"Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes."
-- Abraham Lincoln
The problem is that if you continue, you'll just end up with 100% of the population being professors...
Please enlighten us as to the logical gymnastics required to reach that conclusion. Do you assert that universities only produce professors? Or do you assert that eventually every graduate will return to a university at some point to take up a career in teaching? Brilliant, simply brilliant.
fuck Jack Thompson with a CD-ROM. When will we be rid of this army of lawyers and cops for Jesus? Isn't God a big enough boy to take care of his own business???
It's the same discussion. It seems to me that you are of the mind that it is acceptable for these companies to enforce DRM in order to make sure that the public upholds their end of the copyright bargain, while at the same time reneging on their end ot the bargain. They have the economic clout to subvert the political system by purchasing laws to require all new electronic devices to support these DRM schemes, as well as lobby for indefinite copyright extension. They can't have it both ways.
There is a difference between diamond theft and copyright infringement. If person A physically steals the diamonds from person B, person B has lost tangible property and can make no use of it. Contrast this with person A copying a song created by person B. In the first place, person B still has the song and can continue to sell it. Moreover, the song is not the property of person B anyway. Once person B lets others have a copy, the genie is out of the bottle, and person B has forfeited their ownership of the creation. Now, under copyright law, what they DO have is an exclusive right to copy the creation, for a limited time. So, diamond theft is to copyright infringement as murder is to jaywalking. It's apples and oranges.
If you choose to use someone else's product / creation, and if the seller asks you to agree to a contract that you won't resell / redestribute that product, then you have the option of saying yes or no to that contract and if you choose to say no, you automatically loose the right to use that product. If you don't agree to the price quoted by the seller and if negotiation is not an option, then you can opt not to purchase that product.
And if a content creator chooses to release their creation, and the public (from which all political and legal power derives in a democracy) asks the creator to agree to a contract that they will release said creation into the public domain within a reasonable (not potentially infinite) period of time, and the creator chooses to say no, then the creator automatically loses the exclusive right to copy said creation.
The reason we are losing our freedom is because some people cannot be bothered to pay for the content they use, so companies come up with these measures such as DRM (which we all hate) as a knee jerk reaction to combat piracy.
Do you have some facts to back that up? Or are you a spin doctor for the RIAA/MPAA? I haven't seen the CEO for Time/Warner in the local soup line, so I assume they are indeed making money.
How about this one:
The reason we are seeing stagnation in the public domain is because some people who drink deeply from it cannot be bothered to replenish it, as required of them by the very copyright bargain that enables them to fill their wallets, and instead petition congress for indefinite copyright extension. So, people who are dissatisfied with broken products come up with these measures, such as piracy, as a knee-jerk reaction to rampant corporate greed.
The problem with his conclusion is that the scientists aren't in charge, and most people are scientifically illiterate. You win the American public through demagoguery, not through logic and reason.
The point is that you cannot start with abstract algebra and "proceed" to numbers. The statements and proofs of many fundamental algebraic theorems depend on the existence and arithmetic properties of the integers. Furthermore, the integers serve as an example of several types of algebraic structure, as do the permutation groups S_n and the cyclic groups Z_n.
Really? You mean like the fact that every finite group is isomorphic to a subgroup of the permutation group S_n, for some counting number n? What about the Sylow theorems? The dimension (a number) of a vector space is a pretty important algebraic concept. What about the theorem that every finitely generated abelian group is isomorphic to a finite direct sum of cyclic groups, each of which is either infinite or of order a power of a prime?
I repeat that algebra, whether beginning, college, or graduate level abstract, is laden with and absolutely dependent upon numbers.
Incorrect. Numbers are EVERYWHERE in abstract algebra. From the notation a^2, b^{-1}, to the permutation groups S_n, the rings Z_m, for m a counting number, counting subgroups, Sylow theorems, Galois Theory, and on and on and on. Care to revise your statement?
This is a good thing. The school is doing its job of educating today's youth and preparing them for the draconian, tattle-tale, nanny state the US has devolved into. As an adult, you too can have your phone tapped and your house searched without a warrant. It's good that they learn these lessons while they're young.
Slashdot Mirror
"Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes." -- Abraham Lincoln
The problem is that if you continue, you'll just end up with 100% of the population being professors ...
Please enlighten us as to the logical gymnastics required to reach that conclusion. Do you assert that universities only produce professors? Or do you assert that eventually every graduate will return to a university at some point to take up a career in teaching? Brilliant, simply brilliant.
Since schools also produce professors, I don't see the problem.
Well then you'd better not read the Bible --- it is chock full of incest, murder, raping and pillaging. Unthinkable => thought => word => action.
fuck Jack Thompson with a CD-ROM. When will we be rid of this army of lawyers and cops for Jesus? Isn't God a big enough boy to take care of his own business???
That whooshing sound is my point zooming right over your head. Think about it.
Time to get back and find your True Function In Life (TM).
For most of us, that would be working and consuming goods like responsible corporate serfs.
But I guess anyone who is stupid enough to drop themselves in the poo in public shouldn't be a prime candidate for employment.
Yes, it's so much better to hire a candidate who conducts his dirty business in secret -- embezzling, clandestine affairs with the secretaries, etc.
Try a teaspoon of LSD (vs a teaspoon of beer) an hour before driving in congested traffic to see how dangerous it is.
How so? They're all toxic if the dosage is high enough. Is a teaspoon of LSD safer than a teaspoon of beer?
...chips can't be removed by a person trying to claim your dog as their own, and a stray branch in the woods is unlikely to rip the chip off.
Aha! But, your pet might be EATEN by another animal. This is how your favorite poodle can polymorph into a pit bull.
It's the same discussion. It seems to me that you are of the mind that it is acceptable for these companies to enforce DRM in order to make sure that the public upholds their end of the copyright bargain, while at the same time reneging on their end ot the bargain. They have the economic clout to subvert the political system by purchasing laws to require all new electronic devices to support these DRM schemes, as well as lobby for indefinite copyright extension. They can't have it both ways.
What's that? I thought online poker was equivalent to threatening your children, animal pornography, or torturing the governer.
There is a difference between diamond theft and copyright infringement. If person A physically steals the diamonds from person B, person B has lost tangible property and can make no use of it. Contrast this with person A copying a song created by person B. In the first place, person B still has the song and can continue to sell it. Moreover, the song is not the property of person B anyway. Once person B lets others have a copy, the genie is out of the bottle, and person B has forfeited their ownership of the creation. Now, under copyright law, what they DO have is an exclusive right to copy the creation, for a limited time. So, diamond theft is to copyright infringement as murder is to jaywalking. It's apples and oranges.
If you choose to use someone else's product / creation, and if the seller asks you to agree to a contract that you won't resell / redestribute that product, then you have the option of saying yes or no to that contract and if you choose to say no, you automatically loose the right to use that product. If you don't agree to the price quoted by the seller and if negotiation is not an option, then you can opt not to purchase that product.
And if a content creator chooses to release their creation, and the public (from which all political and legal power derives in a democracy) asks the creator to agree to a contract that they will release said creation into the public domain within a reasonable (not potentially infinite) period of time, and the creator chooses to say no, then the creator automatically loses the exclusive right to copy said creation.
The sword cuts both ways.
According to whose definition? Yours? And you are authoritative on these matters because of what?
Only the government can "censor" anyone.
Really? I censor my children. Does that make me the president of the United States?
The reason we are losing our freedom is because some people cannot be bothered to pay for the content they use, so companies come up with these measures such as DRM (which we all hate) as a knee jerk reaction to combat piracy.
Do you have some facts to back that up? Or are you a spin doctor for the RIAA/MPAA? I haven't seen the CEO for Time/Warner in the local soup line, so I assume they are indeed making money.
How about this one:
The reason we are seeing stagnation in the public domain is because some people who drink deeply from it cannot be bothered to replenish it, as required of them by the very copyright bargain that enables them to fill their wallets, and instead petition congress for indefinite copyright extension. So, people who are dissatisfied with broken products come up with these measures, such as piracy, as a knee-jerk reaction to rampant corporate greed.
The problem with his conclusion is that the scientists aren't in charge, and most people are scientifically illiterate. You win the American public through demagoguery, not through logic and reason.
He's talking about the scene where Roy pushes his thumbs into Tyrell's eyeballs, of course!
The point is that you cannot start with abstract algebra and "proceed" to numbers. The statements and proofs of many fundamental algebraic theorems depend on the existence and arithmetic properties of the integers. Furthermore, the integers serve as an example of several types of algebraic structure, as do the permutation groups S_n and the cyclic groups Z_n.
Really? You mean like the fact that every finite group is isomorphic to a subgroup of the permutation group S_n, for some counting number n? What about the Sylow theorems? The dimension (a number) of a vector space is a pretty important algebraic concept. What about the theorem that every finitely generated abelian group is isomorphic to a finite direct sum of cyclic groups, each of which is either infinite or of order a power of a prime?
I repeat that algebra, whether beginning, college, or graduate level abstract, is laden with and absolutely dependent upon numbers.
Incorrect. Numbers are EVERYWHERE in abstract algebra. From the notation a^2, b^{-1}, to the permutation groups S_n, the rings Z_m, for m a counting number, counting subgroups, Sylow theorems, Galois Theory, and on and on and on. Care to revise your statement?
You can't do much algebra without numbers.
This is a good thing. The school is doing its job of educating today's youth and preparing them for the draconian, tattle-tale, nanny state the US has devolved into. As an adult, you too can have your phone tapped and your house searched without a warrant. It's good that they learn these lessons while they're young.