But then why did he deny it? If Oswald was after the notoriety wouldnt he have admitted killing Kennedy? He said he didnt shoot anybody, and that he had been set up as a 'patsy'. That contradicts your premise.
...only content that they can reach consensus on can be published. Do you think this would work?
No, and it's easy enough to see that this will not work. Some subjects are inevitably controversial. For example, prejudice . People are, in general, incapable of recognising their own prejudices, so any attempt to list all forms prejudice will provoke people to argue, "that's not prejudice, we hate them because they're dirty/immoral/whatever". Concensus here would be impossible. In cases like this the only thing I see which might work is to accept that there is some controversy, and divide those articles according to the differing POV's.
It seems to me that DRM contradicts the idea of copyright.
Recall the basic idea of copyright (feel free to correct me
if I bungle this): to encourage and promote the creation and
publication of new works of art, etc. The
mechanism to provide the impetus is (or was) an ugly
short-term, government-enforced monopoly on duplication.
Think of it as a bargain: the public, and society, gets to
enjoy the output of artists, etc, in exchange for giving
those artists a limited-time monopoly on reproduction.
With DRM, it seems we have really lost sight of
the whole idea of copyright. Now the producers still get
their lousy monopoly, but the public are not really getting
their end of the deal, because in a very real sense,
DRM-protected works are not really published.
They are released in encrypted form, so they may never actually
make it into the public domain. If the courts were really doing
their job, they should say to the producers (of DRM stuff),
"Look, mate, you are not really publishing your
material. You are in effect making a private contract between
yourself and your customers, asking them to agree to all
these extra restrictions. If you have an issue with your
customers, thats your problem. Copyright doesnt apply here.
Case dismissed."
Well I can dream.
The best I can give you is that the word "natural" is, somewhat pedantically, not quite the right word here. However, in your haste to educate the rest of us, you overlook the simple, obvious fact that it is very useful to distinguish between man and (the rest of) "nature". You also seem to be amazingly ignorant of the fact that the word nature has been used in that sense for hundreds of years at least.
You're just using the wrong word. Evidence is a word used in science or law.
The only justification for religion (or other mystical beliefs) is experience.
Otherwise known as epiphany, rebirth, conversion, enlightenment, awakening, etc.
You can get this from praying, chanting, fasting, some illnesses, and various
mind-altering drugs.
e.g. I sneak a patent in that patents vacuums. The USPTO grants it, and I can then cajole a judge into granting an injunction against every vacuum maker unless they pay my extortion fee. The USPTO will of course pull the patent out and start reviewing it, but the vacuum cleaners will have long been forced to pay up.
Killing to protect false, "intellectual property" is surely the next logical extension
Indeed, I fully expect to hear someone propose capital punishment for "extreme" cases of copyright (and/or DMCA) violation. Perhaps USA should just "delare war on piracy". That should solve the whole problem.
Yes, but if the Govt actually goes ahead with this (requiring built-in back-door), then they will quickly follow with a ban on other systems which do not have the required back-door. You can see this coming a mile away.
What are laws for, anyway? To prevent harm, that's what!
That is perhaps what laws should be for. Its called utilitarianism.
If that's what you mean then I agree. However, you and I will need to remember that a large part of the population is quite comfortable with the idea that laws are for enforcing morality. Or should I say the current morality of the part of the population which currently holds power. Add almost a century of vicious propaganda that pot is immoral, and the current situation is not so mysterious.
This reminds me of something similar which has been explored in depth by Karl Popper, namely the problem of how does a free society protect itself from people who would use that freedom to change the society so that its no longer free. For example how does a democracy prevent a party from getting elected which would end the democracy? I cant give you a 25c summary, because it is a complicated subject, and I cant remember all of it anyway (its been years). However, if you're interested, I highly recommend reading Popper. His stuff is easy to read, and he deserves to be more widely known.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. Thanks for saying what I've been thinking.
In fact I believe this is the only way this (software patent problem) will get fixed.
The government will not listen to people on this. They view patents etc. as a business thing. Only when a sufficient number of sufficiently large companies get burned by bullshit SW patents will something be done to restrain this.
Slashdot Mirror
But then why did he deny it? If Oswald was after the notoriety wouldnt he have admitted killing Kennedy? He said he didnt shoot anybody, and that he had been set up as a 'patsy'. That contradicts your premise.
...fascinate me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
It seems to me that DRM contradicts the idea of copyright.
Recall the basic idea of copyright (feel free to correct me if I bungle this): to encourage and promote the creation and publication of new works of art, etc. The mechanism to provide the impetus is (or was) an ugly short-term, government-enforced monopoly on duplication. Think of it as a bargain: the public, and society, gets to enjoy the output of artists, etc, in exchange for giving those artists a limited-time monopoly on reproduction.
With DRM, it seems we have really lost sight of the whole idea of copyright. Now the producers still get their lousy monopoly, but the public are not really getting their end of the deal, because in a very real sense, DRM-protected works are not really published. They are released in encrypted form, so they may never actually make it into the public domain. If the courts were really doing their job, they should say to the producers (of DRM stuff), "Look, mate, you are not really publishing your material. You are in effect making a private contract between yourself and your customers, asking them to agree to all these extra restrictions. If you have an issue with your customers, thats your problem. Copyright doesnt apply here. Case dismissed."
Well I can dream.
It is not a "false analogy". Its not even any kind of analogy. It is a non sequitur. This is not pedantic. It is completely different.
The best I can give you is that the word "natural" is, somewhat pedantically, not quite the right word here. However, in your haste to educate the rest of us, you overlook the simple, obvious fact that it is very useful to distinguish between man and (the rest of) "nature". You also seem to be amazingly ignorant of the fact that the word nature has been used in that sense for hundreds of years at least.
You're just using the wrong word. Evidence is a word used in science or law. The only justification for religion (or other mystical beliefs) is experience. Otherwise known as epiphany, rebirth, conversion, enlightenment, awakening, etc. You can get this from praying, chanting, fasting, some illnesses, and various mind-altering drugs.
Does it bother you that AI tools to monitor the foreign press?
CW: It needs more cowbell.
Yes, but if the Govt actually goes ahead with this (requiring built-in back-door), then they will quickly follow with a ban on other systems which do not have the required back-door. You can see this coming a mile away.
This reminds me of something similar which has been explored in depth by Karl Popper, namely the problem of how does a free society protect itself from people who would use that freedom to change the society so that its no longer free. For example how does a democracy prevent a party from getting elected which would end the democracy? I cant give you a 25c summary, because it is a complicated subject, and I cant remember all of it anyway (its been years). However, if you're interested, I highly recommend reading Popper. His stuff is easy to read, and he deserves to be more widely known.
- MS are idiots (crooks, liars, incompetent, etc)
- but its not a backdoor because MS say so.
There. I feel better already.8. Profit!
...about the Gnome vs KDE flame war is that you don't talk about the Gnome vs KDE flame war!
Makes sense to me. Costs money to take out the garbage, after all.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. Thanks for saying what I've been thinking. In fact I believe this is the only way this (software patent problem) will get fixed. The government will not listen to people on this. They view patents etc. as a business thing. Only when a sufficient number of sufficiently large companies get burned by bullshit SW patents will something be done to restrain this.
They should have called it "Firebird Linux".