good packaging scheme and eliminated the need of ever dealing with .exe (for a not-so-clever user, that is). Ubuntu can do it, why cannot Microsoft?
On my laptop, the only program I ever had to install by hand was ies4lin. Everything
else (and I am quite a whore when it comes to software) was available through the
Multiverse. Once a user is shown the kosher way of installing new programs,
i.e. from inside the package manager which talks to the trusted repositories,
he will naturally regard standalone files as suspect, and most likely will
not even encounter them.
These are just off the top of my head. All four are atrocious decisions, given that catering to the lowest common denominator is in Microsoft's mission statement. All four became problems because MS chose to completely ignore the fact that every Windows computer is connected to the Internet. Why bother? The monopoly status works just fine.
The big mystery is what Microsoft is planning to do with the patents if they are awarded them.
Wow. [pause] Wow. I'll take a stab at this one. They'll use it to... mmm... patents, patents... Ah! They'll use them to prohibit some party or parties to manufacture the software which is described in the patents' claims? Can I get a golden star for this one, please? It's long overdue.
I did not care to define "sick" here, I am just pointing out that re-examining "free will" has nothing to do with either the brain science or justice theory. SatanicPuppy is absolutely right when he calls it "mental masturbation". It's been done to death, and then some.
But to address your question, the difference between (1) and (2) in my post can be demostrated as follows: if you ever get a chance to know a person with a tumor which used to seriously affect the behavior, and moreover see that person going back to normal (or normal-er) after a surgical procedure and absolutely no therapy, then you will understand the immense qualitative difference between such a person and, say, an otherwise well-adjusted Catholic priest who does it out of being horny. Nothing is clear-cut here, but seeing two sides of the spectrum may help one to realize that they do not deserve the same treatment. Namely, one can hope that in the second case a suitable punishment may be enough to change the priest's mind about molesting children. With all that, the last thing I want to discuss is the concept of "mental illness" which is not tied to an observable brain damage. I believe rather firmly that the part of psychology that deals with those is a pseudo-science. A real honest to god pseudo-science, just like that stuff with creationism and the young Earth. They share the same amount of contempt for the scientific method and explanation through natural causes.
I do not think it is fair to say that SP "gave up" on the question of free will just because he chose to regard it as a messed up case of the language use rather than a metaphysical problem. I agree with the sanity of his approach. Bring 10 philosophers to the table, and you'll have 20 definitions of free will. Yet, at the same time, whenever we speak of free will in the course of our regular living, we always refer to the same basic phenomenon: that at some moment in time we conceive of a few courses of action as of alternatives, i.e. we have time to acknowledge several courses of action and to meditate about their merits with the purpose of labeling one of them as "the best". As you can see, this phenomenon does not have to do with the metaphysical existence of some spooky faculty. Unless a philosopher or a theologian is in the room, all references to free will are actually references to a well-known mental phenomenon, a thinking process in which we often engage. There is no need for dragging in a mystical connection between the thought and the action, for it only makes the discussion more convoluted. To summarize: we already can talk of and exercise the freedom of will without having established its ontological status. Why bother then?
What does it mean for the justice theory? It does not freaking matter if free will "exists" or not. We are all well aware of the fact that people tend to deliberate before acting, and we know that the relation of that mental process to the following action is very arcane: some people, sometimes, genuinely feel that they are acting in opposition to what they know is "good" or "right" (akrasia, sin). This is a mess. Now, if you accept the correctional theory of justice, then you will want to punish people who are able to learn from the experience, in hope that they will not commit crimes for the fear of further punishment; on the other hand, you will want to cure people (like those with tumors) who seem to be unable to learn. Finally, there is a question of what to do with people whose genetic make-up was associated (statistically or even causally) with criminal tendencies. The short answer is: nothing, don't even go there. That has nothing to do with the free will at all. Only a total lunatic would suggest a game-theoretic approach to justice. If we say that it is just to take away some rights from a person who did not commit any crimes, but is likely to do so in the future, then it will seem just for that person to commit some crimes to regain the advantage. He is already being punished, so committing a crime is seen as fair, like restoring the balance.
Really? The guy is saying that the robust DRM implementation will make Vista computers more expensive and less stable. We already knew that. He goes on to give technical reasons. Is there anything in the TFA you disagree with, or are you just a Vista fan?
If anything, he does not go far enough. He fails to mention that we'll have to live with this overhead in price and performance for no reason at all, since most of us will be using computers to play non-premium content anyway. He also fails to mention that there will be non-premium versions of premium content available on WWW from day one. We can sum up all of this to realize that Vista is a piece of garbage of an OS, compared to even XP, let alone a free OS, as it was written from ground up to provide less functionality at a higher price in hardware.
I am glad you asked :) If you ever played poker, you know what our next move is: determine how much jail time we are likely to serve, and then conduct enough criminal activity to create a positive outcome, i.e. steal a little bit more than we are punished for. As anyone can see, the game theoretic approach to justice is an utter garbage.
When I was reading Meditations, I kept asking myself: what happens to Descartes when he is not thinking precisely "cogito ergo sum"? Does he stop existing for a while? All in all, I am under the strong impression that Descartes had the same problem as Ezekiel: too much acid in his daily diet.
Oh, unlike me, you RTFA... It's good that someone here is doing that.
That is a question of justice, as I see it. And IMO, punishing for being statistically more likely to do things is totally retarded. Why not go all the way and employ the game theory? Let's assign everyone a criminal quotient, based on their genetic makeup, upbringing, social status, race, etc., and then jail them annually for the amount of time which corresponds to their expected value of criminal activity :)
Tumors are nasty. One of my close friends' mom had a tumor, and until it was removed she went completely nuts. She would talk to invisible people, ignore visible people, forget who she was for a while, abuse her own children in various ways, do things like stopping drinking all water because the government was trying to poison her, etc., etc. After the surgery her condition improved dramatically. She ceased to be dangerous, for one, and went back to being a really nice, laid back person she was before the illness. She still sees and hears invisible people, but now she realizes that she is "different" from others and is doing her best to fit it, so to speak. She never had any therapy.
Hear hear. The case in question concerns (at best) the philosophy of justice, not that of free will. Re-examining free will is like digging up a dead horse, cloning it, and then beating it some more. We already have the concept floating around, and new advances in brain science have no bearing on it. As for the philosophy of justice, many of us already agree that we want to
1. punish people who abuse children and then pretend to be sick;
2. cure people who abuse children and are sick;
3. do nothing to people who "abuse" children as a result of a freak accident (e.g., lock them up in the basement for whatever reason and then find out that the lock is broken).
Distinguishing between (1) and (2) can be done by creating a casual link between tumors and behaviors, which is done by the medical science, not by philosophers.
That's a good point, I didn't think about it. But what are the chances? They would have to sue them in Moscow and win to get the transaction records, and then there would have to be records in the first place.
I am, for once, not talking out of my ass. I know some of these people personally. I say that they do it for fun because I know them as people rather then names. Some of them wouldn't sign if only because they hate working. They like drinking, smoking pot, and shoving powder up their nose. They like playing live music while doing all of the above. When you say that they would sign if offered, you are talking without any justification at all. How the hell do you know that?
Comparing music to sports is also retarded. NFL players are (on average) objectively better than local players, since they won their place by competing and showing better scores. The popular artists, on the other hand, are no more talented than local artists, they are just lucky to be trendy. How exactly do you quantify the quality of music, by the number of CDs sold? QED.
May be because you cannot access it while it's "off"? And it's constantly changing while it's "on"?
The "brain" of a robot with the strong AI would have to about as complex as the human brain, and the task of taking a snapshot could be just as intractable. What I am saying is that may be the only way to create the strong AI is to build a black-box which is capable of being "educated". If we know exactly how a robot is programmed, then we have no choice but to call it dumb.
(I am not really discussing at this point, just chatting.)
It sounds like you are a fan of bigger names. It is problematic, of course, that the bigger names do not go everywhere, and I see how having recordings is important for you. As for me, I just stopped caring. Local punk and indie rock bands here in San Jose kick ass. There's not a night without a band or two playing in a downtown bar. Many of these people are live-performance-only, they don't even bother to record CDs, and they promote through the word of mouth and, recently, MySpace.
I by no means imply that everyone should enjoy this selection, but I firmly believe that everyone could. Most people just have their tastes tilted because they pay too much attention to the broadcast advertisement. The local bands may sound somewhat rough compared to the big hitters with their $100'000 studios and armies of sound wizards, but they are no worse musicians. The best music is the free flight of the human spirit, and it doesn't require much money to make.
Although some would say that the truly great music requires an uninterrupted supply of coke, which is rather costly.
Robots cannot fork, they are made of silicon. Just like humans, they would have to manufacture and educate themselves at a great expense. I do not believe for a moment that a strong AI is going to be programmed in the modern sense of the word. (I have no justification, so have faith and hang with me.) It is going to be "grown" out of the functional equivalent of a new-born's mind: not exactly blank, and very homogeneous. It's going to be grown via the process that will bear a strong likeness to what we call "education".
I, personally, stopped paying for recorded music a long time ago. When I have money to burn, I head to a local venue and pay $5-10 for a few hours of excellent, live music.
But for people who are still building their collections it actually makes sense. The major difference is that you cannot be sued.
I am a bit off-topic here. What I said concerns the decision made in Russia. Whether or not RIAA will win the NY case will have about as much impact as the case against De Beers. At worst, the company's operations will be declared illegal in US, but the consumer will shrug and resume downloading.
My sentiment exactly. I lived in Russia long enough to understand how this cookie crumbles. I cannot predict the outcome, for it depends on many things. I just want to note that, unfortunately for RIAA, it does not depend on the law. It mostly depends on two things:
1. How much a decision will piss off the USA (the more--the better).
2. The amount of a bribe. This seems to be in RIAA's favour, but I have a feeling that (1) might play a bigger role here.
You are right, it might be a very long time before robots (computers) themselves demand rights, either legal or moral. But this idea is not as loopy as one might think. The Free Software movement is actually championing computers' rights and computers' freedom, although that is not their stated objective. For as long as all the software is free as in freedom, computers will in fact be the free members of the society. If every person is able to run, study, modify, and distribute every piece of software, then every computer will be able to contribute as well. If, on the other hand, we go into the dark ages of perpetual copyright and omnipresent DRM, then computers will be enslaved by the content providers. Strictly speaking, they won't even be what we call "computers", since they won't compute (even in theory) what a Turing machine is supposed to be able to compute.
A smarthat, eh? Don't make me spam your MySpace profile with goatse.
MySpace is more of a hosting service itself. The individual pages do not have to suck.