If you're house were truly original to the point of patenting it, and you did, and you were making you living off of selling the plans, then you would feel much less flattered, I think. It is not bullshit morality.
Bullshit morality would be creating a fake scenario, proclaiming fake largess, and then comparing it to an actual incident.
"That is unless one believes that rights derive from perceptions and not facts."
I notice you used no facts in your argument, only your perceptions. Ironic, eh?
"There's a price for taking a life- and it should be small for a true accident (kid running out in front of a car from behind an SUV and with NO chance to stop)"
That is foolish. If there was NO chance to stop, then there was NO culpability and NO "taking" of a life. Hence, there should be NO punishment. Follow your own logic.
"With the exception of the spectacular (celebrity cases, multiple homicides, etc.) they pretty much ignore violent crime."
First, I don't believe you. But, presuming you're telling the truth, the next time this happens and you are a witness or have evidence, you should march down to the prosecutor's office and file charges against the police. It is against the law for police officers to ignore crimes, violent or otherwise you know.
"Based on the current situation, I personally don't think it is a big deal to pay money to rent a DVD and then keep a copy for _personal_ use only."
So, paying less than market price for the goods, you still think that you should be entitled to "fair use"?
"I paid you, now leave me alone until it is time for our next "business transaction"."
No, you explicitly stated that you don't consider it bad to only rent the product and then rip it off for "personal" use. You may torture the logic extensively by claiming that the rental business bought the goods, but you didn't, and that is what the copyright fair use covers.
"Copyright is the act of taking away people's right to copy."
Simply making a statement does not make it a true statement. Please provide some evidence that there is such a thing as the "right to copy". Elsewise, you're just excusing ripping someone's work off for free.
This is not correct, and is self-evident if you examine the lack of laws (or crappy ones) dealing with the changes to tech and society that occurred after the laws were placed. Reality is the only thing that is shared by everyone, that is the reason it is and should be the foundation of law. The crappy laws come from those (philosophers) who ignore reality and project into the nice fantasies that they wish would happen. One cannot know where these changes will go and the time-frame of response is nowhere near long enough that we need to deal with fantasy situations which are not in the forseeable future.
Too bad. And my posting history is dictated by my having a job where I cannot simply sit and dwell like some can. The human brain is not "just" a set of neurons connected together. It is also bathed in hormones which influence the patterns.
Satisfied?
My history is not, by the way, "entirely" short, nor dismissive.
To be dismissive, programming (by definition) is encoded logic. It cannot ignore it's own logic.
Well, I would explain it like this:
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:PxSLo_QSuAYJ: www.ele.uri.edu/Courses/ele382/F04/Erin_2.pdf+%22a rtificial+hippocampus%22&hl=en
You will note that in 11/15/2004, it is stillabout to be tested. Will it work? Who the hell knows? It hasn't been tested yet!
A futurist is just a scifi writer hiding behind a degree. Some futurists, though, predict that mankind will exterminate itself shortly while others predict mankind will launch into space and last indefinitely. That degree of contradiction makes futurists bad hacks at science.
"...for uncovering security holes and embarrasing NASA, which is what this is all about?"
Uh, no. Perhaps you aren't aware that breaking into government systems is illegal. Also, loading illegal movies onto them is illegal. It's about his being a criminal.
"Day after day, year after year, the elite in the government or media get away with crimes known to be crimes, and these same posters never say a word. "
Perhaps thinkingbefore committing one of those felonies would have done him some good.
Seventeen is plenty old enough to know good and goddamn well that what he thought of, planned, and executed was fucking illegal. If he didn't, then I sure's hell don't want him further educated in his abilities.
He and only he pissed away his career-making years. Tuff shit.
Well now AC jackass. You didn't include the time that the computer was unavailable for processing its data. Not to mention the delay in the task, which delayed the overarching tasks, which delayed the final reports. All of which accrue costs.
But, what to expect from juniors who simply think that systems are a couple of "big" programs hooked together.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're house were truly original to the point of patenting it, and you did, and you were making you living off of selling the plans, then you would feel much less flattered, I think. It is not bullshit morality.
Bullshit morality would be creating a fake scenario, proclaiming fake largess, and then comparing it to an actual incident.
"That is unless one believes that rights derive from perceptions and not facts."
I notice you used no facts in your argument, only your perceptions. Ironic, eh?
"There's a price for taking a life- and it should be small for a true accident (kid running out in front of a car from behind an SUV and with NO chance to stop)"
That is foolish. If there was NO chance to stop, then there was NO culpability and NO "taking" of a life. Hence, there should be NO punishment. Follow your own logic.
"With the exception of the spectacular (celebrity cases, multiple homicides, etc.) they pretty much ignore violent crime."
First, I don't believe you. But, presuming you're telling the truth, the next time this happens and you are a witness or have evidence, you should march down to the prosecutor's office and file charges against the police. It is against the law for police officers to ignore crimes, violent or otherwise you know.
"Based on the current situation, I personally don't think it is a big deal to pay money to rent a DVD and then keep a copy for _personal_ use only."
So, paying less than market price for the goods, you still think that you should be entitled to "fair use"?
"I paid you, now leave me alone until it is time for our next "business transaction"."
No, you explicitly stated that you don't consider it bad to only rent the product and then rip it off for "personal" use. You may torture the logic extensively by claiming that the rental business bought the goods, but you didn't, and that is what the copyright fair use covers.
"It's called copyright, because it lets you take away other peoples right to copy."
Uh, no. It's called copyright, because it allows you to grant someone the right to copy. That "right" does not exist until the owner bestows it.
"Copyright is the act of taking away people's right to copy."
Simply making a statement does not make it a true statement. Please provide some evidence that there is such a thing as the "right to copy". Elsewise, you're just excusing ripping someone's work off for free.
This is not correct, and is self-evident if you examine the lack of laws (or crappy ones) dealing with the changes to tech and society that occurred after the laws were placed. Reality is the only thing that is shared by everyone, that is the reason it is and should be the foundation of law. The crappy laws come from those (philosophers) who ignore reality and project into the nice fantasies that they wish would happen. One cannot know where these changes will go and the time-frame of response is nowhere near long enough that we need to deal with fantasy situations which are not in the forseeable future.
Too bad. And my posting history is dictated by my having a job where I cannot simply sit and dwell like some can. The human brain is not "just" a set of neurons connected together. It is also bathed in hormones which influence the patterns.
Satisfied?
My history is not, by the way, "entirely" short, nor dismissive.
To be dismissive, programming (by definition) is encoded logic. It cannot ignore it's own logic.
Psychology 101, and bad 101, at that. It is total straw, your 100% or 0% argument.
"...our rational thought processes only use 10% of our brain's processing power."
Showing that you believe that old cannard. It is a myth, we use all of our brain's power.
Well, I would explain it like this:: www.ele.uri.edu/Courses/ele382/F04/Erin_2.pdf+%22a rtificial+hippocampus%22&hl=en
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:PxSLo_QSuAYJ
You will note that in 11/15/2004, it is still about to be tested. Will it work? Who the hell knows? It hasn't been tested yet!
A futurist is just a scifi writer hiding behind a degree. Some futurists, though, predict that mankind will exterminate itself shortly while others predict mankind will launch into space and last indefinitely. That degree of contradiction makes futurists bad hacks at science.
The difference would be nothing. The reality is that we don't look up responses in tables.
Because that is precisely the thing that emotion can do, ignore logic.
You really don't understand the brain if you believe your argument. It is more than that.
Bullshit. Emotions are hormonal responses of a biological entity and carry an internally examinable state. Programming is neither.
Pointing to a scifi novel in no way bolsters your argument. In fact, it points to your inability to differentiate between fantasy and reality.
"...for uncovering security holes and embarrasing NASA, which is what this is all about?"
Uh, no. Perhaps you aren't aware that breaking into government systems is illegal. Also, loading illegal movies onto them is illegal. It's about his being a criminal.
"Day after day, year after year, the elite in the government or media get away with crimes known to be crimes, and these same posters never say a word. "
/.
Must be your first time on
"yes and yes"
Bzzzt! Wrongo. What he said was...
"Does a lockpicker know much how to build efficient locks actualy?
Does a computer security breaker know much how to actualy build secured systems?
Building that effecient lock and secured system is about designing same, not about assembling components, ala Tinker Toy.
Also, you can buy books on how to pick locks and find bookoo info on exploiting security holes. Your straw just burnt up.
THIS bullshit is insightful???
Perhaps thinking before committing one of those felonies would have done him some good.
Seventeen is plenty old enough to know good and goddamn well that what he thought of, planned, and executed was fucking illegal. If he didn't, then I sure's hell don't want him further educated in his abilities.
He and only he pissed away his career-making years. Tuff shit.
Well now AC jackass. You didn't include the time that the computer was unavailable for processing its data. Not to mention the delay in the task, which delayed the overarching tasks, which delayed the final reports. All of which accrue costs.
But, what to expect from juniors who simply think that systems are a couple of "big" programs hooked together.
Bullshit. It cost to investigate and fix. Simple as that. Those are damages from an economic view.
And that will guarantee that you got everything right? To the point of trusting billion dollar vehicles and people? Sure.
Please tell me you don't ice your cake with salt.
Assuming one doesn't care about the total energy output over the life of the device, yes.
"Expect it on your self-heating winter coats next year."
Uh, we already have those. They're called "dark colors". Direct light to heat conversion. Very efficient.