I'm not sure that the opinions of the shows creators have anything to do with it.
Well, if they are at least partial copyright holders for the show, their opinions are relevant. However, I suspect that the "creators" don't actually own the copyright (despite the fact the intention of copyright is to go with the creators.) Neither the MPAA nor FBI own the copyrights.
What other sites are doing is irrelevant.
Not entirely true. Selective enforcement is a legitimate defense, particularly if related to accusations of harassment. For example, police can't just stop blacks who are speeding. True, they are breaking the law so they can be stopped, but they can't do it selectively to target certain groups or individuals. That doesn't mean he can use it as a legal defense here, but it does mean that what others do (and aren't prosecuted for) is not entirely irrelevant.
What seems to missing in the article is actually what was done that was illegal. It's obviously related to copyright infringement, but are they accusing this guy of selling T-shirts without licensing the images, or something like that? It can't be just displaying some images without permission. If it's criminal infringement it has to be something quite serious to meet the circumstances required by the statutes.
Absolutely. Any to anyone who cares to argue that proprietary companies are more strict in reviewing their own code, please explain the abundance of
easter eggs in proprietary software.
Ah yes, my favorite OS name. Who else but M$ would come up with a name that spells wince. Was there ever a more appropriate name? Now they just need to come out with a cringe OS.
A better way to look at open source would be to note that there are a whole lot of solved problems out there. So why do people waste so much time reinventing the wheel?
Excellent metaphor! This is one of the biggest problems I see with copyright and software. Legally, software is treated as art, the same as a novel, painting, or song. In reality, it is more like machine parts. As far as I know, there's no such thing as "painting engineering" yet there is "software engineering". The point of software is to build a "device" to solve a problem. That this "device" is virtual instead of physical isn't really relevent. The only real difference is that programmers use code to build their solution whereas physical solution are made of mechanical (gears, nuts, bolts) or electrical (wires, resistors, circuit boards) parts. Imagine, if you will, that somebody automatically had a copyright on "locking a differential". Those Junkyard Warriors would be screwed.
Yes, I'm sure somebody would point out here that mechanical/electrical solutions can be patented. True, but this doesn't really apply for a number of reasons:
The same is true of the methodology behind a software solution (e.g., ingenious algorithms).
Patenting is long, expensive, and requires non-obvious solution whereas copyright is automatic, immediate, free, and applies to the most trivial of solutions.
Imagine if everyone had to re-invent the nut and bolt every time they wanted to build something, and it must be slightly different than everyone else's. Basic mechanical parts and simple solutions are in the public domain. The same isn't true for software because the basic parts and simple solutions are automatically copyrighted. You always have to start from scratch, pay royalties, or otherwise get permission to use basic tools that someone else wrote.
In short, by using the music, the practice is more successful.
Yes, but that is true of a number of things, like the colour they paint their walls. You only have to pay for the paint once, when you buy it. It's not like the dentists aren't paying for the music -- they do buy the CDs in the first place.
What's missing here is the intent of copyright law. Any time anybody plays music without headphones they are broadcasting it, but that's not the intent. The intent of the broadcast rights is when the music itself is the commercial attraction, i.e., people listen to radios or go to clubs to hear the music. People don't go to dentists to listen to music. I think this clearly falls into fair use, but I am neither a lawyer nor judge unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view).
The dentists's office is a commercial establishment...
True, but I can't imagine anyone actually suffering through a dental appointment just to listen to some free music. I suspect this would easily qualify as fair use. Obviously commercial establishments where people actually go to listen to the music (bars, clubs, etc.) would have to pay, but a dentist??? One could even argue that a clothing store might attract more customers by playing music, but a dentist??? Yikes, talk about picking on the wrong group.
Actually, that's not quite right. [IANAL but...] While you do have fair use rights for backing it up (and time-shifting broadcasts) these aren't written in law except for the precedence of court cases. Really, fair use is a case-by-case basis. I imagine that if you paid for your music and the money went to the distributer, publisher, and artist, then the judge would probably see that your local copy as fair use. If you bought the music and your money didn't go to those people, I'm sure the judge would view it similar to buying stolen goods out of the back of a truck. You're screwed.
As for re-sale, I don't believe that is legal in this case, though I know some guy was trying to determine the legality by re-selling an iTunes song on eBay. (I believe eBay pulled it so the answer is still unknown.) It seems that this is somewhat like photocopying a book and trying to sell it. (In the eBay case, the guy was going to delete the file, so it's sort of like trying to sell the photocopy then destroying the original.)
The problem is a confusion between the laws and what people think they actually purchase. When you buy a CD, you don't "own" the music. All you own is the piece of plastic. You don't even own the 1's and 0's because there aren't actually any 1's and 0's on it. All it is is a piece of plastic with patterns of holes. You own the plastic, but the pattern of holes is copyrighted. You can put the plastic in a device that reads the holes and produces patterns of sounds. Fair use allows you to make a backup copy of the pattern. You can even change the pattern in the plastic if you wish (e.g., melting parts of it) because you own the plastic. In general, you own the medium, not the content.
The problem is, purely digital music is just a pattern of 1's and 0's stored electronically. You certainly own medium it is stored on (hard drive, flash memory, etc.) but you don't own the pattern. The term "file" really just refers to the pattern, so in fact you can't really own the file according to law, and so you can't really re-sell it. You can re-sell physical items (CD plastic, hard drive, real estate, etc.) but you can't just sell the pattern.
Generally, The laws haven't caught up with this problem yet. When you purchase a song "file", you're not actually purchasing anything, you are just licensing the use of the pattern the same as with software. Software is worse because not only can't you re-sell the pattern, you aren't even allowed to figure out or change the pattern in many cases under the DMCA.
It's an issue the public and government don't fully understand yet and don't have a good solution.
Add onto the parent post that since the terrorists can find out their status just by taking a few flights, they can become aware if the FBI/CIA/whoever is "onto" them or not. This can lead them to go deeper into hiding, more secure communications, more careful hiding of their activities, etc.
So a system designed to make flying supposedly more secure would end up making it less secure and tip off terrorists that the are being watched and should be more careful. Way to go!
I'd love to hear you or Scannell's ideas for "a security system that works"
That's easy. The highest probability of catching a terrorist, etc., is to perform random searches. Any system that puts individuals under greater scrutiny and they can become aware of it (such as them being searched more thoroughly or more often than an average passenger) is less likely to catch terrorists. (This is the characteristic demonstrated by the Carnival Booth algorithm. The reason for this is because you can figure out your own status (flag, colour, whatever), so any terrorist group planning on hijacking an airplane can just find out all of their statuses and get the ones who aren't flagged to do the hijacking, thus miminizing their chance of getting caught to be that of the random searches. Furthermore, since some security officers will be performing the "detailed" searches (which aren't improving the probability of detection), the will be reducing the number of random searches that could be performed by the same number of personnel, therefore the probability of finding terrorists is even further reduced. Purely random searches would do a better job.
Of course, this all only applies if the individual can become aware of their own status. One might suggest that the way around this is to use a flagged system but keep the extra "scrutiny" secret. That's fine if you're searching checked baggage, but there's no way to do secret searches of indiduals and carry-ons, so if they're carrying weapons (e.g., box cutters), there's no way to know without performing a search they'd be aware of.
In other words, the most secure system for catching terrorists getting on planes with weapons is random detailed searching. Now, it's more secure if you do more random searches, especially to the point that you are doing detailed searches of everyone (at which point it isn't really random).
There's just no way around this. It's like a closed form solution. Trying to come up with a "better" one is like trying to come up with a perpetual motion machine.
...and an additional surcharge if the patent is then rejected (for wasting everyone's time)
That would be quite bad. First, it encourages the PTO to reject patents because they make more money. Second, it further inhibits the "small" inventors from applying because of the risk of additional cost. Only big business benefits from this approach.
It's true you aren't required to have a patent lawyer, just like you aren't required to have a lawyer defend you in a criminal trial. However, neither is wise or recommended. Patents are so absurdly worded and structured that you have to be careful what you claim. Many "inventors" easily miss what is unique about their invention and fail to make the proper claims.
Section 215 gives the goverment additional powers to look at third party records for individuals (libraries, medical, universities, internet, etc.) and even force the third party to hand them over. Under the new power, the government no longer not needs to show probable cause (as required by the Fourth Amendment) or even that they are related to criminal activity. It also removes the requirement that the government demonstrates the person under suspicion is an "agent of a foreign power". There is also reduced judicial oversight in that the government only needs to swear to a judge that the search meets the statute. They don't actually have to demonstrate it or show any evidence of it, plus the judge doesn't even have the authority to reject the warrant, which really makes it a pointless exercise. Finally, the third party is prohibited from notifying the person under surveillance.
Section 213 expands the government's power to search private property without notification, and it can be done as part of normal criminal investigations without having anything to do with terrorism.
Section 218 expands the government's surveillance power to secretly conduct secret searches (physical or wiretaps).
Section 214 also expands the Fourth Amendment exception by including the "addressing" of communications
And where is the FBI actually using this to spy on 'average people'? And can you come up with any particular reason why they might give a crap about what the 'average person' is reading?
That is irrelevant. It's saying a police state is acceptable if it doesn't inconvenience law abiding citizens. By this argument, the government should be allowed to put cameras in everyone's houses. They won't watch or record most cameras since they won't be interested in viewing the activities of 'average' people.
Freedom isn't just a word, it has meaning. The government cannot "spy" on anyone with out just cause and independent oversight (e.g., judicial review). That's the whole point of keeping the divisions of government separate. It doesn't matter if they intend, or even remotely desire, to spy on 'average' people, the point is that under the PATRIOT act they are legally allowed to. (They alway could do it before, but they could be sued/fired/punished for doing so because it would be illegal.)
I would think a lot of people would, it's just a variation on other applications that do the same thing. Do you carry around a TV, VCR, DVD player, radio, clock, chair, utensils, etc., etc.? No, you generally use the ones available wherever you are (e.g., hotel, friend's house). Same thing with the telephone, though these days many people do carry around their own.
The main difference with these examples and computers is the customizability of them, i.e., differences in the installed software and configuration. The system proposed seems to be removing this difference. The only difference left would be hardware which also differs in the above examples (everybody has a different type and quality of TV).
Also, this seems to be just an extension of the VPN approach which is very popular. I use VPN all the time so that I can do work at work or at home. Unfortunately, that still requires the VPN software installed and set up, so I can't use it from an internet cafe, for instance. But I might if this proposed system works and is done well.
Now that would be just dumb. Then there's nobody to grow up to enforce IP rights in the future. Also, there's no customers to pay for the licensing of IP. In short, it is counter to the goals of protecting and profiting from IP, therefore it is by defintion a Bad Thing (TM).
I'd go a step further. Instead of just eliminating teaching children to share, we should instill in them the instinct to not share what is theirs as a means of protecting their property rights. We can also re-define "bullying" as "property rights enforcement".
Not only would it be neat, it would be useful for some of us. I have a work laptop that I take home with me regularly. Unfortunately, we aren't allowed to install anything ourselves. Security is set so tight on them some of us can't even change our timezones. (There's a good explanation of why this is the case, but it is only temporary.)
I would love to be able to run Linux on it at home without violating any rules or screwing up anything on the system. This would also allow me to show others at work how easy Linux is to use. A live CD is a potential approach, but it won't remember my config so I'd have to set it up from scratch every time which means it isn't worth it.
You seem to be taking some liberties with the use of "accept". Nobody is saying that something shouldn't be done to reduce the damage caused by the examples given, but it is (by definition) accepted that they do happen as a consequence of our choices as a society.
I don't accept a few thousand people dying in the WTC as the cost of accepting freedom.
So, are you saying you'd prefer to live in a police state such that everyone is under 24 hour surveillance and you need state permission to leave your home? That is, as long as such a state could guarantee that people won't get bombed. This is basically what you said in the context of "accept" that the previous poster used.
Likewise, if we wanted to do away with automobile deaths, we could simply make driving, selling, or manufacturing automobiles illegal. If we wanted to do away with deaths from pollution, we could shut down our power supplies and industries.
The point is that we, as a society, accept that that there will be consequences for our choices that may involve many deaths. The question is whether the benefits are worth the risk. Is freedom worth the risk of some reduction in security? Is mobility worth the risk of automobile accidents? Clearly, Western society has answered yes to these questions and with good reason. However, every effort is being made to minimize the harm without minimizing the benefits.
Iraq is a different question. The above "harms" are results of an unintended consequence from risks we accept from our choices, and such harms are random and unpredictable. If we decided that Joe Smith was specifically going to die if we chose to use automobiles, we wouldn't drive automobiles. It is the risk that we accept, not specific instances.
The "harms" from mis-treating prisoners are quite intentional and specific. Same with invading Iraq in the first place. It's also not clear what, if any, benefit comes from them.
If you ignore windows ports of other GNU applications, you end up with linux having a great superiority over Windows:
If comparing GNU/Linux (the OS) to GNU/Windows (Windows OS + GNU tools) then it is pointless to compare features in the GNU tools since they are the same. If we ignore GNU tools then we are comparing the Linux kernel with the Windows kernel. (Technically, we should also ignore Windows tools that aren't part of the kernel to do a fair comparison consistent with the article.)
So in other words, ignoring GNU tools on both sides (Linux or Windows) is the right thing to do here, which is what the poster said and got flak for. I repeated the same point and got flak to, yet this point is quite obvious and follows clearly from reason.
Now whether the original poster was right about the kernels with Linux being better or not is up for debate, but that doesn't change the fact that it is proper to ignore the GNU tools.
2. Beyond just kernels, is it fair to say GNU tools are part of the GNU/Linux OS and not part of Windows? It depends on how you define an OS, which nobody seems to agree upon. The following seems reasonable:
GNU/Linux OS = Linux kernel + GNU tools
Windows OS = Windows kernel + Windows tools
Is it fair to say Windows OS = Windows kernel + Windows tols + GNU tools? If not, then it is fair to say "when Linux uses the GNU tools, it's called part of the operating system" but that doesn't apply to Windows because the GNU tools are not part of the OS, they have to be added as third party programs. If it is fair to include GNU tools as part of the Windows OS, what are the boundaries of what is called an OS? Does any software run in an existing OS become part of the OS? What's the difference between the non-kernel part of the OS and any other third party software?
However, this is really just an unintended side discussion from #1 above. The article, and the post being refered to are just saying "ignore GNU tools" in the comparison, which is perfectly valid and fair. I hope this clarifies your misunderstanding of the points being made.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if they are at least partial copyright holders for the show, their opinions are relevant. However, I suspect that the "creators" don't actually own the copyright (despite the fact the intention of copyright is to go with the creators.) Neither the MPAA nor FBI own the copyrights.
What other sites are doing is irrelevant.
Not entirely true. Selective enforcement is a legitimate defense, particularly if related to accusations of harassment. For example, police can't just stop blacks who are speeding. True, they are breaking the law so they can be stopped, but they can't do it selectively to target certain groups or individuals. That doesn't mean he can use it as a legal defense here, but it does mean that what others do (and aren't prosecuted for) is not entirely irrelevant.
What seems to missing in the article is actually what was done that was illegal. It's obviously related to copyright infringement, but are they accusing this guy of selling T-shirts without licensing the images, or something like that? It can't be just displaying some images without permission. If it's criminal infringement it has to be something quite serious to meet the circumstances required by the statutes.
Absolutely. Any to anyone who cares to argue that proprietary companies are more strict in reviewing their own code, please explain the abundance of easter eggs in proprietary software.
Ah yes, my favorite OS name. Who else but M$ would come up with a name that spells wince. Was there ever a more appropriate name? Now they just need to come out with a cringe OS.
Excellent metaphor! This is one of the biggest problems I see with copyright and software. Legally, software is treated as art, the same as a novel, painting, or song. In reality, it is more like machine parts. As far as I know, there's no such thing as "painting engineering" yet there is "software engineering". The point of software is to build a "device" to solve a problem. That this "device" is virtual instead of physical isn't really relevent. The only real difference is that programmers use code to build their solution whereas physical solution are made of mechanical (gears, nuts, bolts) or electrical (wires, resistors, circuit boards) parts. Imagine, if you will, that somebody automatically had a copyright on "locking a differential". Those Junkyard Warriors would be screwed.
Yes, I'm sure somebody would point out here that mechanical/electrical solutions can be patented. True, but this doesn't really apply for a number of reasons:
The same is true of the methodology behind a software solution (e.g., ingenious algorithms).
Patenting is long, expensive, and requires non-obvious solution whereas copyright is automatic, immediate, free, and applies to the most trivial of solutions.
Imagine if everyone had to re-invent the nut and bolt every time they wanted to build something, and it must be slightly different than everyone else's. Basic mechanical parts and simple solutions are in the public domain. The same isn't true for software because the basic parts and simple solutions are automatically copyrighted. You always have to start from scratch, pay royalties, or otherwise get permission to use basic tools that someone else wrote.
Yes, but that is true of a number of things, like the colour they paint their walls. You only have to pay for the paint once, when you buy it. It's not like the dentists aren't paying for the music -- they do buy the CDs in the first place.
What's missing here is the intent of copyright law. Any time anybody plays music without headphones they are broadcasting it, but that's not the intent. The intent of the broadcast rights is when the music itself is the commercial attraction, i.e., people listen to radios or go to clubs to hear the music. People don't go to dentists to listen to music. I think this clearly falls into fair use, but I am neither a lawyer nor judge unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view).
True, but I can't imagine anyone actually suffering through a dental appointment just to listen to some free music. I suspect this would easily qualify as fair use. Obviously commercial establishments where people actually go to listen to the music (bars, clubs, etc.) would have to pay, but a dentist??? One could even argue that a clothing store might attract more customers by playing music, but a dentist??? Yikes, talk about picking on the wrong group.
...is that somebody might actually get paid for elevator music.
BAAFAMUST (Because Acronyms Are Fun And Make Us Sound Technical).
Oh man, if I only had mod points. That's so true.
That's just an extension of their previous "All your OSes are belong to us!"
I, for one, welcome our new Google overlords.
As for re-sale, I don't believe that is legal in this case, though I know some guy was trying to determine the legality by re-selling an iTunes song on eBay. (I believe eBay pulled it so the answer is still unknown.) It seems that this is somewhat like photocopying a book and trying to sell it. (In the eBay case, the guy was going to delete the file, so it's sort of like trying to sell the photocopy then destroying the original.)
The problem is a confusion between the laws and what people think they actually purchase. When you buy a CD, you don't "own" the music. All you own is the piece of plastic. You don't even own the 1's and 0's because there aren't actually any 1's and 0's on it. All it is is a piece of plastic with patterns of holes. You own the plastic, but the pattern of holes is copyrighted. You can put the plastic in a device that reads the holes and produces patterns of sounds. Fair use allows you to make a backup copy of the pattern. You can even change the pattern in the plastic if you wish (e.g., melting parts of it) because you own the plastic. In general, you own the medium, not the content.
The problem is, purely digital music is just a pattern of 1's and 0's stored electronically. You certainly own medium it is stored on (hard drive, flash memory, etc.) but you don't own the pattern. The term "file" really just refers to the pattern, so in fact you can't really own the file according to law, and so you can't really re-sell it. You can re-sell physical items (CD plastic, hard drive, real estate, etc.) but you can't just sell the pattern.
Generally, The laws haven't caught up with this problem yet. When you purchase a song "file", you're not actually purchasing anything, you are just licensing the use of the pattern the same as with software. Software is worse because not only can't you re-sell the pattern, you aren't even allowed to figure out or change the pattern in many cases under the DMCA.
It's an issue the public and government don't fully understand yet and don't have a good solution.
So a system designed to make flying supposedly more secure would end up making it less secure and tip off terrorists that the are being watched and should be more careful. Way to go!
That's easy. The highest probability of catching a terrorist, etc., is to perform random searches. Any system that puts individuals under greater scrutiny and they can become aware of it (such as them being searched more thoroughly or more often than an average passenger) is less likely to catch terrorists. (This is the characteristic demonstrated by the Carnival Booth algorithm. The reason for this is because you can figure out your own status (flag, colour, whatever), so any terrorist group planning on hijacking an airplane can just find out all of their statuses and get the ones who aren't flagged to do the hijacking, thus miminizing their chance of getting caught to be that of the random searches. Furthermore, since some security officers will be performing the "detailed" searches (which aren't improving the probability of detection), the will be reducing the number of random searches that could be performed by the same number of personnel, therefore the probability of finding terrorists is even further reduced. Purely random searches would do a better job.
Of course, this all only applies if the individual can become aware of their own status. One might suggest that the way around this is to use a flagged system but keep the extra "scrutiny" secret. That's fine if you're searching checked baggage, but there's no way to do secret searches of indiduals and carry-ons, so if they're carrying weapons (e.g., box cutters), there's no way to know without performing a search they'd be aware of.
In other words, the most secure system for catching terrorists getting on planes with weapons is random detailed searching. Now, it's more secure if you do more random searches, especially to the point that you are doing detailed searches of everyone (at which point it isn't really random).
There's just no way around this. It's like a closed form solution. Trying to come up with a "better" one is like trying to come up with a perpetual motion machine.
That would be quite bad. First, it encourages the PTO to reject patents because they make more money. Second, it further inhibits the "small" inventors from applying because of the risk of additional cost. Only big business benefits from this approach.
It's true you aren't required to have a patent lawyer, just like you aren't required to have a lawyer defend you in a criminal trial. However, neither is wise or recommended. Patents are so absurdly worded and structured that you have to be careful what you claim. Many "inventors" easily miss what is unique about their invention and fail to make the proper claims.
Take a look at my response to the other person who basically said I hadn't read the act. It appears you are not aware of what it allows.
Try reading it yourself:
Section 215 gives the goverment additional powers to look at third party records for individuals (libraries, medical, universities, internet, etc.) and even force the third party to hand them over. Under the new power, the government no longer not needs to show probable cause (as required by the Fourth Amendment) or even that they are related to criminal activity. It also removes the requirement that the government demonstrates the person under suspicion is an "agent of a foreign power". There is also reduced judicial oversight in that the government only needs to swear to a judge that the search meets the statute. They don't actually have to demonstrate it or show any evidence of it, plus the judge doesn't even have the authority to reject the warrant, which really makes it a pointless exercise. Finally, the third party is prohibited from notifying the person under surveillance.
Section 213 expands the government's power to search private property without notification, and it can be done as part of normal criminal investigations without having anything to do with terrorism.
Section 218 expands the government's surveillance power to secretly conduct secret searches (physical or wiretaps).
Section 214 also expands the Fourth Amendment exception by including the "addressing" of communications
That is irrelevant. It's saying a police state is acceptable if it doesn't inconvenience law abiding citizens. By this argument, the government should be allowed to put cameras in everyone's houses. They won't watch or record most cameras since they won't be interested in viewing the activities of 'average' people.
Freedom isn't just a word, it has meaning. The government cannot "spy" on anyone with out just cause and independent oversight (e.g., judicial review). That's the whole point of keeping the divisions of government separate. It doesn't matter if they intend, or even remotely desire, to spy on 'average' people, the point is that under the PATRIOT act they are legally allowed to. (They alway could do it before, but they could be sued/fired/punished for doing so because it would be illegal.)
Plus, not everything out of 'average' is illegal.
I would think a lot of people would, it's just a variation on other applications that do the same thing. Do you carry around a TV, VCR, DVD player, radio, clock, chair, utensils, etc., etc.? No, you generally use the ones available wherever you are (e.g., hotel, friend's house). Same thing with the telephone, though these days many people do carry around their own.
The main difference with these examples and computers is the customizability of them, i.e., differences in the installed software and configuration. The system proposed seems to be removing this difference. The only difference left would be hardware which also differs in the above examples (everybody has a different type and quality of TV).
Also, this seems to be just an extension of the VPN approach which is very popular. I use VPN all the time so that I can do work at work or at home. Unfortunately, that still requires the VPN software installed and set up, so I can't use it from an internet cafe, for instance. But I might if this proposed system works and is done well.
Now that would be just dumb. Then there's nobody to grow up to enforce IP rights in the future. Also, there's no customers to pay for the licensing of IP. In short, it is counter to the goals of protecting and profiting from IP, therefore it is by defintion a Bad Thing (TM).
I'd go a step further. Instead of just eliminating teaching children to share, we should instill in them the instinct to not share what is theirs as a means of protecting their property rights. We can also re-define "bullying" as "property rights enforcement".
I would love to be able to run Linux on it at home without violating any rules or screwing up anything on the system. This would also allow me to show others at work how easy Linux is to use. A live CD is a potential approach, but it won't remember my config so I'd have to set it up from scratch every time which means it isn't worth it.
I don't accept a few thousand people dying in the WTC as the cost of accepting freedom.
So, are you saying you'd prefer to live in a police state such that everyone is under 24 hour surveillance and you need state permission to leave your home? That is, as long as such a state could guarantee that people won't get bombed. This is basically what you said in the context of "accept" that the previous poster used.
Likewise, if we wanted to do away with automobile deaths, we could simply make driving, selling, or manufacturing automobiles illegal. If we wanted to do away with deaths from pollution, we could shut down our power supplies and industries.
The point is that we, as a society, accept that that there will be consequences for our choices that may involve many deaths. The question is whether the benefits are worth the risk. Is freedom worth the risk of some reduction in security? Is mobility worth the risk of automobile accidents? Clearly, Western society has answered yes to these questions and with good reason. However, every effort is being made to minimize the harm without minimizing the benefits.
Iraq is a different question. The above "harms" are results of an unintended consequence from risks we accept from our choices, and such harms are random and unpredictable. If we decided that Joe Smith was specifically going to die if we chose to use automobiles, we wouldn't drive automobiles. It is the risk that we accept, not specific instances.
The "harms" from mis-treating prisoners are quite intentional and specific. Same with invading Iraq in the first place. It's also not clear what, if any, benefit comes from them.
1. The original poster said the following:
If comparing GNU/Linux (the OS) to GNU/Windows (Windows OS + GNU tools) then it is pointless to compare features in the GNU tools since they are the same. If we ignore GNU tools then we are comparing the Linux kernel with the Windows kernel. (Technically, we should also ignore Windows tools that aren't part of the kernel to do a fair comparison consistent with the article.)
So in other words, ignoring GNU tools on both sides (Linux or Windows) is the right thing to do here, which is what the poster said and got flak for. I repeated the same point and got flak to, yet this point is quite obvious and follows clearly from reason.
Now whether the original poster was right about the kernels with Linux being better or not is up for debate, but that doesn't change the fact that it is proper to ignore the GNU tools.
2. Beyond just kernels, is it fair to say GNU tools are part of the GNU/Linux OS and not part of Windows? It depends on how you define an OS, which nobody seems to agree upon. The following seems reasonable:
GNU/Linux OS = Linux kernel + GNU tools
Windows OS = Windows kernel + Windows tools
Is it fair to say Windows OS = Windows kernel + Windows tols + GNU tools? If not, then it is fair to say "when Linux uses the GNU tools, it's called part of the operating system" but that doesn't apply to Windows because the GNU tools are not part of the OS, they have to be added as third party programs. If it is fair to include GNU tools as part of the Windows OS, what are the boundaries of what is called an OS? Does any software run in an existing OS become part of the OS? What's the difference between the non-kernel part of the OS and any other third party software?
However, this is really just an unintended side discussion from #1 above. The article, and the post being refered to are just saying "ignore GNU tools" in the comparison, which is perfectly valid and fair. I hope this clarifies your misunderstanding of the points being made.