The same reason it is important to call copyright infringement as it is instead of theft. Re-labeling hacking a server and unauthorized distribution of images as a sex crime is unnecessary, and the purpose of doing so is merely to illicit a greater emotional response. Many (most?) people conflate "sex crime" with pedophilia and rape.
None of this pedantry makes the affected individuals any less of a victim, mind you.
The well found about 1 billion barrels of oil and similar geology nearby means the surrounding area may hold more than the U.S. part of the Gulf or Mexico, he said.
That's 1 billion barrels from one well. The grand total could be much larger.
Yeah, but coal seam fires gave us Silent Hill, while nuclear disasters (and weapon tests) gave us Godzilla. Now tell me - which is *really* the bigger evil?
The judge may have said it can be used in this one case, but unless struck down by another court, it sets up a precedent for other judges to do the same.
This was more the case of "Don't want your car stolen? Don't leave the windows down and doors unlocked". The thief still has to hot wire the car, and he/she still takes the lion's share of the blame, but it doesn't detract from the fact that it is really stupid to leave your car out like that.
ONLY Businesses can get away with this. The average citizen couldn't.
It doesn't work for average businesses any more than it works for average citizens (and for the same reasons). It might work if you were a billionaire, though.
A better analogy is one where you purchase a vehicle capable of going 60MPH, but unbeknownst to you ahead of time, it gets throttled remotely to lower speeds if you drive to Chicago or LA because those cities did not pay the manufacturer enough extortion money. Oh, and it can go 90MPH to Destroit because the manufacturer is based there.
Assuming that it was impossible to have *any* privacy, you would immediately see widespread persecution of anyone who didn't fit the "norm". Shortly afterward, anyone with any intelligence would cease any public activities which did not meet general approval and start looking for ways to engage in them so that only other people with those hobbies would know about it - in effect, clamoring to restore the lost privacy.
In short, a life without privacy is one where you must live according to how everyone else wants you to live, whether than living how *you* want to live. It is a prison without bars.
In the context of a single argument, you are correct. However, in the scope of society as a whole, public shaming of people who are willfully ignorant would hopefully serve to discourage those who see it as a badge of honor to argue a topic while being completely ignorant of the facts. However, I would be happy if we could at least drop the anti-intellectualism which permeates US culture.
I wouldn't call it stupid, but it is a logical fallacy. Given what we knew 10 years ago, it was only logical to point out the fallacy of assuming that everything you said or did was monitored, because there was little/no public evidence of such. That it turned out to be true does not make the past arguments any less fallacious.
Re:And this is the same for copyrights.
on
Patents That Kill
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Why should a copyright ever extend past the life of the author? For those 10 years you propose after the author dies, what additional works will that author create as a result of the additional copyright protection? And will zombie works be good enough to be worthy of copyright protection?
In the case of the US, it's a secret court with secret proceedings - as far as anyone knows, the actual approval for surveillance is rubber-stamped by circus clowns. Even then, it was shown that much of our surveillance was done without consulting the special "court". I don't see why we should assume the UK system is any different.
It's a good thing hashes are always unique, so that no one could possibly be accidentally accused of a crime which would end their careers and social lives even without a conviction.
While Physics and Chemistry are not particularly useful, it's difficult to dispute that Calculus (and, by extension, Lambda Calculus) is useful for Computer Science.
Given the Snowden leaks, it *is* the most transparent administration ever. It's too bad that it took leaks to become transparent, but we may as well take what we can get.
I'm not quite sure why Comcast hasn't emiserated the in-store situation yet; but apparently they haven't, and it's not as though the front-line peons are fucking with you for their pleasure, so if they aren't forced to they generally won't.
That's easy. Someone deliberately screwing with you to prevent your cancellation in person could escalate the situation to violence. Over the phone, the most that can happen is a shouting match, and if the customer gets frustrated enough, they hang up, which is a win.
I can't imagine why anyone would accuses him of 'cheating'...
The device is like a spring, so it stores energy as well as having extra length and mechanical advantage, and better still its far stronger and requires much more force to break.
I'm sorry he lost his leg, but there is no why this is 'fair' by any sense of the word.
Oh, and I suppose Pitch-O-Mat 5000 was just a modified howitzer?
Every so often we get to vote, but we are limited to two choices,
The only thing limiting you to two choices is you. Many ballots have third parties. You are free to run in those that don't. By stating to yourself and others that there are only two choices, you are part of the problem.
your choice as a citizen voter is, there's really only two teams on the field, no matter your third-party dreams. next best hope is to knock the next weakest player off the field.
AND "NOT VOTING" - IS SURRENDER.
If you limit yourself to the two main parties, you have surrendered even more. You are legitimizing the system as a whole by casting your vote, and you are legitimizing the actions of the major parties by giving it to one of them. Vote for a third party or don't vote at all. By reinforcing the idea that you should only go D or R, you are part of the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
The same reason it is important to call copyright infringement as it is instead of theft. Re-labeling hacking a server and unauthorized distribution of images as a sex crime is unnecessary, and the purpose of doing so is merely to illicit a greater emotional response. Many (most?) people conflate "sex crime" with pedophilia and rape.
None of this pedantry makes the affected individuals any less of a victim, mind you.
The well found about 1 billion barrels of oil and similar geology nearby means the surrounding area may hold more than the U.S. part of the Gulf or Mexico, he said.
That's 1 billion barrels from one well. The grand total could be much larger.
We should just throw all the criminals on some remote island.
Why take a step backwards and test lawyers? Aren't the rats closer to being human?
Yeah, but coal seam fires gave us Silent Hill, while nuclear disasters (and weapon tests) gave us Godzilla. Now tell me - which is *really* the bigger evil?
The judge may have said it can be used in this one case, but unless struck down by another court, it sets up a precedent for other judges to do the same.
Yeah, government never comes up with any interesting research results, like the internet (DARPA), GPS (DoD), touchscreens (CIA/NSF), or Siri (DARPA).
This was more the case of "Don't want your car stolen? Don't leave the windows down and doors unlocked". The thief still has to hot wire the car, and he/she still takes the lion's share of the blame, but it doesn't detract from the fact that it is really stupid to leave your car out like that.
ONLY Businesses can get away with this. The average citizen couldn't.
It doesn't work for average businesses any more than it works for average citizens (and for the same reasons). It might work if you were a billionaire, though.
A better analogy is one where you purchase a vehicle capable of going 60MPH, but unbeknownst to you ahead of time, it gets throttled remotely to lower speeds if you drive to Chicago or LA because those cities did not pay the manufacturer enough extortion money. Oh, and it can go 90MPH to Destroit because the manufacturer is based there.
Assuming that it was impossible to have *any* privacy, you would immediately see widespread persecution of anyone who didn't fit the "norm". Shortly afterward, anyone with any intelligence would cease any public activities which did not meet general approval and start looking for ways to engage in them so that only other people with those hobbies would know about it - in effect, clamoring to restore the lost privacy.
In short, a life without privacy is one where you must live according to how everyone else wants you to live, whether than living how *you* want to live. It is a prison without bars.
In the context of a single argument, you are correct. However, in the scope of society as a whole, public shaming of people who are willfully ignorant would hopefully serve to discourage those who see it as a badge of honor to argue a topic while being completely ignorant of the facts. However, I would be happy if we could at least drop the anti-intellectualism which permeates US culture.
I wouldn't call it stupid, but it is a logical fallacy. Given what we knew 10 years ago, it was only logical to point out the fallacy of assuming that everything you said or did was monitored, because there was little/no public evidence of such. That it turned out to be true does not make the past arguments any less fallacious.
Why should a copyright ever extend past the life of the author? For those 10 years you propose after the author dies, what additional works will that author create as a result of the additional copyright protection? And will zombie works be good enough to be worthy of copyright protection?
In the case of the US, it's a secret court with secret proceedings - as far as anyone knows, the actual approval for surveillance is rubber-stamped by circus clowns. Even then, it was shown that much of our surveillance was done without consulting the special "court". I don't see why we should assume the UK system is any different.
China could probably imprison everyone who *might* dissent and still have fewer people incarcerated than we do in the US.
It's a good thing hashes are always unique, so that no one could possibly be accidentally accused of a crime which would end their careers and social lives even without a conviction.
While Physics and Chemistry are not particularly useful, it's difficult to dispute that Calculus (and, by extension, Lambda Calculus) is useful for Computer Science.
Given the Snowden leaks, it *is* the most transparent administration ever. It's too bad that it took leaks to become transparent, but we may as well take what we can get.
I'm not quite sure why Comcast hasn't emiserated the in-store situation yet; but apparently they haven't, and it's not as though the front-line peons are fucking with you for their pleasure, so if they aren't forced to they generally won't.
That's easy. Someone deliberately screwing with you to prevent your cancellation in person could escalate the situation to violence. Over the phone, the most that can happen is a shouting match, and if the customer gets frustrated enough, they hang up, which is a win.
I can't imagine why anyone would accuses him of 'cheating' ...
The device is like a spring, so it stores energy as well as having extra length and mechanical advantage, and better still its far stronger and requires much more force to break.
I'm sorry he lost his leg, but there is no why this is 'fair' by any sense of the word.
Oh, and I suppose Pitch-O-Mat 5000 was just a modified howitzer?
Donald Rumsfeld was taped shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.
Every so often we get to vote, but we are limited to two choices,
The only thing limiting you to two choices is you. Many ballots have third parties. You are free to run in those that don't. By stating to yourself and others that there are only two choices, you are part of the problem.
your choice as a citizen voter is, there's really only two teams on the field, no matter your third-party dreams. next best hope is to knock the next weakest player off the field.
AND "NOT VOTING" - IS SURRENDER.
If you limit yourself to the two main parties, you have surrendered even more. You are legitimizing the system as a whole by casting your vote, and you are legitimizing the actions of the major parties by giving it to one of them. Vote for a third party or don't vote at all. By reinforcing the idea that you should only go D or R, you are part of the problem.
History in general doesn't change quite as quickly as computer science - only recent history does.