"the crown was pissed off at all this "free speech" jazz"
While the crown might have been pissed at that, it was not the reason for the law. Read up.
"people have been able to cheaply record thigs as long as i've remembered."
So you're not that old. Your second paragraph illustrates this. Copyright is MUCH older.
"there is a distinct difference between protecting public order and protecting the pocketbooks of a priveledged elite.."
And there is a distinct difference between drawing an analogy -- however shaky -- and stating a falsehood as if it were the truth too.
"who probably pay you to lobby for them."
Ah, ad hominum. The resort of the badly outclassed.
"Wrong, copying was quite efficient since there was a large class of slaves and copying of books was just as big an industry as today. And literacy in the ancient world was higher than people today often think."
Efficient how? You start with one and only one book and make a copy. A thousand scribes looked over each other's shoulders maybe? Get real about the logistics. It was a slow and tedious process, else wise we'd have those thousands of copies of ancient texts at our disposal now and we don't. M'thinks literacy was less than you think.
"No, firms which sell copyrighted content often make creators sign away their rights."
Well, there's an absolute piece of shit lie. No one can be made to sign their rights away and that's not the way it's done in any event. The author retains their copyright, period. The publisher leases said copyright for a while, not forever.
What you may be purposely conflating is when some firm like Disney pays an artist (either art or word) to create something for the business, in which case the business owns the copyright, not the creator. That's called a job. Don't want to do it that way? Don't. Create on your own and then find a publisher. You'll retain your copyright.
"If MS would offer whitebox builders the same price that they offer to the big OEMs like Dell and Gateway, they'd probably see a lot less for-profit piracy."
If whitebox builders would produce the masses of systems like the big OEMs like Dell and Gateway, they'd probably get the same price offer.
Like shielding his son and friends from investigations concerning fraud and corruption? That kind of moral authority? Like downplaying UN peacekeepers (notably French) who rape and use children? That kind of moral authority? Like refusing to label Dafur for what it is -- genocide. That kind of authority?
"Similarly, if I write an opinion piece...to assassinate him..."
You are aware that this is a crime in and of itself?
"Then we come to the question of an ambiguous statement, Kill Mr. Vandermolen..."
Do you even know what the fuck ambiguous means?
"...Mr. Vandermolen should be killed!..."
I apologize, you clearly don't understand. The first statement is a directive, the second an opinion. The first is not covered by free speech, the second is. However, the second still would be unconscionable and punishable in a school environment.
It's only pretty subtle to you because you don't understand the difference between a statement of opinion (should be killed) and a directive (kill). I hope this English lesson has helped.
People never did have the right to say or do what they want. Not in the U.S. or Canada. Try educating yourself on your own laws. You think in Canada you can slander and libel someone with impunity? You think you can steal from or beat someone?
Either use language that actually expresses what you think or get some education. Your statement is false and ignorant.
Re:Build fiber into housing developments
on
Own the Last Mile
·
· Score: 1
But, as the fiber is not a living essential it will be owned by -- wait for it -- the developer.
Bogus, bogus, bogus. Roads (local,state,inter) are typically not private. Those that are (like I70 in Kansas) have methods the owners use to recoup money -- tolls.
So -- oh Slahsdotters who think that gov ownership is tyranny -- what you want is for the local/state/fed government to own the infrastructure?
"I never understood why a few monopoly-prone corporations were put in charge of those last few miles anyway."
They're not. Get out your shovel, deal with the neighbors and utilities and road commission and just lay your own? Or, perhaps, what you really want is for those who have invested their dime to let you have their services free or discounted? Hmm.
"No legal action is possible on my part because of the relative sizes of the two organisations."
What a crock of shit. It happens all the time. Ever hear of pro bono or lawyers taking a percentage of the settlement?
What you espouse is no more than your opinion phrases as if it's truth. Perhaps you don't read enough.
"The small inventor stands a better chance with no patent system, as at least his business won't be torpedoed his larger competators' submarine patents."
No, dimwit, it would be torpedoed by out-competititon, as mentioned above you. Submarine patents are held by small firms too, you know.
Any company acting like a bank or credit union should be under the laws governing such. PayPal wants to pretend it's secure and honest without actually having to be so. Shut them down until they file the appropriate papers and post the appropriate securities to ensure their "transactions".
5. something at the disposal of a person, a group of persons, or the community or public: The secret of the invention became common property.
6. an essential or distinctive attribute or quality of a thing: the chemical and physical properties of an element.
9. a written work, play, movie, etc., bought or optioned for commercial production or distribution.
Note that 6 would also include the property of pleasing aesthetics.
Nobody's debating that a hack exposed a fixable problem. The debate is on whether the hacker should be absolved of responsibility for system penetration just because it highlights a problem. No is my answer.
Being more familiar with child death is not equivelent to "They simply cared less". It means they were more familiar, nothing greater. I noticed you did not provide any linkage to any form of support for your view.
The reason for exposing children to mumps, etc. (as my mother did me) is that these childhood diseases were far less fatal to children. They can easily kill adults.
Of course there is. That's because you constructed a straw argument. A known, unhealthy habit which contains known addictive poisons was compared to a normally healthy food doped with poison.
Pardon for the snipe, but just because you teach children, don't assume everyone else is as immature as they. I don't need you to tell me how to teach a child colors, or anything else. It wasn't helpful, it was condescending.
"Immaturity is another way. You could call it hiding from the world, or laziness, but it is another valid way."
Funny, very funny. Only an immature would think immaturity is valid.
"They take nothing from me. They don't. "
Except, of course, the ability to enjoy a movie without inane comments or phone interruptions, being able to drive along without worrying about the immature jackass who can't control his temper or keep his friggin' cell-phone off his ear, or any of a vast number of things that someone with no self-control (maturity) prevents.
"People with your attitude are spoiling their dream, not helping their future."
Uh, perhaps you didn't read the post. Immatures don't really think about the future, so they don't have one.
What a nice, long block of conjecture. String theory is no more than that. Until it can actually produce something testable, it's just math sculpted to describe certain people's fantasies.
"The shop sets up a wireless network for people on their property to use..."
Nice way to trim the verbage down to fit your point of view. Alas, you are incorrect, the shop set up a wireless network for patrons to use.
Everything else you said that depends from that invalid supposition is also erroneous.
"It is not a crime to be on a shop's property that is open to the public, and to use their service which they make open to these people, just because I don't abide with whatever rules they have set."
Wow, number two. Yes sir, it is a crime to park you car in a business's publicly available to patrons parking lot in many municipalities. I'd check out my local laws first.
"I think being arrested involves a loss of freedom."
You miss the point on purpose, I think. The freedoms indicated are those prior to your pilfering.
"And yes, he may have no right to those signals, but the shop provided them to him."
You argue in his behest then, why? I would argue that the shop was ignorant of the securities necessary and he stumbled across a way to pilfer. Ok to pilfer from the innocent, but ignorant?
"By this logic, it would be okay for any shop to arrest any customer for trespass without asking them to leave first "because they have no constitutional right to enter an open shop"."
Another grand leap. No, it would not. Because "any customer" firstly, means a customer, and secondly would include first time entrants. This guy was a repeater, and knew and acted like he knew he was pilfering.
"There are lots of people who intentionally leave connections open for people to use. Take a look here. It isn't unreasonable to assume that an open, unencrypted network is intended for public use. The bicycle analogy simply isn't the same thing. I've yet to find a web site which lists spots you can go to find free bicycles to ride."
Not necessarily. If the actual ratio of public use to privately secured favors the private ones, you'd have to reverse the decision. But there are web sites that list public accesses, so it's not as if the leach couldn't find a free one.
"The ISP's TOS is an agreement between the shop and the ISP. It has nothing to do with me."
That agreement is why you can pilfer bandwidth from the shop. Maybe pedantically it's not between you and the ISP. But it indeed does have something to do with you.
"If you don't, then I'm perfectly justified in assuming that it's an intentionally open spot, just like thousands of others all across the US."
Web sites listing truly open sites belie you. You have to either notice from inside and come back to pilfer or go to the trouble of cruising. Then there's the added fact that you (the guy in the article) sat in your car outside for a reason. That reason being the feeling that you were doing something wrong and wished to hide it.
"I'm growing really tired of people who don't understand basic principles" of real life behavior.
Slashdot Mirror
"the crown was pissed off at all this "free speech" jazz"
While the crown might have been pissed at that, it was not the reason for the law. Read up.
"people have been able to cheaply record thigs as long as i've remembered."
So you're not that old. Your second paragraph illustrates this. Copyright is MUCH older.
"there is a distinct difference between protecting public order and protecting the pocketbooks of a priveledged elite.."
And there is a distinct difference between drawing an analogy -- however shaky -- and stating a falsehood as if it were the truth too.
"who probably pay you to lobby for them."
Ah, ad hominum. The resort of the badly outclassed.
"Wrong, copying was quite efficient since there was a large class of slaves and copying of books was just as big an industry as today. And literacy in the ancient world was higher than people today often think."
Efficient how? You start with one and only one book and make a copy. A thousand scribes looked over each other's shoulders maybe? Get real about the logistics. It was a slow and tedious process, else wise we'd have those thousands of copies of ancient texts at our disposal now and we don't. M'thinks literacy was less than you think.
"No, firms which sell copyrighted content often make creators sign away their rights."
Well, there's an absolute piece of shit lie. No one can be made to sign their rights away and that's not the way it's done in any event. The author retains their copyright, period. The publisher leases said copyright for a while, not forever.
What you may be purposely conflating is when some firm like Disney pays an artist (either art or word) to create something for the business, in which case the business owns the copyright, not the creator. That's called a job. Don't want to do it that way? Don't. Create on your own and then find a publisher. You'll retain your copyright.
Don't short-change insects, some have six or so.
6 87
http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/208/4/
"For instance, papilionid butterflies have six opsins, one UV, one blue and four LW..."
FYI SW, MW and LW are "short wavelength (SW, 300-400 nm), middle wavelength (MW, 400-500 nm) and long wavelength (LW, 500-600 nm)" - same source.
For info, bees are UV,green,blue.
"If MS would offer whitebox builders the same price that they offer to the big OEMs like Dell and Gateway, they'd probably see a lot less for-profit piracy."
If whitebox builders would produce the masses of systems like the big OEMs like Dell and Gateway, they'd probably get the same price offer.
"...Iraq was our ally up until GWI."
Another way of saying that is Iraq was our ally during the Clinton and Carter years.
Like shielding his son and friends from investigations concerning fraud and corruption? That kind of moral authority? Like downplaying UN peacekeepers (notably French) who rape and use children? That kind of moral authority? Like refusing to label Dafur for what it is -- genocide. That kind of authority?
Where did you get that "people are willing to take vigilante action to shut it down"? Hacking could have been just to see what was there.
"Similarly, if I write an opinion piece...to assassinate him..."
You are aware that this is a crime in and of itself?
"Then we come to the question of an ambiguous statement, Kill Mr. Vandermolen..."
Do you even know what the fuck ambiguous means?
"...Mr. Vandermolen should be killed!..."
I apologize, you clearly don't understand. The first statement is a directive, the second an opinion. The first is not covered by free speech, the second is. However, the second still would be unconscionable and punishable in a school environment.
It's only pretty subtle to you because you don't understand the difference between a statement of opinion (should be killed) and a directive (kill). I hope this English lesson has helped.
People never did have the right to say or do what they want. Not in the U.S. or Canada. Try educating yourself on your own laws. You think in Canada you can slander and libel someone with impunity? You think you can steal from or beat someone?
Either use language that actually expresses what you think or get some education. Your statement is false and ignorant.
But, as the fiber is not a living essential it will be owned by -- wait for it -- the developer.
Bogus, bogus, bogus. Roads (local,state,inter) are typically not private. Those that are (like I70 in Kansas) have methods the owners use to recoup money -- tolls.
So -- oh Slahsdotters who think that gov ownership is tyranny -- what you want is for the local/state/fed government to own the infrastructure?
I'd like to see the crowd response to that one.
"I never understood why a few monopoly-prone corporations were put in charge of those last few miles anyway."
They're not. Get out your shovel, deal with the neighbors and utilities and road commission and just lay your own? Or, perhaps, what you really want is for those who have invested their dime to let you have their services free or discounted? Hmm.
"No legal action is possible on my part because of the relative sizes of the two organisations."
What a crock of shit. It happens all the time. Ever hear of pro bono or lawyers taking a percentage of the settlement?
What you espouse is no more than your opinion phrases as if it's truth. Perhaps you don't read enough.
"The small inventor stands a better chance with no patent system, as at least his business won't be torpedoed his larger competators' submarine patents."
No, dimwit, it would be torpedoed by out-competititon, as mentioned above you. Submarine patents are held by small firms too, you know.
Any company acting like a bank or credit union should be under the laws governing such. PayPal wants to pretend it's secure and honest without actually having to be so. Shut them down until they file the appropriate papers and post the appropriate securities to ensure their "transactions".
Apparently Webster's does not agree with you.
property
5. something at the disposal of a person, a group of persons, or the community or public: The secret of the invention became common property.
6. an essential or distinctive attribute or quality of a thing: the chemical and physical properties of an element.
9. a written work, play, movie, etc., bought or optioned for commercial production or distribution.
Note that 6 would also include the property of pleasing aesthetics.
"Most judges...would be lenient on the teenager for breaking into that bank..."
Bullshit. The teen would have gone to jail. Just because the window's open don't mean it's ok to enter.
Nobody's debating that a hack exposed a fixable problem. The debate is on whether the hacker should be absolved of responsibility for system penetration just because it highlights a problem. No is my answer.
Being more familiar with child death is not equivelent to "They simply cared less". It means they were more familiar, nothing greater. I noticed you did not provide any linkage to any form of support for your view.
The reason for exposing children to mumps, etc. (as my mother did me) is that these childhood diseases were far less fatal to children. They can easily kill adults.
"There's a difference between..."
Of course there is. That's because you constructed a straw argument. A known, unhealthy habit which contains known addictive poisons was compared to a normally healthy food doped with poison.
Pardon for the snipe, but just because you teach children, don't assume everyone else is as immature as they. I don't need you to tell me how to teach a child colors, or anything else. It wasn't helpful, it was condescending.
"Immaturity is another way. You could call it hiding from the world, or laziness, but it is another valid way."
Funny, very funny. Only an immature would think immaturity is valid.
"They take nothing from me. They don't. "
Except, of course, the ability to enjoy a movie without inane comments or phone interruptions, being able to drive along without worrying about the immature jackass who can't control his temper or keep his friggin' cell-phone off his ear, or any of a vast number of things that someone with no self-control (maturity) prevents. "People with your attitude are spoiling their dream, not helping their future."
Uh, perhaps you didn't read the post. Immatures don't really think about the future, so they don't have one.
Never trust anyone who makes up dimensions to make the math work.
What a nice, long block of conjecture. String theory is no more than that. Until it can actually produce something testable, it's just math sculpted to describe certain people's fantasies.
"The shop sets up a wireless network for people on their property to use..."
Nice way to trim the verbage down to fit your point of view. Alas, you are incorrect, the shop set up a wireless network for patrons to use.
Everything else you said that depends from that invalid supposition is also erroneous.
"It is not a crime to be on a shop's property that is open to the public, and to use their service which they make open to these people, just because I don't abide with whatever rules they have set."
Wow, number two. Yes sir, it is a crime to park you car in a business's publicly available to patrons parking lot in many municipalities. I'd check out my local laws first.
"I think being arrested involves a loss of freedom."
You miss the point on purpose, I think. The freedoms indicated are those prior to your pilfering.
"And yes, he may have no right to those signals, but the shop provided them to him."
You argue in his behest then, why? I would argue that the shop was ignorant of the securities necessary and he stumbled across a way to pilfer. Ok to pilfer from the innocent, but ignorant?
"By this logic, it would be okay for any shop to arrest any customer for trespass without asking them to leave first "because they have no constitutional right to enter an open shop"."
Another grand leap. No, it would not. Because "any customer" firstly, means a customer, and secondly would include first time entrants. This guy was a repeater, and knew and acted like he knew he was pilfering.
Your last sentence dives off into absurdity.
"There are lots of people who intentionally leave connections open for people to use. Take a look here. It isn't unreasonable to assume that an open, unencrypted network is intended for public use. The bicycle analogy simply isn't the same thing. I've yet to find a web site which lists spots you can go to find free bicycles to ride."
Not necessarily. If the actual ratio of public use to privately secured favors the private ones, you'd have to reverse the decision. But there are web sites that list public accesses, so it's not as if the leach couldn't find a free one.
"The ISP's TOS is an agreement between the shop and the ISP. It has nothing to do with me."
That agreement is why you can pilfer bandwidth from the shop. Maybe pedantically it's not between you and the ISP. But it indeed does have something to do with you.
"If you don't, then I'm perfectly justified in assuming that it's an intentionally open spot, just like thousands of others all across the US."
Web sites listing truly open sites belie you. You have to either notice from inside and come back to pilfer or go to the trouble of cruising. Then there's the added fact that you (the guy in the article) sat in your car outside for a reason. That reason being the feeling that you were doing something wrong and wished to hide it.
"I'm growing really tired of people who don't understand basic principles" of real life behavior.