U.S. Constitution, Section 8, Clause 1:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
U.S. Constitution, Section 8, Clause 3:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
U.S. Constitution, Section 8, Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
I think the biggest supporting fact there is clause 7- the establishment of Post Offices and Post Roads. In the 18th century, Post Offices were the de facto means of distance communication. Its not unreasonable to see the Internet as the modern evolution of the Postal system.
Incidentally, you seem to be pretty opposed to social services (things implemented for the common good) for someone who considers themselves a democrat...
If the US is behind in broadband usage, well maybe that's because there are a lot of people in the US who do not need it. When people need it, then they will demand it enough to pay for it. If their dial-up connection is good enough for them, why do we need the government telling them that they are wrong?
The government is responsible for creating and maintating infrastructure to fascilitate commerce and ideally make our lives easier. This is why we have highways- I'm sure a good deal of people thought that surface streets were 'good enough for them', and the government told them they were wrong. Once that infrastructure was in place, however, everyone benefitted from it.
I'll concede to you that this guy may have some crackpot ideas about how to set this all up. But I wouldn't underestimate the value of broadband as a piece of infrastructure in the coming years. The ability to push LARGE amounts of data around, quickly, has the potential to create new services and new jobs.
And its precisely at the point when Korea and the rest of Asia have some sort of fabulous new economy based on ubuiquitous broadband that you will be kicking yourself in the pants. =)
I dunno. China seems to do just fine with circumventing/ignoring intellectual property laws. No financial catastrophe there.
Well, maybe there is for the rest of the world. But we're tying our own hands, so...
Re:Whoa, this is crazy! Lookit what I just realize
on
PSP Hackers Go Retro
·
· Score: 1
Nah. It's the same thing as with downloading music. I can sit here all day and download files, and I'm not -technically- doing anything illegal. The person providing the download is violating copyright, however.
So if someone else makes you a copy of their cart, and gives it to you, -they- are probably technically breaking the law (unauthorized distribution). This is true even if you own your own copy of the cart. Fair Use laws may protect them. Possession of such a copy, as I understand it, is legal.
If I'm wrong, someone please tell me. But I always understood that this was the reason the RIAA went after file-sharers-, not file -downloaders-.
Yeah, it sucks to be being watched and not trusted like that, but this shouldn't outrage anyone.
I have to disagree. The company is trusting you with their livelihood in a lot of ways- presumably, you're doing something needed for them to continue to operate every time you sit down at your desk. If you fucked up in your normal work, you would hurt them. They better trust you.
If a company is afraid that you will do damage to them, they should fire you.
The reason for this is simple- if I were determined to do damage to a company I worked for, I could find a way to do it. As you say, I could use web-based email. Or a USB thumb drive. Or steganographically hide this year's worth of source code in some vacation pictures.
The reason I'm opposed to this idea- and outraged- is that its basically insulting. If the management really feels like they need to be looking over your shoulder all the time, they're acknowledging two things. One, that they're idiots who dont know how to hire trustworthy people. And two, that you're probably an idiot and have to be watched.
Noone wants to be treated like a child. I think this is one of those situations where treating people like theives turns everyone into theives. You're going to create an environment hostile to management because the employees will know that management thinks they're too stupid to trust.
Are they going to start following employees into the bathroom, too? Can't allow damage to the company's plumbing! Perhaps they'll sift through stools to screen out employees with bad diets- health insurance costs big $, you know!
Eh, sorry if that came out antagonistic. I think you have a fairly sensible viewpoint, but I personally find the idea of rolling over to idiot management disgusting. Nothing personal to you. =)
I would have to disagree, at least in the case of biotechnology. Look at Monsato..that's not exactly an excellent example of our patent system at work.
But I still wonder how effectively you can punish these people without wandering into 'cruel and unusual'. As you said, jail just isnt a huge deterrent or a really effective punishment.
While it may be nice to let a victim's family feel retribution, I think this is a false idea too. Career or repeat criminals just dont have that hard a time in jail.
If you want an effective punishment, perhaps we should research how to rebuild/intensify the 'guilt centers' of the brain. Combine these with periodic forced memory flashbacks of the crime and =then= we're probably talking punishment. Ie, you've got to get inside someone's head, because otherwise, one man's hell is another man's heaven.
And I know the constitution doesnt talk about rehabilitation. But when a large amount of your population is in jail, (isn't it something outrageous like 10% of the US population??) you better establish ways for those people to reintegrate- or accept the fact that you are subsidizing their existence.
And I know the death penalty isnt the greatest idea. But my speaking of it -does- illustrate the idea that people who violate socities rules beyond certain bounds are -exceedingly- difficult to deal with. So we lock them all up because we can't figure out what else to do with them.
Just seems like prison is one of the least thought-out aspects of our society. Now I would like to reiterate that noone reading these thoughts should take what I say too seriously, I'm just discussing things!
This guy suggests "death is too good for them, let's effectively torture them in jail" while I offer a logical and -not altogether serious- alternative and I'm the bad guy?
I don't know, I think you just proved the parent's point. You argue the logical path- which is that these prisoners are not valuable to society and should be kept away from society forever and ever.
Fine.
But "death is an easy way out for these people"? One, why does it matter? What do you gain by knowing someone is miserable in jail? I thought the point was to keep them away from others- killing them accomplishes this, no? And two, isn't that statement a very ironic example of fetishing the punishment aspect?
Personally, I don't believe in life imprisonment. Seems like a total and absolute waste. The pragmatic side of me says that if you've acknowledged that someone has transgressed so badly that they can never rejoin society, then keeping them imprisoned is a waste of effort. Again, putting them to death makes more sense.
All that being said, I'm not necessarily a proponent of the death penalty either, mostly because we have a big government that makes a lot of mistakes. But the whole "you've been naughty! Punishment time!" seems so juvenile. If people can't live in society, retool them in such a way that they can. Or else make it so that they're not society's problem any more.
Yes, I'm feeling evil today. I'm only being a -little- sardonic. =)
I don't know, I think you just proved the parent's point.
You argue the logical path- which is that these prisoners are not valuable to society and should be kept away from society forever and ever.
Fine. But "death is an easy way out for these people"? One, why does it matter? What do you gain by knowing someone is miserable in jail? I thought the point was to keep them away from others- killing them accomplishes this, no? And two, isn't that statement a very ironic example of fetishing the punishment aspect?
Personally, I don't believe in life imprisonment. Seems like a total and absolute waste. The pragmatic side of me says that if you've acknowledged that someone has transgressed so badly that they can never rejoin society, then keeping them imprisoned is a waste of effort. Again, putting them to death makes more sense.
All that being said, I'm not necessarily a proponent of the death penalty either, mostly because we have a big government that makes a lot of mistakes. But the whole "you've been naughty! Punishment time!" seems so juvenile. If people can't live in society, retool them in such a way that they can. Or else make it so that they're not society's problem any more.
Yes, I'm feeling evil today. I'm only being a -little- sardonic. =)
Ahh, but a fugue is a very mathematical type of composition! Perhaps if the program was told the "theme" of the fugue, it could try to match notes against inversions and other variations on that theme?
They want to have those special rights like hospital visits
That's not a right any more than drawing a paycheck is. I have the privilege of going to certain hospitals in particular because I pay for medical insurance. I also have the privilege of opting out of my employer-provided insurance and getting insurance that covers domestic partners.
You misinterpreted that. The original poster meant that, under current law, same-sex partners are currently denied visitation rights in hospital situations. For example, a significant other is on their death bed, unable to communicate- his or her same-sex partner would be denied the right to visit him or her. Presumably, you understand why this would suck, whatever your opinion on actually being gay.
There are billions of Buddhists, and billions of Hindus. While you are arguing that any group with a significant following should have their (non-scientific) view point discussed in a science class, what you are really arguing for is the christian creationist viewpoint be discussed in the science class. Noone is arguing that all viewpoints be exposed- you know that as well as I. Its really not fair to express this as an argument of "let all views be known!", because ultimately you are interested only in your own.
I tend to agree with the grandparent. If your prerogative is to teach your kid creationism, take him to sunday school. If you're going to start teaching metaphysical things in school, teach all viewpoints, even the ones that creationist christians might find offensive. (Yes, we exist because of an unending battle between Tiamat and Bahamut.)
Ok jgardn, i've been reading some of your posts in this thread and you've made some good points. But
"Everything around you is evidence of the creation.
QED."?
You know that really doesnt prove anything. Any argument that can be used to prove a contrary point is not a valid argument.
You insist that creation is thanks to God- the one god, your god. But, by the same token, I could regard the existence of everything as evidence supporting the creation stories of just about every religion- from hindu to zorastrian to buddist to scientologist.
Or I could just make something up. Everything exists because an entity known as the Big Bang opened his arms and threw his mass across the universe. Dont believe me? Well, how else would you be here?
I'm not trying to flame you. (If I were, I'd post AC.) Again, I think you've said some insightful things. But this comment was weak, circular, and for someone who likes logic and real debate, frustrating.
Maybe we should all agree not to talk theology on Slashdot? =P
I sympathise with your troubles, my friend, but censoring blogs will not eliminate the problem.
If someone wants to slander your name, there are venues other than blogs in which they can do it.
Are you suggesting that all -websites- be 'monitored' and 'censored'? Its very easy to set up a site, even on your own machine, if you have the time or the money. How would that even work...?
If someone wants to make you look bad, they will do it. Depending on what they know about you, they could even contact your friends, your girlfriend, or your wife- and spread their slander. They will probably break some laws in the process.
Ultimately, your recourse -is to go through the legal system-. (I am not a lawyer!) Making some third party the arbiter of what is true and what is false is -extremely dangerous.-
Moreover, consider when it might benefit YOU to have someone post on someone where the subject might disagree. BestBuySucks.com? Well, that lists specific store locations- or at least store #s, which you can easily reverse-map to physical locations. Or do you not want to allow an inside source to tell you that the management at store X will steal your credit card #s?
Again, I sympathize with you. But barring people from saying things is just impossible, and mostly unconstitutional. If you felt threatened by this persons actions, then getting the courts involved was a good thing!
Posted by brian on Wed April 13, 03:43 PM
from the have fun hitting reload page dept.
There's an interesting article over at CNET where Jesus gives us some background information on real light sabers. I didn't know that rael light sabers had anything to do with shooting file sharers, but according to Jesus it does. It's an interesting read, and sure to start a discussion on the practicality of real light sabers.
What I want to see is an automated comment generator =)
I haven't yet RTFA, but since the issue of file formats is near and dear to my heart (and what I do professionally), I figured I should say something.
I'm working on a Digital Archiving project for a government agency. And what we have determined thusfar is that proprietary file formats are -very bad- for long term preservation.
Now, you may ask, who cares about long term preservation? To which I would respond, clearly you are not a fan of history- or at least, good history. Innocuous documents end up being primary sources! People find new uses for and interest in old documents!
Still you seeem doubtful. Fine. But, should Microsoft disappear (unlikely as it may seem) or otherwise leave us with a bunch of proprietarily-formatted files that we cant read save through- shudder- emulation of something like Windows XP, a lot of people will be unhappy. And a lot of data may not be fully recoverable.
You may say that if such things really bother people, then they should only purchase software using open standards. I sort of agree. But we are dealing with a field in which -certain- companies are convicted monopolists, so....
Proprietary formats are still the bane of my existence.
Very interesting argument. I dont necessarily agree, however, and for some reason, the whole thing feels a little circular. For the sake of discussion, I'll poke around at it. =)
Kripke is arguing that certain -concepts- cannot depend on a physical representation. That is to say, they have an identity -outside- of the physical. Which, I suppose, is supposed to support the idea of an abstract mind that exists outside of a physical system?
Which is an interesting idea. But who is to say that a physical system necessarily disallows abstract ideas to be represented physically?
I need to leave work, but I'm interested in discussing this. Maybe I'll post more later.
Not only are you right, you are -so right- it hurts.
As has been mentioned before, ISPs currently enjoy the status of "common carrier", the same status afforded to telecommunication companies, and even, i believe, postal services.
Being a common carrier works as follows: You are not liable for damage done due to communications over your network. If Osama uses Pacific Bell (or whatever phone service) to plan his next attack, Pacific Bell is not liable.
But the rationale for common carrier status is that you -do not know- what traffic is being carried over your network. The second you begin filtering out sites and noting suspicious people as a business, (the government could probably do these things to your network, but thats another story) you're putting youtr common carrier status in jeopardy.
So yes, they likely would pick up a ton of liability. Which is why they will likely politely decline to acquiesce to this request.
And why should we want to buy such an extremely limited license, when our parents, and even our grandparents, got a better deal by purchasing the physical medium?
If I want to let you borrow a CD, you can. If I want to let you borrow something I've downloaded off Napster Express, well, we're both screwed.
DRM now? Sure. I won't buy it- that's me voting with my wallet. However, when the content providers decide to provide everything in DRMed format, and electronics manufacturers only provide DRM-ready equipment, its game over. Your parents and grandparents had a better deal.
Slashdot Mirror
"THOMAS, one of the best sources for Congressional action on the Internet"
;)
I think what you meant to say is,
That would be correct as:
"THOMAS, one of the best sources for hot Congressional action on the Internet"
Brings a whole new meaning to the term "rider", doesn't it?
U.S. Constitution, Section 8, Clause 1:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
U.S. Constitution, Section 8, Clause 3:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
U.S. Constitution, Section 8, Clause 7:
To establish Post Offices and post Roads; I think the biggest supporting fact there is clause 7- the establishment of Post Offices and Post Roads. In the 18th century, Post Offices were the de facto means of distance communication. Its not unreasonable to see the Internet as the modern evolution of the Postal system. Incidentally, you seem to be pretty opposed to social services (things implemented for the common good) for someone who considers themselves a democrat...
If the US is behind in broadband usage, well maybe that's because there are a lot of people in the US who do not need it. When people need it, then they will demand it enough to pay for it. If their dial-up connection is good enough for them, why do we need the government telling them that they are wrong?
The government is responsible for creating and maintating infrastructure to fascilitate commerce and ideally make our lives easier. This is why we have highways- I'm sure a good deal of people thought that surface streets were 'good enough for them', and the government told them they were wrong. Once that infrastructure was in place, however, everyone benefitted from it.
I'll concede to you that this guy may have some crackpot ideas about how to set this all up. But I wouldn't underestimate the value of broadband as a piece of infrastructure in the coming years. The ability to push LARGE amounts of data around, quickly, has the potential to create new services and new jobs.
And its precisely at the point when Korea and the rest of Asia have some sort of fabulous new economy based on ubuiquitous broadband that you will be kicking yourself in the pants. =)
I dunno. China seems to do just fine with circumventing/ignoring intellectual property laws. No financial catastrophe there.
Well, maybe there is for the rest of the world. But we're tying our own hands, so...
Nah. It's the same thing as with downloading music. I can sit here all day and download files, and I'm not -technically- doing anything illegal. The person providing the download is violating copyright, however.
So if someone else makes you a copy of their cart, and gives it to you, -they- are probably technically breaking the law (unauthorized distribution). This is true even if you own your own copy of the cart. Fair Use laws may protect them. Possession of such a copy, as I understand it, is legal.
If I'm wrong, someone please tell me. But I always understood that this was the reason the RIAA went after file-sharers-, not file -downloaders-.
Yeah, it sucks to be being watched and not trusted like that, but this shouldn't outrage anyone.
/end rant
I have to disagree. The company is trusting you with their livelihood in a lot of ways- presumably, you're doing something needed for them to continue to operate every time you sit down at your desk. If you fucked up in your normal work, you would hurt them. They better trust you.
If a company is afraid that you will do damage to them, they should fire you.
The reason for this is simple- if I were determined to do damage to a company I worked for, I could find a way to do it. As you say, I could use web-based email. Or a USB thumb drive. Or steganographically hide this year's worth of source code in some vacation pictures.
The reason I'm opposed to this idea- and outraged- is that its basically insulting. If the management really feels like they need to be looking over your shoulder all the time, they're acknowledging two things. One, that they're idiots who dont know how to hire trustworthy people. And two, that you're probably an idiot and have to be watched.
Noone wants to be treated like a child. I think this is one of those situations where treating people like theives turns everyone into theives. You're going to create an environment hostile to management because the employees will know that management thinks they're too stupid to trust.
Are they going to start following employees into the bathroom, too? Can't allow damage to the company's plumbing! Perhaps they'll sift through stools to screen out employees with bad diets- health insurance costs big $, you know!
Eh, sorry if that came out antagonistic. I think you have a fairly sensible viewpoint, but I personally find the idea of rolling over to idiot management disgusting. Nothing personal to you. =)
but perhaps the gay men?
I mean, don't YOU wonder about Sgt. Slaughter?
I don't know that such an intricate setup is needed...
;)
However, if your boss does work for a shadowy organization known only as SEELE (The Throne of Souls), I would add the following suggestion:
Run.
Now.
No, you're right. I think we really need to do something about this.
End pork. End lobbying. Get back our democracy.
I am fucking serious. This has to stop.
Will it take a revolution? Just maybe...
I'll send you a postcard from camp X-ray.
I would have to disagree, at least in the case of biotechnology. Look at Monsato..that's not exactly an excellent example of our patent system at work.
Yea, I suppose we are mostly on the same page. =)
But I still wonder how effectively you can punish these people without wandering into 'cruel and unusual'. As you said, jail just isnt a huge deterrent or a really effective punishment.
While it may be nice to let a victim's family feel retribution, I think this is a false idea too. Career or repeat criminals just dont have that hard a time in jail.
If you want an effective punishment, perhaps we should research how to rebuild/intensify the 'guilt centers' of the brain. Combine these with periodic forced memory flashbacks of the crime and =then= we're probably talking punishment. Ie, you've got to get inside someone's head, because otherwise, one man's hell is another man's heaven.
And I know the constitution doesnt talk about rehabilitation. But when a large amount of your population is in jail, (isn't it something outrageous like 10% of the US population??) you better establish ways for those people to reintegrate- or accept the fact that you are subsidizing their existence.
And I know the death penalty isnt the greatest idea. But my speaking of it -does- illustrate the idea that people who violate socities rules beyond certain bounds are -exceedingly- difficult to deal with. So we lock them all up because we can't figure out what else to do with them.
Just seems like prison is one of the least thought-out aspects of our society. Now I would like to reiterate that noone reading these thoughts should take what I say too seriously, I'm just discussing things!
This guy suggests "death is too good for them, let's effectively torture them in jail" while I offer a logical and -not altogether serious- alternative and I'm the bad guy?
Umm...alright, if you say so...
I don't know, I think you just proved the parent's point. You argue the logical path- which is that these prisoners are not valuable to society and should be kept away from society forever and ever.
Fine.
But "death is an easy way out for these people"? One, why does it matter? What do you gain by knowing someone is miserable in jail? I thought the point was to keep them away from others- killing them accomplishes this, no? And two, isn't that statement a very ironic example of fetishing the punishment aspect?
Personally, I don't believe in life imprisonment. Seems like a total and absolute waste. The pragmatic side of me says that if you've acknowledged that someone has transgressed so badly that they can never rejoin society, then keeping them imprisoned is a waste of effort. Again, putting them to death makes more sense.
All that being said, I'm not necessarily a proponent of the death penalty either, mostly because we have a big government that makes a lot of mistakes. But the whole "you've been naughty! Punishment time!" seems so juvenile. If people can't live in society, retool them in such a way that they can. Or else make it so that they're not society's problem any more.
Yes, I'm feeling evil today. I'm only being a -little- sardonic. =)
I don't know, I think you just proved the parent's point. You argue the logical path- which is that these prisoners are not valuable to society and should be kept away from society forever and ever. Fine. But "death is an easy way out for these people"? One, why does it matter? What do you gain by knowing someone is miserable in jail? I thought the point was to keep them away from others- killing them accomplishes this, no? And two, isn't that statement a very ironic example of fetishing the punishment aspect? Personally, I don't believe in life imprisonment. Seems like a total and absolute waste. The pragmatic side of me says that if you've acknowledged that someone has transgressed so badly that they can never rejoin society, then keeping them imprisoned is a waste of effort. Again, putting them to death makes more sense. All that being said, I'm not necessarily a proponent of the death penalty either, mostly because we have a big government that makes a lot of mistakes. But the whole "you've been naughty! Punishment time!" seems so juvenile. If people can't live in society, retool them in such a way that they can. Or else make it so that they're not society's problem any more. Yes, I'm feeling evil today. I'm only being a -little- sardonic. =)
Ahh, but a fugue is a very mathematical type of composition! Perhaps if the program was told the "theme" of the fugue, it could try to match notes against inversions and other variations on that theme?
Fugues are cool.
They want to have those special rights like hospital visits
That's not a right any more than drawing a paycheck is. I have the privilege of going to certain hospitals in particular because I pay for medical insurance. I also have the privilege of opting out of my employer-provided insurance and getting insurance that covers domestic partners.
You misinterpreted that. The original poster meant that, under current law, same-sex partners are currently denied visitation rights in hospital situations. For example, a significant other is on their death bed, unable to communicate- his or her same-sex partner would be denied the right to visit him or her. Presumably, you understand why this would suck, whatever your opinion on actually being gay.
"...a faith with a significant following..."
There are billions of Buddhists, and billions of Hindus. While you are arguing that any group with a significant following should have their (non-scientific) view point discussed in a science class, what you are really arguing for is the christian creationist viewpoint be discussed in the science class. Noone is arguing that all viewpoints be exposed- you know that as well as I. Its really not fair to express this as an argument of "let all views be known!", because ultimately you are interested only in your own.
I tend to agree with the grandparent. If your prerogative is to teach your kid creationism, take him to sunday school. If you're going to start teaching metaphysical things in school, teach all viewpoints, even the ones that creationist christians might find offensive. (Yes, we exist because of an unending battle between Tiamat and Bahamut.)
Right...?
Ok jgardn, i've been reading some of your posts in this thread and you've made some good points. But
"Everything around you is evidence of the creation.
QED."?
You know that really doesnt prove anything. Any argument that can be used to prove a contrary point is not a valid argument.
You insist that creation is thanks to God- the one god, your god. But, by the same token, I could regard the existence of everything as evidence supporting the creation stories of just about every religion- from hindu to zorastrian to buddist to scientologist.
Or I could just make something up. Everything exists because an entity known as the Big Bang opened his arms and threw his mass across the universe. Dont believe me? Well, how else would you be here?
I'm not trying to flame you. (If I were, I'd post AC.) Again, I think you've said some insightful things. But this comment was weak, circular, and for someone who likes logic and real debate, frustrating.
Maybe we should all agree not to talk theology on Slashdot? =P
I sympathise with your troubles, my friend, but censoring blogs will not eliminate the problem.
If someone wants to slander your name, there are venues other than blogs in which they can do it.
Are you suggesting that all -websites- be 'monitored' and 'censored'? Its very easy to set up a site, even on your own machine, if you have the time or the money. How would that even work...?
If someone wants to make you look bad, they will do it. Depending on what they know about you, they could even contact your friends, your girlfriend, or your wife- and spread their slander. They will probably break some laws in the process.
Ultimately, your recourse -is to go through the legal system-. (I am not a lawyer!) Making some third party the arbiter of what is true and what is false is -extremely dangerous.-
Moreover, consider when it might benefit YOU to have someone post on someone where the subject might disagree. BestBuySucks.com? Well, that lists specific store locations- or at least store #s, which you can easily reverse-map to physical locations. Or do you not want to allow an inside source to tell you that the management at store X will steal your credit card #s?
Again, I sympathize with you. But barring people from saying things is just impossible, and mostly unconstitutional. If you felt threatened by this persons actions, then getting the courts involved was a good thing!
LOL, good fun!
Jesus On Real Light Sabers
Posted by brian on Wed April 13, 03:43 PM from the have fun hitting reload page dept.
There's an interesting article over at CNET where Jesus gives us some background information on real light sabers. I didn't know that rael light sabers had anything to do with shooting file sharers, but according to Jesus it does. It's an interesting read, and sure to start a discussion on the practicality of real light sabers.
What I want to see is an automated comment generator =)
I haven't yet RTFA, but since the issue of file formats is near and dear to my heart (and what I do professionally), I figured I should say something.
I'm working on a Digital Archiving project for a government agency. And what we have determined thusfar is that proprietary file formats are -very bad- for long term preservation.
Now, you may ask, who cares about long term preservation? To which I would respond, clearly you are not a fan of history- or at least, good history. Innocuous documents end up being primary sources! People find new uses for and interest in old documents!
Still you seeem doubtful. Fine. But, should Microsoft disappear (unlikely as it may seem) or otherwise leave us with a bunch of proprietarily-formatted files that we cant read save through- shudder- emulation of something like Windows XP, a lot of people will be unhappy. And a lot of data may not be fully recoverable.
You may say that if such things really bother people, then they should only purchase software using open standards. I sort of agree. But we are dealing with a field in which -certain- companies are convicted monopolists, so....
Proprietary formats are still the bane of my existence.
Very interesting argument. I dont necessarily agree, however, and for some reason, the whole thing feels a little circular. For the sake of discussion, I'll poke around at it. =)
Kripke is arguing that certain -concepts- cannot depend on a physical representation. That is to say, they have an identity -outside- of the physical. Which, I suppose, is supposed to support the idea of an abstract mind that exists outside of a physical system?
Which is an interesting idea. But who is to say that a physical system necessarily disallows abstract ideas to be represented physically?
I need to leave work, but I'm interested in discussing this. Maybe I'll post more later.
Not only are you right, you are -so right- it hurts.
As has been mentioned before, ISPs currently enjoy the status of "common carrier", the same status afforded to telecommunication companies, and even, i believe, postal services.
Being a common carrier works as follows: You are not liable for damage done due to communications over your network. If Osama uses Pacific Bell (or whatever phone service) to plan his next attack, Pacific Bell is not liable.
But the rationale for common carrier status is that you -do not know- what traffic is being carried over your network. The second you begin filtering out sites and noting suspicious people as a business, (the government could probably do these things to your network, but thats another story) you're putting youtr common carrier status in jeopardy.
So yes, they likely would pick up a ton of liability. Which is why they will likely politely decline to acquiesce to this request.
That's called a workaround.
And, when they can, they'll keep you from doing that too.
And why should we want to buy such an extremely limited license, when our parents, and even our grandparents, got a better deal by purchasing the physical medium?
If I want to let you borrow a CD, you can. If I want to let you borrow something I've downloaded off Napster Express, well, we're both screwed.
DRM now? Sure. I won't buy it- that's me voting with my wallet. However, when the content providers decide to provide everything in DRMed format, and electronics manufacturers only provide DRM-ready equipment, its game over. Your parents and grandparents had a better deal.