Economically Republicans today are not Republicans of old. Republicans, initially, favored a minimalist government which spent more time considering reasons NOT to get involved with the affairs of the people.
Socially, they are Democrats
Democrats are happy to spend YOUR money to help THEIR favorite disadvantaged group. Libertarians are happy to let you YOUR money on YOUR favorite disadvantaged group. There's a difference. You can be as bleeding heart as you want to be, as long as you don't do it with my money.
Foreign Policy wise, they are Wilsonian isolationists
And this is bad why? No one is going to land on American shores. If the USA would cease meddling in the affairs of and economically manipulating small nations we wouldn't have their uneducated, underpriveleged youth bombing our embassies.
The world is a self-sufficient neighborhood. Everyone plays their part. Say the US grows the tomatoes for the neighborhood. Say Panama discovers a gold mine under its rose bushes. Currently, the US would quit trading tomatoes with Panama until Panama allows the US to mine the gold (assuming that Panama doesn't have the current resources to do it themselves). It's no surprise that the Panamanian youth get agitated that the US steals the gold. Say North Korea has a thousand oaks and the US wants to build a fence. Currently, the US would cut N.Korea off of the tomato trade until N.Korea agrees to allow the US free and unfettered access to the oak trees. It's little surprise that the N.Korean youth become agitated that the US leaves them with only twigs and stumps.
Your personal disagreement with a law does not make it an inappropriate law
Unless said personal disagreement is based on the FACT that Congress does _NOT_ have the Constitutional power do pass 99.9% of the laws they debate.
Secondly, the Patriot Act is nothing more than streamlining the search warrant, wiretaps, and property seizure laws to bring them in line with modern technology
Let's streamline it then. You have no rights. Period. Don't expect any. You can be surveilled at any time. Deal with it. If persons of authority want to search your home you must let them. Period. If, in the course of investigation, they damage your possessions you have no recourse. Period.
If you're a masochist you may enjoy living in a world so tolerant of abuse. I, on the other hand, have worked very hard for what I have and have no interest in donating it to User#610215's Corporate Commonwealth of America.
Whether or not you know you're committing a crime, obviously taking someone else's creative efforts and reposting it without permission should set off flags in your head
Who has authority to grant permission?
Is it the original creator of the show? They don't hold the copyright. Is it the copyright holder? It's not their creative effort. To them it's nothing more than a business venture. There's an obvious conflict of interest when designating who has the authority to grant permission for use.
Remember the article where Lindows was using artwork without permission? I don't remember the FBI kicking their doors down. I don't remember a single court order placed against Lindows. I don't even remember if the original artist even cared.
However, I suspect that the "creators" don't actually own the copyright (despite the fact the intention of copyright is to go with the creators.) Neither the MPAA nor FBI own the copyrights
I've also found amusement that Uncle Sam is more than willing to spring to action to protect the rights of the corporations against a private citizen but, should any private citizen have a problem with the behavior of a major corporation, they'll have to come up with their own PIs, attorneys, and counsels who don't have the authority to just kick the door down, take everything in sight, and return most of it damaged and broken.
What amuses me more is that >50% of the posters on/. (and in the world) have been brainwashed to think that this is the right and true way for things to work.
Rembember, even the GNU Copyleft depends on the existence of copyright in order to work
I think you're violating the spirit of GNU Copyleft. GNU Copyleft is there to EMPHASIZE the issue that many corporate copyright holders are abusing the copyright system.
Imagine a circus (society) with a five-legged cow (entertainment media). Imagine the circus owners employing carnies to ensure that, after you've paid your money to see the five-legged cow, you don't go and tell anyone else about it. They want as many people as possible to pay as much as possible for the five-legged cow. They can't have you drawing pictures on the sidewalk for other people to see what the five-legged cow looks like. That's modern copyright. And it sucks.
GNU Copyleft seems to admonish that if you produce something as stupid as a five-legged cow then you should be prepared to accept all of the profit from it WITHOUT muscling the patrons.
When the system has been corrupted to the point where the system can no longer be changed from within the system, isn't that where the 2nd amendment comes into play?
Theoretically, yes. In either the Declaration or the Constitution we, as citizens, are charged with the DUTY to stage a rebellion in the event that the government oversteps its natural bounds.
It's the implementation that's impossible. As soon as you reach a head count of more than 5 and have a plan any better than "change the system!" you'll be called a terrorist cell and even your mother won't get a phone call.
If this guy was hosting pirated copies of the show then he needs to be called to task for that
What are "pirated" copies? "Pirated" implies theft. At some point Adam probably legally viewed the SG-1 series under a license to view them extended to him by his cable company. He broke the licensing agreement by rebroadcasting but he didn't steal anything.
What amazes me is how the lobbyists have managed to make breaking a license agreement the same category as a murder (felony).
Wake me up when the media industry gets of its license-bong and comes back to the real world where goods are bought and sold.
Perhaps it's a subtle point of law, but if a law is unconstitutional it does not "become" invalid when it is declared so by a court. It was always unconstitutional, always null and void. It was never actually law in the first place. It was merey an invalid bill that conress did not actually have the power to pass.
Technically I think that covers 99.9% of everything that Congress has passed in the last 200 years but none of us have the time or the opportunity to call their bluff.
Can someone explain to me how recording a TV show and hosting it is a violation of copyrights? It was broadcasted. You're telling me that my Tivo violates copyright laws? And if it doesn't, how does sharing what my Tivo recorded with someone else is a violation?
It's nothing short of legal chicanery. TiVo is properly licensed to record and rebroadcast. You, as a private citizen, are not. You, as a private citizen, will never be able to afford the type of licensing that TiVo has. At best you, as a private citizen, might be able to purchase a license from TiVo to view their licensed material. TiVo's license probably limits you to rebroadcasting with the TiVo equipment. I doubt that TiVo's license allows you to hook your TiVo up to the 'net and stream the contents out.
I'd still like to know what "licensing" is, in reality. Where I come from if you accept money for something then you've SOLD it. Once you've sold it to someone they're free to do anything they want with it. You can rent physical property to be returned. Other than helping attorneys make criminals out of everyday citizens, though, what is this concept of "licensing" which allows you to rent intangible data and prosecute the recipient if they pass that data along.
Vote for a third party... any third party, I don't care, just don't vote for a republican or democrat, because if you do, then you have no right to complain when things don't change, because you are too scared (or whatever reason people don't vote 3rd party) to change it
I'm terribly sorry to inform you of reality, but even if every Libertarian candidate running for office this year were elected they still wouldn't be able to change anything. If every one of them were elected the media would have them socially castrated by pointing out, at every turn, the ineffectiveness of their term in office.
You cannot change the Federal Government by voting any more than you can drain the ocean with a teacup.
We need a more effective vector for change than voting.
but part of the problem is that the cost of campaigning is so high because the candidates have so much to spend.
It helps quite a bit when the one major party knows full well that no one else can afford to spend as much. Metaphorically, to be a king you must be able to afford a crown. The crownmakers are regulated by the existing politicians and have been told not to sell a crown for less than $1 trillion dollars. It's pretty self-explanatory from there.
Charging for the streams isn't the only way to profit from them. Television channels, for example, use those same TV shows as a way to entice you into watching commercials
I agree with you but, if this were to make it to the point of a legal definition, then we have much larger things to worry about than some guy offering really bad quality rips of SG-1 episodes online.
Following intangible or disconnected profit streams would go a long way in tying the US Government to any number of terrorist organizations around the globe, for example. That would be a much more legitimate usage of the PATRIOT Act than beating up on a modern day American con-man.
The only catch is that the files weren't linked off of his site. Instead, the files used a predictable naming scheme, and details on how to find the files was given out via word-of-mouth.
No wonder he was charged under the PATRIOT Act. These are the methods used by government spooks in spy vs. spy novels.
When you put it like that I'm given pictures of premonitions of the INDUCE Act,"Well, you told them how to copy the CD illegally, so you're guilty."
It's not a problem in democracy[1] itself, but the campaign process
You're right: it's a flaw in the campaign process. Democracy is simply a system characterized by voting. Voting requires opposing opinions. Even idle coffee-table debate is campaigning. The campaign process is inherent to democracy.
I agree that we could fix democracy if we can fix the campaign process. First you must fix the factor which sullies the campaign process: availability of funding and resources. I have no idea how we can correct for the disparity without creating an easily exploitable welfare system.
My solution is to minimize the exploitation by campaigning for the complete and utter castration of government. Other than opportunistic graft and greed, there's no real reason for such a large government. We could build roads, running water, power lines, and create the Internet with a government 1/1000th the size.
go look up "Democracy" and then go look up "Republic" and see why you should have paid more attention in 2nd grade
Most dictionaries provide horrible definitions of democracy. Democracy nearly always means republic. There isn't a single dictionary, that I've come across, that provides a properly sanitized and unbiased definition of democracy. A proper definition of democracy is: "a system characterized by voting." That's it. That's all. There is no more. The properly cleaned defintion of democracy doesn't attempt to sway the reader's opinion about fraud, graft, rigging votes, or who really is to benefit from such a system. Consider, as a counterpoint, these definitions from Merriam-Webster:
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections 2 : a political unit that has a democratic government 3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S. 4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority 5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
Don't those sound nice, perfect, utopian, and pretty? No room for dishonesty. No room for rigging the vote. No room for propaganda and lies. No room for reality. It's all about the people.
Take the definition for Republic, as well:
1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit
Consider the line "supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote". Who are they trying to kid???
The perceived frailty of MS is... (b) because of the UI and application communication layers, not the kernel ... the design of Win32 (not to mention MS's ability to maintain a consistent API over 10 years of product developments)
That's not much of a consistent API if it's a major contributor to the perceived frailty of Windows.
The charges were felony trafficking of counterfeit goods and misdemeanor copyright infringement.
Okay, all legal technicalities aside, what about the punishment crime balance?
The RIAA/MPAA apologists and attorneys will say that there's a $50k loss for every instance of every second of 8 kbps streamed media. We all know that's just legal over-the-top garbage that's just as ridiculous as the "biased sob story from Adam". What's this "trafficking of counterfeit goods"? I'm no legal dictionary but I believe that any reasonable human equates "trafficking" with profit. Was Adam charging for these 8 kbps streaming counterfeit goods.
Don't these guys have bigger fish to fry. Maybe Adam cut off an FBI agent who was having a bad hair day at a red light?
How many times will the misuse of this 'Patriot' act occur before we get enough politicians to support its repeal (I would say rework but IMO the partisanship in America will prevent that)?
That's the beauty of the system. They _never_ (okay, maybe once with Prohibition) repeal anything. As long as it stays on the books it gives them unlimited authority at all times.
I asked once how we ever became involved in Iraq a year ago without a Congressional declaration of war. One of my friends replied,"They never ended the war from '92."
How long before the US formally puts the entire world on notice? "If you do anything at any time we reserve the right to invade your country, enslave your citizens, or subversively ruin your economy."
Personally I advocate using any means possible to catch the bad guys.
The real issue is in how "bad guys" is defined. With every law that passes more and more of us can be judged as bad guys in some form or another at just about any given time of the day. Once the entire population is, by default, a bad guy then it's easy to see that law enforcement isn't really about creating a better society. Law enforcement is just a tool to maintain the lifestyles of those who ride on our backs.
It's a shame that his computer equipment got trashed, but the FBI (and other law-enforcement agencies) are somewhat prone to do that over the course of an investigation
There's still no excuse for it. If OJ can get acquitted because the police didn't properly tape off the crime scene then this guy should be acquitted just because the government demonstrated wholeheartedly that it's a conglomerate of clumsy guidos just looking to push people around.
UCB does not have anything to do with current BSD development any more
I'm well aware of the technical separation but the social networks I'm sure are still very much intact.
but the jist is: if a BSD developer invents it, and Microsoft takes it, they can do everything with it, *EXCEPT* pretend they have written it them-selfes (so no patent claims, etc.).
In a perfect world, yes. In today's world MS could add 10 lines of code and compile it. It's illegal for devs to decompile to prove it.
BSD is a very nice baseball bat to beat Linux with. I'm really really surprised that corporate America hasn't attempted to steal it yet seeing as how all the BSD devs are so nice to leave it out in the open like an unlocked rifle.
Take, for example, the BSDs. We don't mind - we even are lucky - if our software is taken by some large company and makes their way in one of their products, with our name being mentioned in the manual.
With bated breath I will be awaiting the release of DRM enabled Microsoft SuperBSD'05. All of the security and stability of a traditional *NIX with all the corporate hassle, crappy customer service, overpriced licenses, and responsibility free EULA of Microsoft.
Additionally, with a nearly unlimited legal budget and some strategic patenting, every other BSD variant will be in violation of MS IP in about 10 years.
UC-Berkeley must have a careful eye and some pretty big attorneys because, honestly, I see no reason why MS hasn't tried to do this yet.
But many developers, in my experience, get extremely huffy when you suggest that something could be done better a different way. They take it as a personal attack. Then usually they get on their high horses about "You wouldn't have anything if not for me, and you'll get what features I want and you'll damn well like it." It's hardly unique to the OSS world, as it's a human failing.
Sounds like most mid-managers on a competency system at performance review time. Giving good marks to their underlings means less of the pie for them and any arguments are met with,"You should be lucky to have a job!"
Yes, people are greedy. ..But the funny thing is: somehow that's what keeps capitalism working
Greed is not an integral part of any sort of economic system. Greed is an added variable introduced by humans. A mathematical model of an economic system will function perfectly without the coagulating effect of greed.
"Well, if everyone played nice and gave everything away for free..." models are stupid. It just won't happen.
I agree. We should not happily hand over everything we own to those who are the most aggressively greedy. We also should not sit quietly while others happily steal from our efforts.
It seems you're a proponent of a society where no one becomes agitated about theft because they figure it's okay to steal back from someone else. That or you're too naive to know just how much you're losing. That or you're one of the people profiting enormously from the situation and your covering tracks.
Pretty much every research made in the last 8000 years, was made because someone thought (A) they could make a ton of money with it, or (B) kill someone with it
Ben Franklin was screwin' around with a kite. Bell was playing around in his lab. The guy who invented the wheel was probably carrying a big rock for his firepit. Gunpowder came about from some alchemists doodling around with whatever was available. Running water started out of irrigation necessity. Louis Pasteur was washing glassware when he noticed the penicillin producing fungi. The Wright brothers were tinkering around in their field. The first automobiles were created by blacksmiths with plenty of extra time. None of these society changing inventions came from greed or was initially motivated by violence.
Additionally, patents and copyrights did approximately zero to ensure that the original inventions were retained by the original inventors. Penicillin didn't give Pasteur the funding to start the Louis Pasteur Company--and that was a heck of a lot more important than anything Gates will ever do. Bell was already fairly well-to-do and certainly didn't turn into a billionaire on account of a telephone. Do we even know the name of the first person to make use of an irrigation system, a wheel, or the first blacksmith to forge an intake manifold? How about the first person to create a loom and shuttle? Surely we can track down who the registered inventor of the printing press or the farm combine is, but I lay 1 million to 1 that they pilfered the idea from someone else that we've never seen in a history book.
That's evil... how? Would you rather live like the Bushmen instead?
Please. Having a healthy disdain for opportunistic cheats does not mean that I have any interest in reverting to prehistoric conditions.
If I notice that my neighbor is stealing bricks from my other neighbor I can do one of three things: say nothing, help steal bricks and hope to add to my own house, or tell my neighbor that he's losing bricks. I'm in the camp of telling my first neighbor that he's losing bricks. You seem to be in the "say nothing" or "help steal" camp. I imagine you would like to patent the "Method for stealing bricks" to lend justification to the need for patents?
That's your ideal world free of greed and patented research?
It's not mine. You created it. It is possible to have a technologically advanced society without squeezing our fellow man like a turnip for every dollar he can be conned into giving. I pity you if you cannot envision it. You are forever locked in your cell.
However, you can't have your cake and eat it. You can't have all the benefits of greed, _and_ a world free of greed
Yes, you can. It's not like there's any real shortage of money or funding. There are billions and billions of dollars just waiting away in corporate bank accounts. The only reason why people don't get paid a fair living wage is not that corporations can't afford it: it's because
Slashdot Mirror
Economically, Libertarians are Republicans
Economically Republicans today are not Republicans of old. Republicans, initially, favored a minimalist government which spent more time considering reasons NOT to get involved with the affairs of the people.
Socially, they are Democrats
Democrats are happy to spend YOUR money to help THEIR favorite disadvantaged group. Libertarians are happy to let you YOUR money on YOUR favorite disadvantaged group. There's a difference. You can be as bleeding heart as you want to be, as long as you don't do it with my money.
Foreign Policy wise, they are Wilsonian isolationists
And this is bad why? No one is going to land on American shores. If the USA would cease meddling in the affairs of and economically manipulating small nations we wouldn't have their uneducated, underpriveleged youth bombing our embassies.
The world is a self-sufficient neighborhood. Everyone plays their part. Say the US grows the tomatoes for the neighborhood. Say Panama discovers a gold mine under its rose bushes. Currently, the US would quit trading tomatoes with Panama until Panama allows the US to mine the gold (assuming that Panama doesn't have the current resources to do it themselves). It's no surprise that the Panamanian youth get agitated that the US steals the gold. Say North Korea has a thousand oaks and the US wants to build a fence. Currently, the US would cut N.Korea off of the tomato trade until N.Korea agrees to allow the US free and unfettered access to the oak trees. It's little surprise that the N.Korean youth become agitated that the US leaves them with only twigs and stumps.
Your personal disagreement with a law does not make it an inappropriate law
Unless said personal disagreement is based on the FACT that Congress does _NOT_ have the Constitutional power do pass 99.9% of the laws they debate.
Secondly, the Patriot Act is nothing more than streamlining the search warrant, wiretaps, and property seizure laws to bring them in line with modern technology
Let's streamline it then. You have no rights. Period. Don't expect any. You can be surveilled at any time. Deal with it. If persons of authority want to search your home you must let them. Period. If, in the course of investigation, they damage your possessions you have no recourse. Period.
If you're a masochist you may enjoy living in a world so tolerant of abuse. I, on the other hand, have worked very hard for what I have and have no interest in donating it to User#610215's Corporate Commonwealth of America.
Whether or not you know you're committing a crime, obviously taking someone else's creative efforts and reposting it without permission should set off flags in your head
Who has authority to grant permission?
Is it the original creator of the show? They don't hold the copyright. Is it the copyright holder? It's not their creative effort. To them it's nothing more than a business venture. There's an obvious conflict of interest when designating who has the authority to grant permission for use.
Remember the article where Lindows was using artwork without permission? I don't remember the FBI kicking their doors down. I don't remember a single court order placed against Lindows. I don't even remember if the original artist even cared.
However, I suspect that the "creators" don't actually own the copyright (despite the fact the intention of copyright is to go with the creators.) Neither the MPAA nor FBI own the copyrights
/. (and in the world) have been brainwashed to think that this is the right and true way for things to work.
I've also found amusement that Uncle Sam is more than willing to spring to action to protect the rights of the corporations against a private citizen but, should any private citizen have a problem with the behavior of a major corporation, they'll have to come up with their own PIs, attorneys, and counsels who don't have the authority to just kick the door down, take everything in sight, and return most of it damaged and broken.
What amuses me more is that >50% of the posters on
Rembember, even the GNU Copyleft depends on the existence of copyright in order to work
I think you're violating the spirit of GNU Copyleft. GNU Copyleft is there to EMPHASIZE the issue that many corporate copyright holders are abusing the copyright system.
Imagine a circus (society) with a five-legged cow (entertainment media). Imagine the circus owners employing carnies to ensure that, after you've paid your money to see the five-legged cow, you don't go and tell anyone else about it. They want as many people as possible to pay as much as possible for the five-legged cow. They can't have you drawing pictures on the sidewalk for other people to see what the five-legged cow looks like. That's modern copyright. And it sucks.
GNU Copyleft seems to admonish that if you produce something as stupid as a five-legged cow then you should be prepared to accept all of the profit from it WITHOUT muscling the patrons.
When the system has been corrupted to the point where the system can no longer be changed from within the system, isn't that where the 2nd amendment comes into play?
Theoretically, yes. In either the Declaration or the Constitution we, as citizens, are charged with the DUTY to stage a rebellion in the event that the government oversteps its natural bounds.
It's the implementation that's impossible. As soon as you reach a head count of more than 5 and have a plan any better than "change the system!" you'll be called a terrorist cell and even your mother won't get a phone call.
If this guy was hosting pirated copies of the show then he needs to be called to task for that
What are "pirated" copies? "Pirated" implies theft. At some point Adam probably legally viewed the SG-1 series under a license to view them extended to him by his cable company. He broke the licensing agreement by rebroadcasting but he didn't steal anything.
What amazes me is how the lobbyists have managed to make breaking a license agreement the same category as a murder (felony).
Wake me up when the media industry gets of its license-bong and comes back to the real world where goods are bought and sold.
Perhaps it's a subtle point of law, but if a law is unconstitutional it does not "become" invalid when it is declared so by a court. It was always unconstitutional, always null and void. It was never actually law in the first place. It was merey an invalid bill that conress did not actually have the power to pass.
Technically I think that covers 99.9% of everything that Congress has passed in the last 200 years but none of us have the time or the opportunity to call their bluff.
Can someone explain to me how recording a TV show and hosting it is a violation of copyrights? It was broadcasted. You're telling me that my Tivo violates copyright laws? And if it doesn't, how does sharing what my Tivo recorded with someone else is a violation?
It's nothing short of legal chicanery. TiVo is properly licensed to record and rebroadcast. You, as a private citizen, are not. You, as a private citizen, will never be able to afford the type of licensing that TiVo has. At best you, as a private citizen, might be able to purchase a license from TiVo to view their licensed material. TiVo's license probably limits you to rebroadcasting with the TiVo equipment. I doubt that TiVo's license allows you to hook your TiVo up to the 'net and stream the contents out.
I'd still like to know what "licensing" is, in reality. Where I come from if you accept money for something then you've SOLD it. Once you've sold it to someone they're free to do anything they want with it. You can rent physical property to be returned. Other than helping attorneys make criminals out of everyday citizens, though, what is this concept of "licensing" which allows you to rent intangible data and prosecute the recipient if they pass that data along.
Is this the secret password club or what?
Vote for a third party... any third party, I don't care, just don't vote for a republican or democrat, because if you do, then you have no right to complain when things don't change, because you are too scared (or whatever reason people don't vote 3rd party) to change it
I'm terribly sorry to inform you of reality, but even if every Libertarian candidate running for office this year were elected they still wouldn't be able to change anything. If every one of them were elected the media would have them socially castrated by pointing out, at every turn, the ineffectiveness of their term in office.
You cannot change the Federal Government by voting any more than you can drain the ocean with a teacup.
We need a more effective vector for change than voting.
There is no excuse for making pirated copies of that show available.
Other than "might makes right", what is the legitimate notion of "licensing" as opposed to "sale", anyways?
In the real world if you accept money for something you've SOLD it.
but part of the problem is that the cost of campaigning is so high because the candidates have so much to spend.
It helps quite a bit when the one major party knows full well that no one else can afford to spend as much. Metaphorically, to be a king you must be able to afford a crown. The crownmakers are regulated by the existing politicians and have been told not to sell a crown for less than $1 trillion dollars. It's pretty self-explanatory from there.
Charging for the streams isn't the only way to profit from them. Television channels, for example, use those same TV shows as a way to entice you into watching commercials
I agree with you but, if this were to make it to the point of a legal definition, then we have much larger things to worry about than some guy offering really bad quality rips of SG-1 episodes online.
Following intangible or disconnected profit streams would go a long way in tying the US Government to any number of terrorist organizations around the globe, for example. That would be a much more legitimate usage of the PATRIOT Act than beating up on a modern day American con-man.
The only catch is that the files weren't linked off of his site. Instead, the files used a predictable naming scheme, and details on how to find the files was given out via word-of-mouth.
No wonder he was charged under the PATRIOT Act. These are the methods used by government spooks in spy vs. spy novels.
When you put it like that I'm given pictures of premonitions of the INDUCE Act,"Well, you told them how to copy the CD illegally, so you're guilty."
It's not a problem in democracy[1] itself, but the campaign process
You're right: it's a flaw in the campaign process. Democracy is simply a system characterized by voting. Voting requires opposing opinions. Even idle coffee-table debate is campaigning. The campaign process is inherent to democracy.
I agree that we could fix democracy if we can fix the campaign process. First you must fix the factor which sullies the campaign process: availability of funding and resources. I have no idea how we can correct for the disparity without creating an easily exploitable welfare system.
My solution is to minimize the exploitation by campaigning for the complete and utter castration of government. Other than opportunistic graft and greed, there's no real reason for such a large government. We could build roads, running water, power lines, and create the Internet with a government 1/1000th the size.
go look up "Democracy" and then go look up "Republic" and see why you should have paid more attention in 2nd grade
Most dictionaries provide horrible definitions of democracy. Democracy nearly always means republic. There isn't a single dictionary, that I've come across, that provides a properly sanitized and unbiased definition of democracy. A proper definition of democracy is: "a system characterized by voting." That's it. That's all. There is no more. The properly cleaned defintion of democracy doesn't attempt to sway the reader's opinion about fraud, graft, rigging votes, or who really is to benefit from such a system. Consider, as a counterpoint, these definitions from Merriam-Webster:
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S.
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
Don't those sound nice, perfect, utopian, and pretty? No room for dishonesty. No room for rigging the vote. No room for propaganda and lies. No room for reality. It's all about the people.
Take the definition for Republic, as well:
1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit
Consider the line "supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote". Who are they trying to kid???
Huh?
... (b) because of the UI and application communication layers, not the kernel
...
The perceived frailty of MS is
the design of Win32 (not to mention MS's ability to maintain a consistent API over 10 years of product developments)
That's not much of a consistent API if it's a major contributor to the perceived frailty of Windows.
The charges were felony trafficking of counterfeit goods and misdemeanor copyright infringement.
Okay, all legal technicalities aside, what about the punishment crime balance?
The RIAA/MPAA apologists and attorneys will say that there's a $50k loss for every instance of every second of 8 kbps streamed media. We all know that's just legal over-the-top garbage that's just as ridiculous as the "biased sob story from Adam". What's this "trafficking of counterfeit goods"? I'm no legal dictionary but I believe that any reasonable human equates "trafficking" with profit. Was Adam charging for these 8 kbps streaming counterfeit goods.
Don't these guys have bigger fish to fry. Maybe Adam cut off an FBI agent who was having a bad hair day at a red light?
How many times will the misuse of this 'Patriot' act occur before we get enough politicians to support its repeal (I would say rework but IMO the partisanship in America will prevent that)?
That's the beauty of the system. They _never_ (okay, maybe once with Prohibition) repeal anything. As long as it stays on the books it gives them unlimited authority at all times.
I asked once how we ever became involved in Iraq a year ago without a Congressional declaration of war. One of my friends replied,"They never ended the war from '92."
How long before the US formally puts the entire world on notice? "If you do anything at any time we reserve the right to invade your country, enslave your citizens, or subversively ruin your economy."
to try to catch the bad guys
Personally I advocate using any means possible to catch the bad guys.
The real issue is in how "bad guys" is defined. With every law that passes more and more of us can be judged as bad guys in some form or another at just about any given time of the day. Once the entire population is, by default, a bad guy then it's easy to see that law enforcement isn't really about creating a better society. Law enforcement is just a tool to maintain the lifestyles of those who ride on our backs.
It's a shame that his computer equipment got trashed, but the FBI (and other law-enforcement agencies) are somewhat prone to do that over the course of an investigation
There's still no excuse for it. If OJ can get acquitted because the police didn't properly tape off the crime scene then this guy should be acquitted just because the government demonstrated wholeheartedly that it's a conglomerate of clumsy guidos just looking to push people around.
UCB does not have anything to do with current BSD development any more
I'm well aware of the technical separation but the social networks I'm sure are still very much intact.
but the jist is: if a BSD developer invents it, and Microsoft takes it, they can do everything with it, *EXCEPT* pretend they have written it them-selfes (so no patent claims, etc.).
In a perfect world, yes. In today's world MS could add 10 lines of code and compile it. It's illegal for devs to decompile to prove it.
BSD is a very nice baseball bat to beat Linux with. I'm really really surprised that corporate America hasn't attempted to steal it yet seeing as how all the BSD devs are so nice to leave it out in the open like an unlocked rifle.
Take, for example, the BSDs. We don't mind - we
even are lucky - if our software is taken by some
large company and makes their way in one of their
products, with our name being mentioned in the
manual.
With bated breath I will be awaiting the release of DRM enabled Microsoft SuperBSD'05. All of the security and stability of a traditional *NIX with all the corporate hassle, crappy customer service, overpriced licenses, and responsibility free EULA of Microsoft.
Additionally, with a nearly unlimited legal budget and some strategic patenting, every other BSD variant will be in violation of MS IP in about 10 years.
UC-Berkeley must have a careful eye and some pretty big attorneys because, honestly, I see no reason why MS hasn't tried to do this yet.
But many developers, in my experience, get extremely huffy when you suggest that something could be done better a different way. They take it as a personal attack. Then usually they get on their high horses about "You wouldn't have anything if not for me, and you'll get what features I want and you'll damn well like it."
It's hardly unique to the OSS world, as it's a human failing.
Sounds like most mid-managers on a competency system at performance review time. Giving good marks to their underlings means less of the pie for them and any arguments are met with,"You should be lucky to have a job!"
Yes, people are greedy. . .But the funny thing is: somehow that's what keeps capitalism working
Greed is not an integral part of any sort of economic system. Greed is an added variable introduced by humans. A mathematical model of an economic system will function perfectly without the coagulating effect of greed.
"Well, if everyone played nice and gave everything away for free..." models are stupid. It just won't happen.
I agree. We should not happily hand over everything we own to those who are the most aggressively greedy. We also should not sit quietly while others happily steal from our efforts.
It seems you're a proponent of a society where no one becomes agitated about theft because they figure it's okay to steal back from someone else. That or you're too naive to know just how much you're losing. That or you're one of the people profiting enormously from the situation and your covering tracks.
Pretty much every research made in the last 8000 years, was made because someone thought (A) they could make a ton of money with it, or (B) kill someone with it
Ben Franklin was screwin' around with a kite. Bell was playing around in his lab. The guy who invented the wheel was probably carrying a big rock for his firepit. Gunpowder came about from some alchemists doodling around with whatever was available. Running water started out of irrigation necessity. Louis Pasteur was washing glassware when he noticed the penicillin producing fungi. The Wright brothers were tinkering around in their field. The first automobiles were created by blacksmiths with plenty of extra time. None of these society changing inventions came from greed or was initially motivated by violence.
Additionally, patents and copyrights did approximately zero to ensure that the original inventions were retained by the original inventors. Penicillin didn't give Pasteur the funding to start the Louis Pasteur Company--and that was a heck of a lot more important than anything Gates will ever do. Bell was already fairly well-to-do and certainly didn't turn into a billionaire on account of a telephone. Do we even know the name of the first person to make use of an irrigation system, a wheel, or the first blacksmith to forge an intake manifold? How about the first person to create a loom and shuttle? Surely we can track down who the registered inventor of the printing press or the farm combine is, but I lay 1 million to 1 that they pilfered the idea from someone else that we've never seen in a history book.
That's evil... how? Would you rather live like the Bushmen instead?
Please. Having a healthy disdain for opportunistic cheats does not mean that I have any interest in reverting to prehistoric conditions.
If I notice that my neighbor is stealing bricks from my other neighbor I can do one of three things: say nothing, help steal bricks and hope to add to my own house, or tell my neighbor that he's losing bricks. I'm in the camp of telling my first neighbor that he's losing bricks. You seem to be in the "say nothing" or "help steal" camp. I imagine you would like to patent the "Method for stealing bricks" to lend justification to the need for patents?
That's your ideal world free of greed and patented research?
It's not mine. You created it. It is possible to have a technologically advanced society without squeezing our fellow man like a turnip for every dollar he can be conned into giving. I pity you if you cannot envision it. You are forever locked in your cell.
However, you can't have your cake and eat it. You can't have all the benefits of greed, _and_ a world free of greed
Yes, you can. It's not like there's any real shortage of money or funding. There are billions and billions of dollars just waiting away in corporate bank accounts. The only reason why people don't get paid a fair living wage is not that corporations can't afford it: it's because