Well that's strange, because there ARE multiple standards.
You know perfectly well that I meant multiple standards for the same thing. Multiple specifications doesn't count, for a specification is a "how-to"; a standard is an agreed base.
When did you last see a scientific experiment documented using Imperial measurements?
I don't know why I bother replying to an obvious troll. I suppose that I don't like the smell of fresh FUD in the morning.
Always turn what someone says back onto themselves. Are they accusing you of denial? Well, what are the facts?
If you've got any interest in copyright issues, you'll have heard of Oberholzer-Gee and K Strumpf. Your assertion that file sharing costs the producers is unsubstantiated.
Last time that I quoted the study, I was told that "only pirates quote this study". Well, I haven't pirated anything for several years now. However, I am opposed to the propagation of falsehoods in argument. Your perspective only appears to be common-sensical because it is rooted in an ideology that is widely held, but it is very easy to pick another perspective that is more reality based: if you are a music or film fan, you are likely to seek music and film from all sources. That it comes from one source (piracy) doesn't mean that you'll stop going out to see films, concerts, or buy that CD that you really want (remember that you still have the money to buy it).
If we can drop this false assumption about the effects of file sharing, we can then have the real debate (the one that moved me to stop copying), and that is one of artists' moral rights.
Piracy is illegal competition, you've taken a product made by someone else and consumed it without their permission, reducing the market for that product. are you freaking blind? This rationalisation for copyright fails. Using your eyes means looking at the evidence. People on average spend a certain amount on media, however much they pirate, and file sharing acts as advertising to the same extent as it surplants sales. Although not every pirate buys (other) music from the artist, not every pirate would have bought it in the first place.
People are not blind if they don't share in the truthiness; they are blind when their convictions are fact-free.
For the record, I still believe that the artist has moral rights, but ideology of all sorts makes people ignore reality. Argument makes better progress when it is rooted in the physical world.
By and large, people have a certain amount of cash that they spend on music and video; that appears to be the obvious implication of F Oberholzer-Gee and K Strumpfs' infamous paper. Younger people who "pirate" (including students) are more likely to spend their cash elsewhere; older folk are likely to spend more. For details, follow the links from this post of my JE on Capitalism and DRM.
If you charge for "pirated" goods, therefore, you are taking from producers, at roughly one dollar per dollar that you charge. Unlike straight copyright infringment, charging for rip-offs is theft, or at least acts like theft (for those wanting to quibble). Accordingly, fines and punishments should be in proportion to the money made from sales.
Sharing with strangers should be discouraged since it infringes upon an artist's moral rights, but it should not be a right that an artist can sign away to another, although they should be able to relinquish such rights either to all or selectively.
I get tired of these copywrong debates, but I have to say that you've picked some crazy law as an example:
In Ontario radar detectors are illegal since they are a device used to sense radar. Kaza is a known program used to share programs, whether those files be legal or illegal. There's no good reason for this radar detection law; it is simply a law to bolster the authorities' rights over the general population. "You can't detect us detecting you". Bad enough in itself, since it makes for heirarchial society, but given that there are good other reasons for radiation detectors of all kinds, it's pretty ham-fisted.
A society that is democratic in the fuller sense (rather than just voting every four years) would give the population as a whole broadly similar rights, including such things as the right to radiation detectors, a right to hack hardware, a presumption of a right to perform experiments, etcetera. Detecting radiation simply shouldn't be criminal.
It take more faith to believe in evolution than it takes to believe in God
Offtopic, I know, but it seems to me that you've accepted Dawkins' agenda. Yes, maybe it take more faith to believe that yellowfin tuna are four metres long than that Michealangelo is a great artist, but they're simply not related facts.
If you haven't accepted Dawkins' dichotomy, then maybe you've accepted Biblical literalists. If you support freedom, these people are not your allies. Please make your faith an informed one; truth should not be a political matter.
I don't think we can call this "government corruption" although we may like to believe it because this is a very serious charge and if proven and a conviction is made then someone is looking at a serious fine or jail time. Like it or not Microsoft or any viable company has to work within the constraints of the countries laws, however a powerful company also has a "group" of lawyers on retainer who will have insight into that countries laws and can use this knowledge to benefit that company without actually breaking the law. Corruption is entirely appropriate, because it is a moral, rather than a legal charge.
Forcing out two capable employees that stood in Microsoft's way is clear subversion of supposedly representative government.
There is a popular myth on slashdot that you have a legal right to rip music or movies that you've bought. There is no such right. That's not what the passage says. Rather, you are not allowed a aquire a rip that someone else has made, even if you already own the medium. Making back-up copies for your own use simply isn't commented upon here, probably becasue government interests didn't want people to know that they have this right.
It wouldn't be altogether dumb if the Slashdot modding system noticed such modding patterns. Focusing on an individual is highly statistically significant, as compared with modding across stories.
Slashdot put a lot of effort into blocking various kinds of 'crapflooding'; abuse against specific individuals would surely also be worthy of blocking or limiting.
On the other hand, we're the only species that has arguments about this sort of thing, and since we're the only ones capable of applying planning and moral judgment to these issues, that alone separates us.
I'll agree that our minds make us more capable, but there is great good, as well as evil in the general run of nature. Our sophistication in that regard doesn't put us in a different category. To use it as an excuse is, to my mind, special pleading.
Our ability to reason is what makes stewardship of the whole of nature (including ourselves) our remit. This doesn't necessarily mean government action; it could mean the development of sustainable practices on a volutary basis. It could also mean culling preditors who are in excess in a region; for populations to soar and crash isn't really in any species' interests.
We should certainly include our own well-being in our judgements, for example protecting livestock. However, the argument from capability isn't a good one for excluding other species, IMO, for the qualities that we select as worthwhile will not be chosen objectively.
If instead we say, "well, as humans, we should act only in [enlightened] human interests", then the argument, being based upon genetics, leads to a diminished consideration for those who are unrelated to ourselves.
At best we can say "we elect government, and thus government should reflect our interests as our representatives". That possibly does settle the issue for governments, but it doesn't ultimately resolve the issue, for there is still the issue, as individuals, what we decide matters to us; ie. what our interests actually are.
I play Sauerbraten (and occasionally ActionCube, now AssaultCube) online. Both feature mastermode. Since there are far more honest players than cheats, you simply join a server and assume mastermode if no-one has already taken it.
It works really well, except that people aren't sufficiently willing to assume mastermode. All the same, serious gamers do do so, so 'serious' games aren't disrupted for very long.
The big difference isn't our perception of beauty, but our interpretation of it. Who knows, the monarch butterfly could be awesome in its beauty, much as we find the white tiger to be. In any case, there are clearly cases where not only perception of beauty, but intention is closely aligned; flowers attract both humans and bees, so that even if the monarch butterfly isn't perceived as beautiful, there is still the existance of beauty of a similar kind. That their might also be misalignment doesn't disprove the existance of alignment.
If I believed that you were arguing in bad faith (I don't), I would say that you were seeking to misdirect the reader.
But really, we're not discussing the real issue here, which is also why I believe that you're arguing in good faith; your real focus is the separation of humans from the rest of nature, so that they can be seen to deserve special treatment. I don't believe that this can ultimately be done in good faith given common decent. Possibly, we can give less weighting to other species on the basis of their incapabilities, but to give them zero requires a categorical difference between species, and not merely orders of magnitude.
I said "Arguing was like...", rather than that "language is reality" was your belief.
Then we simply disagree. On two grounds:
Instances of consistent selection for a trait demonstrates external existance of said trait, albeit not universality.
Beauty is primarily neurological, which is closer to physics than society. More to the point, beauty can be perceived by many animals other than humans, which addresses your original intent when making your (IMO faulty) observation.
I won't argue with you, as it's as pointless as arguing with the "language is reality" crowd.
However, for other readers, I will point out that whatever we call a quality, is it is selected for, that is evidence of external existance. Perhaps you can find cunning counter-examples, but existance is sufficient. That a flower makes itself symmetrical for the bee can be seen in terms of simple recognition, but then beauty in our species is also connected to such factors. That there is an underlying neurology doesn't negate the concept.
You over-emphasise consciousness; beauty is neurological.
If you would like your posts appreciated, it would help not to insult people in the subject line.
It also helps to point to evidence, such as the Kenyan museum that creationists are campaining to have exhibits removed. A more moderate tone will gain you mod points, cause you to be read, and generate intelligent replies.
You must think that everyone who disagrees with you is an American, and a Republican. I am neither.
However, the policies that you put forward are policies of mass starvation. Economic competence means that you have to strive for redistribution, but you cannot manage equality, for people stop working. It's unfortunate, but it's a fact. It must be possible for people to earn, and to improve themselves, or else everyone suffers.
If you wanted to argue about (say) TRIPS, I would probably support you. I want world economics to embrace international interests, however, we don't share politics. An international minimum wage (level set by poorer countries) would bring wealth to the poor, but bad economics, regulating every sector in depth so as to prevent anyone from getting ahead, will bring poverty. You need to be able to discriminate between good and bad policy, and give up upon impossibilities that only bring poverty because they don't recognise human nature.
The trouble with an "us v's them" mentality is that you never get to challenge your own bad ideas.
Slashdot Mirror
What happened to highlight and middle-click? :o(
"Cross-platform" apps frequently don't do it nowadays, it seems.
When did you last see a scientific experiment documented using Imperial measurements?
I don't know why I bother replying to an obvious troll. I suppose that I don't like the smell of fresh FUD in the morning.
Mutilple technical specifications makes sense, "multiple standards" is an oxymoron.
See also Groklaw on the possibility of creating a single merged standard.
If you've got any interest in copyright issues, you'll have heard of Oberholzer-Gee and K Strumpf. Your assertion that file sharing costs the producers is unsubstantiated.
Last time that I quoted the study, I was told that "only pirates quote this study". Well, I haven't pirated anything for several years now. However, I am opposed to the propagation of falsehoods in argument. Your perspective only appears to be common-sensical because it is rooted in an ideology that is widely held, but it is very easy to pick another perspective that is more reality based: if you are a music or film fan, you are likely to seek music and film from all sources. That it comes from one source (piracy) doesn't mean that you'll stop going out to see films, concerts, or buy that CD that you really want (remember that you still have the money to buy it).
If we can drop this false assumption about the effects of file sharing, we can then have the real debate (the one that moved me to stop copying), and that is one of artists' moral rights.
People are not blind if they don't share in the truthiness; they are blind when their convictions are fact-free.
For the record, I still believe that the artist has moral rights, but ideology of all sorts makes people ignore reality. Argument makes better progress when it is rooted in the physical world.
If you charge for "pirated" goods, therefore, you are taking from producers, at roughly one dollar per dollar that you charge. Unlike straight copyright infringment, charging for rip-offs is theft, or at least acts like theft (for those wanting to quibble). Accordingly, fines and punishments should be in proportion to the money made from sales.
Sharing with strangers should be discouraged since it infringes upon an artist's moral rights, but it should not be a right that an artist can sign away to another, although they should be able to relinquish such rights either to all or selectively.
A society that is democratic in the fuller sense (rather than just voting every four years) would give the population as a whole broadly similar rights, including such things as the right to radiation detectors, a right to hack hardware, a presumption of a right to perform experiments, etcetera. Detecting radiation simply shouldn't be criminal.
If you haven't accepted Dawkins' dichotomy, then maybe you've accepted Biblical literalists. If you support freedom, these people are not your allies. Please make your faith an informed one; truth should not be a political matter.
An old JE: Vote Third (or Fourth) Party
Rather than repeat the argument, I'll link my JE on the subject.
Forcing out two capable employees that stood in Microsoft's way is clear subversion of supposedly representative government.
If freedom is first, safety can't be!
If you feel like signing up, the article is here.
Here are some...
Slashdot put a lot of effort into blocking various kinds of 'crapflooding'; abuse against specific individuals would surely also be worthy of blocking or limiting.
Our ability to reason is what makes stewardship of the whole of nature (including ourselves) our remit. This doesn't necessarily mean government action; it could mean the development of sustainable practices on a volutary basis. It could also mean culling preditors who are in excess in a region; for populations to soar and crash isn't really in any species' interests.
We should certainly include our own well-being in our judgements, for example protecting livestock. However, the argument from capability isn't a good one for excluding other species, IMO, for the qualities that we select as worthwhile will not be chosen objectively.
If instead we say, "well, as humans, we should act only in [enlightened] human interests", then the argument, being based upon genetics, leads to a diminished consideration for those who are unrelated to ourselves.
At best we can say "we elect government, and thus government should reflect our interests as our representatives". That possibly does settle the issue for governments, but it doesn't ultimately resolve the issue, for there is still the issue, as individuals, what we decide matters to us; ie. what our interests actually are.
It works really well, except that people aren't sufficiently willing to assume mastermode. All the same, serious gamers do do so, so 'serious' games aren't disrupted for very long.
If I believed that you were arguing in bad faith (I don't), I would say that you were seeking to misdirect the reader.
But really, we're not discussing the real issue here, which is also why I believe that you're arguing in good faith; your real focus is the separation of humans from the rest of nature, so that they can be seen to deserve special treatment. I don't believe that this can ultimately be done in good faith given common decent. Possibly, we can give less weighting to other species on the basis of their incapabilities, but to give them zero requires a categorical difference between species, and not merely orders of magnitude.
Then we simply disagree. On two grounds:
Instances of consistent selection for a trait demonstrates external existance of said trait, albeit not universality.
Beauty is primarily neurological, which is closer to physics than society. More to the point, beauty can be perceived by many animals other than humans, which addresses your original intent when making your (IMO faulty) observation.
However, for other readers, I will point out that whatever we call a quality, is it is selected for, that is evidence of external existance. Perhaps you can find cunning counter-examples, but existance is sufficient. That a flower makes itself symmetrical for the bee can be seen in terms of simple recognition, but then beauty in our species is also connected to such factors. That there is an underlying neurology doesn't negate the concept.
You over-emphasise consciousness; beauty is neurological.
It also helps to point to evidence, such as the Kenyan museum that creationists are campaining to have exhibits removed. A more moderate tone will gain you mod points, cause you to be read, and generate intelligent replies.
Just my 2 cents.
Reading TFA, there has hitherto been an unpublished law in NYC, arbitarily enforced against photographers.
At least now you get to know your rights.
Maybe some large studio with good lawyers could get this law (published or unpublished) struck down.
However, the policies that you put forward are policies of mass starvation. Economic competence means that you have to strive for redistribution, but you cannot manage equality, for people stop working. It's unfortunate, but it's a fact. It must be possible for people to earn, and to improve themselves, or else everyone suffers.
If you wanted to argue about (say) TRIPS, I would probably support you. I want world economics to embrace international interests, however, we don't share politics. An international minimum wage (level set by poorer countries) would bring wealth to the poor, but bad economics, regulating every sector in depth so as to prevent anyone from getting ahead, will bring poverty. You need to be able to discriminate between good and bad policy, and give up upon impossibilities that only bring poverty because they don't recognise human nature.
The trouble with an "us v's them" mentality is that you never get to challenge your own bad ideas.