This story has been covered elsewhere in the media, with similar statements being made.
I made a previous submission under this subject earlier, and it was not a major publication covering the issue of these memo's. So unless you don't trust the media in general in terms of their quoted sources (a healthy skepticism I can understand, but an out and out distrust, no) it's reasonable to take these facts at face value.
"As for the argument that your chances of getting caught are pretty slim - yea, it's just like speeding on the highway when you're keeping up with traffic. You're still breaking the law. Just don't be surprised if in the future there's cameras along the highway that take a picture of your licence plate, and later in the mail each and every one of you get a ticket."
When the average joe on the highway gets a speeding ticket for just "keeping up with traffic" then that tells me either there is something wrong with the speed limit or there is something wrong with the way the law is being enforced.
Similarly, when the average p2p music filesharing joe is at risk for a $3k pricetag subpeona, that makes me wonder if there is either something wrong with the law and/or the way it is being enforced (more likely the latter, IMO).
We all know that stealing is wrong. But when and under what cirumstances does it become worthy of prosecution? When you take a paperclip from the office home for personal use without asking permission or paying for it? How about a pen? Or a stapler? Or a Box or Pens or staplers. Clearly, as we move up the list more and more people would agree it looks illegal and worthy of punishment.
I believe the jury (of public opinion) is still out on wether or not casual p2p music sharing helps or hinders the music industry. Who was it, ORielly (sp?), who wrote the article stating that piracy is progressive taxation? I think under many circumstances this is the case. It's not unreasonable to argue that those intent on never speding a thin dime on music never will no matter what the RIAA does. Many of their friends, though, may hear a tune and decide the album is worth considering.
I think the RIAA is being penny wise and pound foolish in their pursuit of illegal p2p filesharing by busting filesharers (negative publicity) and losing out where the additional exposure of songs to others might be enough to push them over the edge to buy (lost marketing opportunity).
Well Duh. If you don't like the (FREE) service with its obvious legal disclaimers against this kind of crap (e.g. use at your own risk) guess what? YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE IT.
But I guess telling him this would be like arguing with Archie Bunker, who was famous for saying: "Stop Confusing me with facts."
I'd be willing to bet this fellow has made other (frivilous) lawsuits in the past.
from the article:
' According to the suit, PageRank, created by Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, "reformats information obtained from accurate sources, resulting in changing of the context in which information is presented."
He said PageRank "scans the source, but in doing so, it's not a literal transmission. A literal transmission would be fine." '
Goodle can code how they want. This is the same kind of lame argument that is used vs. Microsoft and other major companies (who have their own EULAs) about not being happy with their product. These lawsuits are almost never successful. How in the world can expect hold Google to responsible for finding information created by others?
'Articles say that the liscenses were thrown in as part of a seperate breach of contract settlement. They were not "purchased".'
That's a crucial piece of information. One that SCO will deliberately mishold or put endless spin on.
I'll probably be modded as flame for this, but I have to say I think that CA wasn't thinking when they allowed that "licensing" to be thrown in as part of the terms of any settlement. Now SCO will run around using this as ammunition for their continued litigation.
It's not like CA or anyone else doesn't know who or what they were dealing with...
How does that saying go? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me?
"It used to work when communities were small, and it would work better if voting (though it ought to include a 'None of the above') were compulsory."
Yikes!
If I knew that every person where I lived was *forced* to vote I'd be looking move to a place where this was not the case.
Just imagine how quickly American Politics,or that of any other "democracy," would reduced even further to the lowest-common-denominator if everyone was *forced* to vote.
I put democracy in quotes because, technically, the USA is not a democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic which has by its description and various amendments, representative government of a sort that is commonly labled "democracy." But that's another discussion....
Just imagine every bigoted/ignorant/stupid/closed-minded person who currently does not vote being forced to do so by your idea being adopted. This makes the assumption that the current voting population has a lower percentage of these undesirables than those who do not vote, but I'd be willing to bet this is a safe assumption on the whole.
I think what you meant to say was that everyone should be forced to vote in *an informed fashion* (perhaps by passing an exam?) but I personally disagree with the idea of forced voting; it diminshes the quality of voting.
IMO, with regarding to voting, quantity is no substitute for quality, and given a choice between the two, I'll chose the latter any day.
"People accept copyright laws because they aren't enforced against minor infringers"
Um, what country do you live in?
Here in the USA, minor copyright infringers who HAVE been sued (and either settled or lost) include a twelve year old girl (maybe this is what you meant by "minor infringer") by the RIAA.
Think you are immune to enforcement just because you are a "minor infringer"? Just remember this piece of information from the New York Times:
Even if you are not sharing music on the internet, you may already be infringing copyrights. According to a more thorough examination of (american) copyright law, if you are engaging in any of the following acts, legal action could be brought against you:
1) Whistling a song while in the subway 2) Walking door to door singing copyrighted christmas carols, like "Rudolph the red-nosed Reindeer." 3) Singing "Happy Birthday" to your child in a restaurant 4) Making a Mix-CD for freinds, lovers, or wedding guests 5) Displaying posters of your favorite pop-stars in the school hallways 6) Blasting music out of your car window (some wish the record industry would actually crack-down on this behavior instead).
Fred Von Lohmann, Esq., an intellectual property attorney, stated that "In a lot of these examples, copyright owners may not be able to win these lawsuits, but they are all plausible cases that you would need to come up with a defense for."
If all this seems preposterous, let's not forget that ACSAP (American Society of Composers Authors and Publishers) decided it was a violation to sing copyrighted songs around the fire at overnight and girlscout camps... and they WON.
The odds of anyone coming after you may indeed be very low, but please don't make the mistake of assuming it can't or won't happen to "minor copyright infringers," because it already has and will likely continue for some time. Why? I find this quote by Amy Weismann, the RIAA sopkeswoman for the above scenario's to be illustrative: "The application of copyright law in the new technological environment has been a challenge for everyone, but the complexity of the law can't mask right versus wrong. Taking something that doesn't belong to you is wrong."
An interesting idea, but then if/. did require subscriptions, it would lose out on thoughtful/informative/insightful commentary from those that aren't willing to pay.
This isn't to disrespect those who do suscribe. But my point is that part of what makes/. so interesting/insightful/informative/funny is its VERY large and (arguably) diverse geek-community user base, the vast majority of which, I suspect, don't pay to suscribe.
I think you should have been the one modded to 5, not me. I agree with your comments COMPLETELY.
Unfortunately, I find that in many instances on/. (not all, but often enough, IMO) you need to post early in order to have your comments not get "lost in the fray" and lose any good chance of consideration for positive moderation. One thing that I find sometimes helpful is to change the "subject" heading in the reply to reflect a brief summary of your post.
With you I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir and In no way do I mean to imply that you or I should whore for Karma, but I DO think your post is important/insightful enough that others (who dont browse with comments flat instead of nested) should have had more of a chance to see it.
As far as politics, money and corruption is concerned:
The more things change, the more they stay the same (ref: "Golden Rule" - he who has the gold, makes the rules).
I know the above comment is cheap, but IMO, one thing that *hasn't* changed in the "new economy" is that (white-collar) crime still pays for too many high powered execs and that corporate accountability is hard to enforce.
Again, IMO, this is one of the reasons more people lost their jobs, in high-tech or anywhere else, than was neccessary.
on it's razor thin surface surface this looks just good enough to attract legislators attention.
Until we see all the various problems that will occur later:
1) the device gets removed by a smart enough technician 2) people use ballons with "sober air" to defeat the system 3) All state drivers get charged for a device that presumes guilt (constitution, anyone?) 4) repeat offenders still kill 5) out of state rentals are used and someone gets injured/permanently disabled/killed from a drunk driver in one 6) insert your "I've just lost more rights" scenario here.
I've always felt that if you put enough monkeys into the statehouse they could end up making laws that may actually do some good (just like the joke that enough monkeys in front of a typewriter could make a work as good as shakepeare).
Doubltless under what you propose some people may get financially mowed down, but you are leaving out a few factors wich could be very good for the masses:
1) Children age 12, Grandmothers, and People without actual computers being sued in court. Wonderfully bad publicity RIAA 2) Sympathetic Jury Nullification. More wonderfully bad publicity for RIAA 3) A Hung Jury or a simple Not Guilty Verdict. Not only bad for RIAA but it sets a track record. This is one of the things they absolutely DO NOT want. 4) A wealthy defendent who hires an Attorney who can go the distance. This would also be very bad for the RIAA.
So yes, if convicted the RIAA may just take cases to court en masse, but they could also become a classic David vs. Goliath story as well.
Temporary Vanity
on
Space Burial
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
as these orbits will evetually decay and they'll be ashes-to-ashes, dust-to-dust anyway.
Re:Common Sense Manners, Anyone?
on
Cell-Phone Wars
·
· Score: 1
You entirely missed the point again. It's going to happen whether you LIKE IT OR NOT. Part of my point was to show WHY it happens and HOW it might be done with some thought.
You seem to be implying that cell phone use in any area for any reason is OK. Wake up; that's the main reason these devices are used - to correct this behavior. You may not like it or approve of it under any circumstances - too bad. I was trying to show how and why people might do it.
The cell phone in a theatre argument was about DISCONNECTING the damn calls, not prevent ANY from happening in the first place. You had to paint it in the worst possible way. And yes, I'd love to see someone disconnect a rude person talking in the movie theatre to their babysitter about junior crying at home. The moment a conversation begins on a phone in the theatre, it should go outside. Is disconnecting a call in the theatre hypocritical in the conext of the argument? Maybe, but so is defending cell phone use unconditionally, as you seem to be.
.
Re:Common Sense Manners, Anyone?
on
Cell-Phone Wars
·
· Score: 1
I may not have the "right" (and yeah, I own a cell phone and its always on vibrate) but part of my point is that when people assume cel-phone use under any circumstance is cool, they're dreaming, and those jammers are part of wake up call of reality. If you think that people won't interfere with the airwaves just because they don't have the right to, you're mistaken.
I agree there are lots of politics and cash involved. I agree that the cel-phone landscape is growing and here to stay. I agree cel-providers can and should defend their licenses. I think the vast majority of users are responsible. But, please, spare me the sanctimonius side of your argument for someone who actually has a jammer.
I want to puke everytime I hear "what about the doctor on call?" or "what about my babysitter?" question. Fine - I'll bite on that tired, litigious argument: The thing I see here is someone using the jammer *just* long enough to shut up the cel-phone user in the theatre. Under these circumstances, how often would this get discoverd even by a "geek with a spectrum analyzer?" He'd have to have a cop on the scene. And just who would be so cold as to jam a cell phone in a theatre after someone had a heart attack? Can we say "ad-infinitem?" Also, who would be dumb enough to use a jammer with a range of "severl miles" as you put it(ad-infinitem, again)?
Does a doctor sue the movie theatre located in a basement, where no signal will stay long enough, because he can't get a call? Good luck trying that one. Same with the babysitter. On the issue of reception, what do you do when you don't have any or you suddenly lose it? You probably either accept it, or if it's important enough, you go elsewhere. A jammer would have to be stupid to keep the unit on all the time for a doctor's phone to not even ring (and he'd be silly or forgetful not to have his on vibrate) Under this circumstance the jammer would easily deserve to get nailed for this dangerous and ignorant behavior.
I'm not calling this stuff right, but please, spare me the doctor/babysitter argument and the idea that all jammers would be a public nuisance and/or hazard; you're just missing the point when you do that. These devices, legal or not, exist and sell for a reason. I don't own a jammer and won't be using one, but don't pretend that the mere threat of a lawsuit or the geek carring the spectrum analyzer will stop people from using one of these portable jamming devices.
.
Common Sense Manners, Anyone?
on
Cell-Phone Wars
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I'll probably get Modded as flamebait for this, but... When it comes to the discussion of cell phones and jamming here on slashdot, it seems like the same tired old arguments are being used. I, for one, have grown tired of seeing the same lame situation where supposed "Law" and "Rights" are touted as absolutes to give anyone entitlement to, in virtually any situation and for any reason, the justification to make or receive a cel-phone call.
Before I put in my two cents worth here is a brief recap of this asinine argument, since it now has many levels to follow:
DrEldarion said: "They're in a public place, if they want to talk on a cell phone, it's their right. Hell, if they want to sit there whistling 'It's a small world, after all' while banging on pans, they can do that too." Blackparrot responded: "Yeah, try that next time you're in a restaurant, theatre, or museum, and see what happens." Then DrEldarion retorted: "If the person is in a private place, and the people who run the place have objections to it, then they and ONLY they have the right to do something about it. If the person is in a public place, then NOBODY has a right to do anything."
My two cents: Really? "NOBODY has the right to do anything" ? Have you ever heard of Laws with regard to "Disturbing the peace"? I hear people actually get arrested for such eggregious behavior every once in a while. These "Laws" and "Rights" that you make referenece to were created by people to govern and manage behavior. They are, like many situations in life, best understood in the context of their creation and application. This is illustrated by Carl Sagan's quote, "What Rights does a Drowning Man in the middle of an Ocean have"? When people do things that are bad and/or against social/cultural norms, as they do from time to time, certain laws get enforced or enacted to correct them. You may have noticed that when behavior gets out of hand (e.g. profanity in church, holding up the line at a ATM machine, harassing a woman at a bar, or whistling "It's a small world after all" and baging on pans virtually ANYWHERE), people won't always wait for the Law, whether it gives/denies explicit permission, to respond appropriately. Wonder why the FCC has, to date, never enforced this law? Perhaps it is because they have never found reason enough to take a stand and make an example of someone who clearly abused their "Right" to enfore the social and cultural expectations for peace and quiet in the given situation. Please don't assume think we all, like you, believe that the "Law" and "Rights" are absolute in any virtually any situation and for (virtually) any reason. If you do, you may find yourself in front of a judge/jury/policeman/bouncer/angry citizen(s) that think otherwise.... There's only so much rudeness and nonsense people will put up with, whether you agree with them or not.
"I think the key issue is that they are cloning the cells (i believe) rather than the entire embryo, and so the issue of Sanctity of Life does not come into it."
I personally agree with you about the whole sanctity of life thing.
However, as you can see from some of the other posts here (some of which were modded up to 4's and 5's) there are those would would respectfully (and not so respectfully) disagree with you.
IMO we are essentially talking about two ethical arguments that are, by philisophical nature, at opposite ends that may go something like this:
(disclaimer: I am not a pro-lifer, and I don't mean to offend them by stating what I *think* may be at the core of their arguments)
Pro-life argument: All (human) life is sacred and a gift from God. The moment you create even a *potentially* viable embyro you have created a human being. It should have all the rights to self-determination to continue to exist that you and I do. Just because an embryo cant talk and can't exist independent of it's mother doesnt mean it is not entitled to these rights. We will speak up and oppose this cheapening of the sanctity of life. Even a "cloned" embryo outside of a womb is a person. Human Life, including cloned life, is degraded and cheapened when it is made solely to be destroyed to service another. Cloning is wrong because (among other things) it diminishes individuality. The use of cloning for tissue is basically murder shrouded in the clothing of a white lab robe.
Disclaimer #2: while I am a "pro-science" person I do not believe that science is always the solution to our problems (I do think it can help here, though). Science in any application can be used for good or bad and to enhance or degrade the quality of all life. I do not presume to speak for all "pro science" people here either; take my stance with a grain of salt.
The Pro-choice/Pro Science argument for stem cells (not abortion, I won't touch that one, deliberately, here, though pro-lifers may say it is all the same to them, and I can respect that): All life is sacred, not just human life. Bearing this in mind, how are we to enhance the quality of life? A person (or two people) should be able to choose to create, from their own flesh, cells to cure debilitating/deadly diseases for themselves and/or others. (Virtually) No one would argue that there is no problem with using mold to create penecillin (sp?) to cure diseases. So where do we draw the line on morality? What about lab rats? Pigs? Cats? Dogs? It is reasobale to presume that as we move along this list more and more people will say "that's wrong/immoral." At what point, then, do we say any use of life to service other life is wrong and/or immoral? The answer, IMO, depends on the INTENT and CONTEXT of purpose and USE. Morality and Justice cannot be pigeonholed in the vast complexity of the various cultures/religions and situations of life.
Here we are talking about cells which will never know consciousness or (arguably) pain being reseachred for the (arguably) moral purpose of curing disease/debilatating conditions. How is this so wrong under any circumatnces (remember the mold, lab rat, and the cat)?
Doubtless this is a field which needs oversight and some form of regulation to prevent misuse/abuse and the wholesale cheapening of life (e.g., whole limbs/hearts for sale to those who can afford it), but to say it's always wrong does not do service to all the potential good that can be had.
All geek males are like other men in that they like attention, especially from women. Spending good quality time with him on V-Day, in a way he will remember, is THE best way to make the day memorable for both of you. Simply use the $100.00 (or whatever amount) as a tool to help ahieve this end. Pick something you both will enjoy. Novel new ideas or favorite things (so far) could work depending on your personalities. Use your best judgement.
I am a 1/2 geek. My wife is a 1/2 geek (God bless her soul).
By that I mean she's good with software and I'm good with hardware, (so between the two of us we make a full geek, she says; I always laugh or smile when she says that).
If you spend time with him - real quality time, it will help you two to get to know each other better. After 11 years of marriage I can say I love my geek wife, who has matured and grown with my geeky self over the years (we're hardly recognizeable as geeks now unless you get to know us and then it's readily apparent).
Time with the Mrs. is almost always what I look forward to at the end of the day when I come home from work, and in the morning when I wake up.
As a practical suggestion, I'd suggest a high quality print of todays slashdot web page with your accpted "ask.slashgot.org" article, printed out in a frame. The fact that you cared enough about him to ask here on/. and then had the good fortune to get your piece accepted, that's a beautuful thing *any* geek would love.
I Love your sig. A good.sig is part of what makes/. so rich to read. The whole thing about "beowulf clusters" and "in soviet russia" gets really old after a while but.sigs like yours more than make up for it.
Keep up the creativity:)
.
Slashdot Mirror
also:
/. reading and posting).
1) ally yourself with one or two political groups you believe in
2) Stay informed on events and info that are important to you (looks like you may already be doing this one by virtue of
and 3) write your U.S. rep and Senators when something really rubs you the wrong way.
like this case for instance...
.
This story has been covered elsewhere in the media, with similar statements being made.
0 04
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MICROSO FT_TRIAL?SITE=MIDTF&SECTION=HOME. org/features/2004/03/16_horwichj_m icrosoftdayone/
I made a previous submission under this subject earlier, and it was not a major publication covering the issue of these memo's. So unless you don't trust the media in general in terms of their quoted sources (a healthy skepticism I can understand, but an out and out distrust, no) it's reasonable to take these facts at face value.
here are a few URL's to chew on:
http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20040317S0
http://in.tech.yahoo.com/040317/137/2c1dk.html
http://news.mpr
"As for the argument that your chances of getting caught are pretty slim - yea, it's just like speeding on the highway when you're keeping up with traffic. You're still breaking the law. Just don't be surprised if in the future there's cameras along the highway that take a picture of your licence plate, and later in the mail each and every one of you get a ticket."
When the average joe on the highway gets a speeding ticket for just "keeping up with traffic" then that tells me either there is something wrong with the speed limit or there is something wrong with the way the law is being enforced.
Similarly, when the average p2p music filesharing joe is at risk for a $3k pricetag subpeona, that makes me wonder if there is either something wrong with the law and/or the way it is being enforced (more likely the latter, IMO).
We all know that stealing is wrong. But when and under what cirumstances does it become worthy of prosecution? When you take a paperclip from the office home for personal use without asking permission or paying for it? How about a pen? Or a stapler? Or a Box or Pens or staplers. Clearly, as we move up the list more and more people would agree it looks illegal and worthy of punishment.
I believe the jury (of public opinion) is still out on wether or not casual p2p music sharing helps or hinders the music industry. Who was it, ORielly (sp?), who wrote the article stating that piracy is progressive taxation? I think under many circumstances this is the case. It's not unreasonable to argue that those intent on never speding a thin dime on music never will no matter what the RIAA does. Many of their friends, though, may hear a tune and decide the album is worth considering.
I think the RIAA is being penny wise and pound foolish in their pursuit of illegal p2p filesharing by busting filesharers (negative publicity) and losing out where the additional exposure of songs to others might be enough to push them over the edge to buy (lost marketing opportunity).
Well Duh. If you don't like the (FREE) service with its obvious legal disclaimers against this kind of crap (e.g. use at your own risk) guess what? YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE IT.
But I guess telling him this would be like arguing with Archie Bunker, who was famous for saying:
"Stop Confusing me with facts."
I'd be willing to bet this fellow has made other (frivilous) lawsuits in the past.
from the article:
' According to the suit, PageRank, created by Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, "reformats information obtained from accurate sources, resulting in changing of the context in which information is presented."
He said PageRank "scans the source, but in doing so, it's not a literal transmission. A literal transmission would be fine." '
Goodle can code how they want. This is the same kind of lame argument that is used vs. Microsoft and other major companies (who have their own EULAs) about not being happy with their product. These lawsuits are almost never successful. How in the world can expect hold Google to responsible for finding information created by others?
I only hope the case is dismissed.
.
Copyright Law "Should" be about balance, not who deserves more protection of their rights. Your hypothetical question implies that:
a) a balance cannot be struck between content creators and consumers (this could be reasonably construed as an issue of compromise)
and
b) a mutually exclusive prioritization of rights in this scenario is needed (this could be reasonably construed as an issue of equality)
I disagree with both points. If we give up on the idea of pursuing compromise and equality, where will we be?
.
'Articles say that the liscenses were thrown in as part of a seperate breach of contract settlement. They were not "purchased".'
That's a crucial piece of information. One that SCO will deliberately mishold or put endless spin on.
I'll probably be modded as flame for this, but I have to say I think that CA wasn't thinking when they allowed that "licensing" to be thrown in as part of the terms of any settlement. Now SCO will run around using this as ammunition for their continued litigation.
It's not like CA or anyone else doesn't know who or what they were dealing with...
How does that saying go? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me?
.
We Loves Them!
.
"It used to work when communities were small, and it would work better if voting (though it ought to include a 'None of the above') were compulsory."
Yikes!
If I knew that every person where I lived was *forced* to vote I'd be looking move to a place where this was not the case.
Just imagine how quickly American Politics,or that of any other "democracy," would reduced even further to the lowest-common-denominator if everyone was *forced* to vote.
I put democracy in quotes because, technically, the USA is not a democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic which has by its description and various amendments, representative government of a sort that is commonly labled "democracy." But that's another discussion....
Just imagine every bigoted/ignorant/stupid/closed-minded person who currently does not vote being forced to do so by your idea being adopted. This makes the assumption that the current voting population has a lower percentage of these undesirables than those who do not vote, but I'd be willing to bet this is a safe assumption on the whole.
I think what you meant to say was that everyone should be forced to vote in *an informed fashion* (perhaps by passing an exam?) but I personally disagree with the idea of forced voting; it diminshes the quality of voting.
IMO, with regarding to voting, quantity is no substitute for quality, and given a choice between the two, I'll chose the latter any day.
.
(assuming that they even cover this) and they'll let you know how you feel about it.
.
"People accept copyright laws because they aren't enforced against minor infringers"
Um, what country do you live in?
Here in the USA, minor copyright infringers who HAVE been sued (and either settled or lost) include a twelve year old girl (maybe this is what you meant by "minor infringer") by the RIAA.
Think you are immune to enforcement just because you are a "minor infringer"? Just remember this piece of information from the New York Times:
Even if you are not sharing music on the internet, you may already be infringing copyrights. According to a more thorough examination of (american) copyright law, if you are engaging in any of the following acts, legal action could be brought against you:
1) Whistling a song while in the subway
2) Walking door to door singing copyrighted christmas carols, like "Rudolph the red-nosed Reindeer."
3) Singing "Happy Birthday" to your child in a restaurant
4) Making a Mix-CD for freinds, lovers, or wedding guests
5) Displaying posters of your favorite pop-stars in the school hallways
6) Blasting music out of your car window (some wish the record industry would actually crack-down on this behavior instead).
Fred Von Lohmann, Esq., an intellectual property attorney, stated that "In a lot of these examples, copyright owners may not be able to win these lawsuits, but they are all plausible cases that you would need to come up with a defense for."
If all this seems preposterous, let's not forget that ACSAP (American Society of Composers Authors and Publishers) decided it was a violation to sing copyrighted songs around the fire at overnight and girlscout camps... and they WON.
The odds of anyone coming after you may indeed be very low, but please don't make the mistake of assuming it can't or won't happen to "minor copyright infringers," because it already has and will likely continue for some time. Why? I find this quote by Amy Weismann, the RIAA sopkeswoman for the above scenario's to be illustrative: "The application of copyright law in the new technological environment has been a challenge for everyone, but the complexity of the law can't mask right versus wrong. Taking something that doesn't belong to you is wrong."
See my point now?
.
I'm interested. Can you point me to a few sites?
.
An interesting idea, but then if /. did require subscriptions, it would lose out on thoughtful/informative/insightful commentary from those that aren't willing to pay.
/. so interesting/insightful/informative/funny is its VERY large and (arguably) diverse geek-community user base, the vast majority of which, I suspect, don't pay to suscribe.
This isn't to disrespect those who do suscribe. But my point is that part of what makes
I for one am not worried.
.
I think you should have been the one modded to 5, not me. I agree with your comments COMPLETELY.
/. (not all, but often enough, IMO) you need to post early in order to have your comments not get "lost in the fray" and lose any good chance of consideration for positive moderation. One thing that I find sometimes helpful is to change the "subject" heading in the reply to reflect a brief summary of your post.
Unfortunately, I find that in many instances on
With you I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir and In no way do I mean to imply that you or I should whore for Karma, but I DO think your post is important/insightful enough that others (who dont browse with comments flat instead of nested) should have had more of a chance to see it.
My hat is off to you ^ ^
.
As far as politics, money and corruption is concerned:
The more things change, the more they stay the same (ref: "Golden Rule" - he who has the gold, makes the rules).
I know the above comment is cheap, but IMO, one thing that *hasn't* changed in the "new economy" is that (white-collar) crime still pays for too many high powered execs and that corporate accountability is hard to enforce.
Again, IMO, this is one of the reasons more people lost their jobs, in high-tech or anywhere else, than was neccessary.
Good intentions.
on it's razor thin surface surface this looks just good enough to attract legislators attention.
Until we see all the various problems that will occur later:
1) the device gets removed by a smart enough technician
2) people use ballons with "sober air" to defeat the system
3) All state drivers get charged for a device that presumes guilt (constitution, anyone?)
4) repeat offenders still kill
5) out of state rentals are used and someone gets injured/permanently disabled/killed from a drunk driver in one
6) insert your "I've just lost more rights" scenario here.
I've always felt that if you put enough monkeys into the statehouse they could end up making laws that may actually do some good (just like the joke that enough monkeys in front of a typewriter could make a work as good as shakepeare).
.
Doubltless under what you propose some people may get financially mowed down, but you are leaving out a few factors wich could be very good for the masses:
1) Children age 12, Grandmothers, and People without actual computers being sued in court. Wonderfully bad publicity RIAA
2) Sympathetic Jury Nullification. More wonderfully bad publicity for RIAA
3) A Hung Jury or a simple Not Guilty Verdict. Not only bad for RIAA but it sets a track record. This is one of the things they absolutely DO NOT want.
4) A wealthy defendent who hires an Attorney who can go the distance. This would also be very bad for the RIAA.
So yes, if convicted the RIAA may just take cases to court en masse, but they could also become a classic David vs. Goliath story as well.
.
and understood.
Hope I didn't flame too much...
.
as these orbits will evetually decay and they'll be ashes-to-ashes, dust-to-dust anyway.
You entirely missed the point again. It's going to happen whether you LIKE IT OR NOT. Part of my point was to show WHY it happens and HOW it might be done with some thought.
You seem to be implying that cell phone use in any area for any reason is OK. Wake up; that's the main reason these devices are used - to correct this behavior. You may not like it or approve of it under any circumstances - too bad. I was trying to show how and why people might do it.
The cell phone in a theatre argument was about DISCONNECTING the damn calls, not prevent ANY from happening in the first place. You had to paint it in the worst possible way. And yes, I'd love to see someone disconnect a rude person talking in the movie theatre to their babysitter about junior crying at home. The moment a conversation begins on a phone in the theatre, it should go outside. Is disconnecting a call in the theatre hypocritical in the conext of the argument? Maybe, but so is defending cell phone use unconditionally, as you seem to be.
.
I may not have the "right" (and yeah, I own a cell phone and its always on vibrate) but part of my point is that when people assume cel-phone use under any circumstance is cool, they're dreaming, and those jammers are part of wake up call of reality. If you think that people won't interfere with the airwaves just because they don't have the right to, you're mistaken.
I agree there are lots of politics and cash involved. I agree that the cel-phone landscape is growing and here to stay. I agree cel-providers can and should defend their licenses. I think the vast majority of users are responsible. But, please, spare me the sanctimonius side of your argument for someone who actually has a jammer.
I want to puke everytime I hear "what about the doctor on call?" or "what about my babysitter?" question. Fine - I'll bite on that tired, litigious argument: The thing I see here is someone using the jammer *just* long enough to shut up the cel-phone user in the theatre. Under these circumstances, how often would this get discoverd even by a "geek with a spectrum analyzer?" He'd have to have a cop on the scene. And just who would be so cold as to jam a cell phone in a theatre after someone had a heart attack? Can we say "ad-infinitem?" Also, who would be dumb enough to use a jammer with a range of "severl miles" as you put it(ad-infinitem, again)?
Does a doctor sue the movie theatre located in a basement, where no signal will stay long enough, because he can't get a call? Good luck trying that one. Same with the babysitter. On the issue of reception, what do you do when you don't have any or you suddenly lose it? You probably either accept it, or if it's important enough, you go elsewhere. A jammer would have to be stupid to keep the unit on all the time for a doctor's phone to not even ring (and he'd be silly or forgetful not to have his on vibrate) Under this circumstance the jammer would easily deserve to get nailed for this dangerous and ignorant behavior.
I'm not calling this stuff right, but please, spare me the doctor/babysitter argument and the idea that all jammers would be a public nuisance and/or hazard; you're just missing the point when you do that. These devices, legal or not, exist and sell for a reason. I don't own a jammer and won't be using one, but don't pretend that the mere threat of a lawsuit or the geek carring the spectrum analyzer will stop people from using one of these portable jamming devices.
.
I'll probably get Modded as flamebait for this, but...
When it comes to the discussion of cell phones and jamming here on slashdot, it seems like the same tired old arguments are being used.
I, for one, have grown tired of seeing the same lame situation where supposed "Law" and "Rights" are touted as absolutes to give anyone entitlement to, in virtually any situation and for any reason, the justification to make or receive a cel-phone call.
Before I put in my two cents worth here is a brief recap of this asinine argument, since it now has many levels to follow:
DrEldarion said:
"They're in a public place, if they want to talk on a cell phone, it's their right. Hell, if they want to sit there whistling 'It's a small world, after all' while banging on pans, they can do that too."
Blackparrot responded:
"Yeah, try that next time you're in a restaurant, theatre, or museum, and see what happens."
Then DrEldarion retorted:
"If the person is in a private place, and the people who run the place have objections to it, then they and ONLY they have the right to do something about it. If the person is in a public place, then NOBODY has a right to do anything."
My two cents:
Really? "NOBODY has the right to do anything" ? Have you ever heard of Laws with regard to "Disturbing the peace"? I hear people actually get arrested for such eggregious behavior every once in a while.
These "Laws" and "Rights" that you make referenece to were created by people to govern and manage behavior. They are, like many situations in life, best understood in the context of their creation and application. This is illustrated by Carl Sagan's quote, "What Rights does a Drowning Man in the middle of an Ocean have"?
When people do things that are bad and/or against social/cultural norms, as they do from time to time, certain laws get enforced or enacted to correct them. You may have noticed that when behavior gets out of hand (e.g. profanity in church, holding up the line at a ATM machine, harassing a woman at a bar, or whistling "It's a small world after all" and baging on pans virtually ANYWHERE), people won't always wait for the Law, whether it gives/denies explicit permission, to respond appropriately.
Wonder why the FCC has, to date, never enforced this law? Perhaps it is because they have never found reason enough to take a stand and make an example of someone who clearly abused their "Right" to enfore the social and cultural expectations for peace and quiet in the given situation.
Please don't assume think we all, like you, believe that the "Law" and "Rights" are absolute in any virtually any situation and for (virtually) any reason. If you do, you may find yourself in front of a judge/jury/policeman/bouncer/angry citizen(s) that think otherwise....
There's only so much rudeness and nonsense people will put up with, whether you agree with them or not.
end of rant.
.
see subject.
"I think the key issue is that they are cloning the cells (i believe) rather than the entire embryo, and so the issue of Sanctity of Life does not come into it."
I personally agree with you about the whole sanctity of life thing.
However, as you can see from some of the other posts here (some of which were modded up to 4's and 5's) there are those would would respectfully (and not so respectfully) disagree with you.
IMO we are essentially talking about two ethical arguments that are, by philisophical nature, at opposite ends that may go something like this:
(disclaimer: I am not a pro-lifer, and I don't mean to offend them by stating what I *think* may be at the core of their arguments)
Pro-life argument: All (human) life is sacred and a gift from God. The moment you create even a *potentially* viable embyro you have created a human being. It should have all the rights to self-determination to continue to exist that you and I do. Just because an embryo cant talk and can't exist independent of it's mother doesnt mean it is not entitled to these rights. We will speak up and oppose this cheapening of the sanctity of life. Even a "cloned" embryo outside of a womb is a person. Human Life, including cloned life, is degraded and cheapened when it is made solely to be destroyed to service another. Cloning is wrong because (among other things) it diminishes individuality. The use of cloning for tissue is basically murder shrouded in the clothing of a white lab robe.
Disclaimer #2: while I am a "pro-science" person I do not believe that science is always the solution to our problems (I do think it can help here, though). Science in any application can be used for good or bad and to enhance or degrade the quality of all life. I do not presume to speak for all "pro science" people here either; take my stance with a grain of salt.
The Pro-choice/Pro Science argument for stem cells (not abortion, I won't touch that one, deliberately, here, though pro-lifers may say it is all the same to them, and I can respect that): All life is sacred, not just human life. Bearing this in mind, how are we to enhance the quality of life? A person (or two people) should be able to choose to create, from their own flesh, cells to cure debilitating/deadly diseases for themselves and/or others. (Virtually) No one would argue that there is no problem with using mold to create penecillin (sp?) to cure diseases. So where do we draw the line on morality? What about lab rats? Pigs? Cats? Dogs? It is reasobale to presume that as we move along this list more and more people will say "that's wrong/immoral." At what point, then, do we say any use of life to service other life is wrong and/or immoral? The answer, IMO, depends on the INTENT and CONTEXT of purpose and USE. Morality and Justice cannot be pigeonholed in the vast complexity of the various cultures/religions and situations of life.
Here we are talking about cells which will never know consciousness or (arguably) pain being reseachred for the (arguably) moral purpose of curing disease/debilatating conditions. How is this so wrong under any circumatnces (remember the mold, lab rat, and the cat)?
Doubtless this is a field which needs oversight and some form of regulation to prevent misuse/abuse and the wholesale cheapening of life (e.g., whole limbs/hearts for sale to those who can afford it), but to say it's always wrong does not do service to all the potential good that can be had.
(phew) end of rant.
.
Time (bet you thought I'd say sex).
/. and then had the good fortune to get your piece accepted, that's a beautuful thing *any* geek would love.
All geek males are like other men in that they like attention, especially from women. Spending good quality time with him on V-Day, in a way he will remember, is THE best way to make the day memorable for both of you. Simply use the $100.00 (or whatever amount) as a tool to help ahieve this end. Pick something you both will enjoy. Novel new ideas or favorite things (so far) could work depending on your personalities. Use your best judgement.
I am a 1/2 geek. My wife is a 1/2 geek (God bless her soul).
By that I mean she's good with software and I'm good with hardware, (so between the two of us we make a full geek, she says; I always laugh or smile when she says that).
If you spend time with him - real quality time, it will help you two to get to know each other better. After 11 years of marriage I can say I love my geek wife, who has matured and grown with my geeky self over the years (we're hardly recognizeable as geeks now unless you get to know us and then it's readily apparent).
Time with the Mrs. is almost always what I look forward to at the end of the day when I come home from work, and in the morning when I wake up.
As a practical suggestion, I'd suggest a high quality print of todays slashdot web page with your accpted "ask.slashgot.org" article, printed out in a frame. The fact that you cared enough about him to ask here on
Good luck to the two of you.
.
I Love your sig. A good .sig is part of what makes /. so rich to read. The whole thing about "beowulf clusters" and "in soviet russia" gets really old after a while but .sigs like yours more than make up for it.
Keep up the creativity :)
.