Ah, but the debate is often irrelevant to the truth. The heliocentric model of the solar system was correct long before anybody proposed it, let alone before it was widely accepted.
Whether or not you THINK something is wrong is irrelevant if it IS wrong.
Do you even have a conscience? That seems... unlikely.
Keep in mind that what the artist sells to the publisher is, primarily, the right to distribute his works. Taking that right for yourself, for free, says a LOT about what you think the true value of an artist should be: nothing. Under your terms, publishing companies should simply take music and publish it without regards to the original creators...
That doesn't mean that they're allowed to obstruct justice. Subpoeaning testimony isn't exactly the same thing as holding them responsible for their users.
Somehow, I doubt that the DMCA's Safe Harbor provision covers obstruction of justice; requiring that they provide testimony against a customer is far different from holding the ISP itself liable for a customer's actions, no?
Think about it. There's a BIG difference here.
It's about contracts -- whether or not you abide by the terms of sale, chosen by the vendor within the constraints established by law.
And yes, the owner loses something -- they lose control, which is an incredibly valuable asset; it's the sole reason, in fact, that publishers pay artists in the first place.
The distributor of music sets the terms of sale/distribution; it's up to the consumers to abide by them. ToS usually include following copyright laws...
The vendor sets the terms. Not you; your choice, under the law, is to accept or reject the transaction in toto. You can send feedback, but you cannot demand changes in ToS. If you buy a CD, you have accepted these terms, and are legally obligated to NOT reproduce it or redistribute it except as the law allows.
Vandalism that damages a Coca-Cola is still vandalism, and a criminal offense. Writing a negative review is completely different; that's a matter of speech, and is protected so long as it's factually correct (Well, in the US, truth is a defense against accusations of libel/slander. Not necessarily so in other nations.) and isn't violating other contractural violations, like having signed an agreement to NOT produce a review. Likewise regarding food impurities -- if you're right, that's fine. If you're committing libel, that's not.
Same issue as with Napster renaming -- if you rename it so that nobody can find it, well, MPAA wins because who's going to be downloading your file? And if the name mangling scheme is obvious or otherwise decently publicized, they'll find it soon enough.
Combined with the traffic statistics and other logs that your ISP probably keeps, they've got a very strong circumstantial-evidence case. IP spoofing is irrelevant because your ISP *knows* what IP they've assigned to your connection, how much data you're transferring, when, and to whom.
ISTR that the "loophole" is about as valid as the ubiquitious, "This is not spam" disclaimer, or the abandonware myth -- namely, no factual basis whatsoever.
And any religion provides an answer besides "Because"?
"God" is not an answer; the term is merely a label applied in lieu of a proper explanation, and usually signifying lack of further intent to search for an explanation. Hence, phrases like "Act of God" and "God moves in mysterious ways" get applied instead of answering possibly unanswerable questions. It's the ultimate excuse.
They're only big because people LIKE their products and services, believe it or not -- enough to use them and not search for alternatives.
Re:Good little countries?? From an American?
on
Mir 2
·
· Score: 1
An increase in proliferation. For much of the atomic age only Russia, the United States and a few of their aligned states had nuclear weapons (including the means to deliver them); and both factions knew that the other had very little incentive to use them due to MAD.
They are now a bit more common; the Russian arsenal probably is not as well maintained as it was at the height of their funding; and many countries don't bind themselves nearly as closely to a superpower and wouldn't require their consent.
In addition, some of the smaller nations and power groups may care less about possible retalliation; for instance, it would probably suit bin Laden's personal jihad to procure a nuclear device by any means possible for use against either Russia or the United States, even if the response means martydom. Pres. Hussein of Iraq seems to be another who verges on recklessness; trying to assassinate an ex-POTUS is a dangerous form of brinksmanship he's already played. Were he to procure an ICBM by, say, bribery, the results could be interesting indeed.
Re:Good little countries?? From an American?
on
Mir 2
·
· Score: 1
Small-quantity launches from a great distance -- whether due to equipment malfunction, miscommunication, bribery, terrorism, insanity or war...
For instance, if whoever's in charge of a silo right now pulls a Jack Ripper and chooses to launch on his own, and has the know-how to do so, there's not much that can be done right now once the birds are in the air. Oops. But the system as proposed wouldn't stop, say, more than a miniscule fraction of the Russian arsenal if they chose to do a massive first-strike.
For a sub launch, you probably need frequent ASW patrols, plus theatre missile defense.
Stealth. A nuclear strike LOOKS like a nuclear strike, although if it's done via SSBNs the identity of the sender may not be immediately obvious. An asteroid strike... may look like a fluke hit. You'd have to choose one that NO astronomer has been watching (because they AREN'T supposed to just change course radically...), but...
Don't forget Brunner's "The Shockwave Rider"; the idea of massive retalliation via asteroid rain ('tho using back-doored mining equipment rather than nukes) was briefly mentioned when discussing ideas formed at Electric Skillet.
A block of Semtex, a remote-controlled explosive charge, a retinal scanner, a dead-man switch wired to your medulla oblongata, TEMPEST shielding, and some decent anti-tampering devices ought to do the trick.
Or did you mean things like making sure the key is only used on YOUR private system and to keep the private key ring on a floppy that's with you at all times?
(and, FWIW, copy protection still thrives in the gaming world... and MSFT's registration/activation system for Windows XP certainly looks like another copy protection scheme).
The software companies still do go after significant violators, as is their right.
A Google search refers to Mark 16:15-18 as stipulating...
17 And these signs will accompany those who
believe: In my name they will drive out
demons; they will speak in new tongues;
18 they will pick up snakes with their hands;
and when they drink deadly poison, it will
not hurt them at all; they will place
their hands on sick people, and they will
get well.'
So for those that take these lines literally (rather than, say, a generic belief that their Lord will protect them, or as a possible mistranslation of an idiom)... yes.
I spent a couple of summers working there. The people there are people with their own diverse interests. I knew SDEs for instance who were curious about Linux, and how the Linux/UNIX community viewed Microsoft and their products, and so forth. Some definitely experimented with non-MSFT operating systems; there was even a discussion group (ISTR that's the Outlook term for a local bboard) focused solely on Linux, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't a termination trap set up to catch those deviating from the company line.
That said, there was, on the whole, a bit more awe and sheer enthusiasm regarding the company than seemed normal... but that's from a cynic's point of view.
Kids should certainly be aware that "evil people do evil things". Life ain't the set of Barney. Hell, many of the strictures -- "Don't talk to strangers", especially -- often told to kids are based PRECISELY on fear of evil. Would you rather treat them as incomprehending robots whom you control, instead of rational beings that should question WHY?
And you wonder why people can't distinguish fact from fiction? Hell, if you try to "protect" them from the nastier parts of life, you're immersing them in a fictional Wonderland. If you're telling them lies, should you be at all surprised when they lie to others?
Vast amounts of "advice" like "If at first you don't succeed, try try again" are clearly excessively optimist drivel. To repeatedly try again with different expectations has been cited as one version of insanity... Pah. I'd rather they be contemplative, rational beings who realize that people have different perspectives and motivations than their own, rather than be little self-centered robots who are naive enough to assume that others' perceptions, beliefs and values are necessarily anywhere close to their own. If they realize that some people will freely resort to force to achieve their objectives, then that's better than naively trusting or distrusting on somebody's say-so; forewarned is forearmed.
You're talking about Internet filtering restrictions applied to libraries receiving E-rate discounts.
First of all, that's a Government subsidy, which is COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY for any given library to accept. This is NOT an entitlement. The government is NOT obligated to give them this money, nor for the library to accept it.
Second, once it's noted that the Government is indeed paying (at least partially) for the access, the Government therefore gains an interest in WHAT is being transferred.
This has NO EFFECT on what can be posted, since this is client-side and not server-side.
This also has NO EFFECT on libraries NOT accepting this public money.
For a library which would only have 'net access due to a grant (because the locals apparently aren't willing to subsidize it enough at their level), then the end result is a *net plus* -- there is access where there is none before.
Face it -- Government money, ranging from highway funding (legal BAC levels, speed limits, et al) and onwards, provides leverage. And both parties have been willing to tolerate this, because on a whole the people don't give a damn.
At least a flag burning AMENDMENT is Constitutional as long as they correctly follow the ratification process -- which, to my knowledge, they did (after trying and failing to simply use a bill rather than an amendment).
Simply saying "To Hell with the Constitution, let's pass a law anyway" is in my mind far worse, since it establishes a precedent that laws are only to be followed when it is expedient to do so.
A really far-thinking capitalist will have to at least consider asteroid mining at some point; exploration, then, would be prospecting and surveying. Earth's mineral resources are quite finite, and at some point scarcity would probably make it worth it. I'd be surprised if there actually weren't a whole host of ways to economically exploit space and its contents...
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, but the debate is often irrelevant to the truth. The heliocentric model of the solar system was correct long before anybody proposed it, let alone before it was widely accepted.
Whether or not you THINK something is wrong is irrelevant if it IS wrong.
Do you even have a conscience? That seems... unlikely.
Keep in mind that what the artist sells to the publisher is, primarily, the right to distribute his works. Taking that right for yourself, for free, says a LOT about what you think the true value of an artist should be: nothing. Under your terms, publishing companies should simply take music and publish it without regards to the original creators...
That doesn't mean that they're allowed to obstruct justice. Subpoeaning testimony isn't exactly the same thing as holding them responsible for their users.
Somehow, I doubt that the DMCA's Safe Harbor provision covers obstruction of justice; requiring that they provide testimony against a customer is far different from holding the ISP itself liable for a customer's actions, no? Think about it. There's a BIG difference here.
It's about contracts -- whether or not you abide by the terms of sale, chosen by the vendor within the constraints established by law.
And yes, the owner loses something -- they lose control, which is an incredibly valuable asset; it's the sole reason, in fact, that publishers pay artists in the first place.
The distributor of music sets the terms of sale/distribution; it's up to the consumers to abide by them. ToS usually include following copyright laws...
The vendor sets the terms. Not you; your choice, under the law, is to accept or reject the transaction in toto. You can send feedback, but you cannot demand changes in ToS. If you buy a CD, you have accepted these terms, and are legally obligated to NOT reproduce it or redistribute it except as the law allows.
Vandalism that damages a Coca-Cola is still vandalism, and a criminal offense. Writing a negative review is completely different; that's a matter of speech, and is protected so long as it's factually correct (Well, in the US, truth is a defense against accusations of libel/slander. Not necessarily so in other nations.) and isn't violating other contractural violations, like having signed an agreement to NOT produce a review. Likewise regarding food impurities -- if you're right, that's fine. If you're committing libel, that's not.
Same issue as with Napster renaming -- if you rename it so that nobody can find it, well, MPAA wins because who's going to be downloading your file? And if the name mangling scheme is obvious or otherwise decently publicized, they'll find it soon enough.
Combined with the traffic statistics and other logs that your ISP probably keeps, they've got a very strong circumstantial-evidence case. IP spoofing is irrelevant because your ISP *knows* what IP they've assigned to your connection, how much data you're transferring, when, and to whom.
ISTR that the "loophole" is about as valid as the ubiquitious, "This is not spam" disclaimer, or the abandonware myth -- namely, no factual basis whatsoever.
And any religion provides an answer besides "Because"?
"God" is not an answer; the term is merely a label applied in lieu of a proper explanation, and usually signifying lack of further intent to search for an explanation. Hence, phrases like "Act of God" and "God moves in mysterious ways" get applied instead of answering possibly unanswerable questions. It's the ultimate excuse.
Maybe he's a fan of Descartes whom, if memory serves, suggested that the pineal gland served as the bridge between mind and body.
A more robust, efficient respiratory system?
A pain switch? Might be useful for when you know you have to undergo something REALLY painful...
Toxin detection/filtering for the digestive and circulatory systems? Or maybe simply quicker breakdown of byproducts like lactic acid?
They're only big because people LIKE their products and services, believe it or not -- enough to use them and not search for alternatives.
An increase in proliferation. For much of the atomic age only Russia, the United States and a few of their aligned states had nuclear weapons (including the means to deliver them); and both factions knew that the other had very little incentive to use them due to MAD.
They are now a bit more common; the Russian arsenal probably is not as well maintained as it was at the height of their funding; and many countries don't bind themselves nearly as closely to a superpower and wouldn't require their consent.
In addition, some of the smaller nations and power groups may care less about possible retalliation; for instance, it would probably suit bin Laden's personal jihad to procure a nuclear device by any means possible for use against either Russia or the United States, even if the response means martydom. Pres. Hussein of Iraq seems to be another who verges on recklessness; trying to assassinate an ex-POTUS is a dangerous form of brinksmanship he's already played. Were he to procure an ICBM by, say, bribery, the results could be interesting indeed.
Small-quantity launches from a great distance -- whether due to equipment malfunction, miscommunication, bribery, terrorism, insanity or war...
For instance, if whoever's in charge of a silo right now pulls a Jack Ripper and chooses to launch on his own, and has the know-how to do so, there's not much that can be done right now once the birds are in the air. Oops. But the system as proposed wouldn't stop, say, more than a miniscule fraction of the Russian arsenal if they chose to do a massive first-strike.
For a sub launch, you probably need frequent ASW patrols, plus theatre missile defense.
Stealth. A nuclear strike LOOKS like a nuclear strike, although if it's done via SSBNs the identity of the sender may not be immediately obvious. An asteroid strike... may look like a fluke hit. You'd have to choose one that NO astronomer has been watching (because they AREN'T supposed to just change course radically...), but...
Don't forget Brunner's "The Shockwave Rider"; the idea of massive retalliation via asteroid rain ('tho using back-doored mining equipment rather than nukes) was briefly mentioned when discussing ideas formed at Electric Skillet.
A block of Semtex, a remote-controlled explosive charge, a retinal scanner, a dead-man switch wired to your medulla oblongata, TEMPEST shielding, and some decent anti-tampering devices ought to do the trick.
Or did you mean things like making sure the key is only used on YOUR private system and to keep the private key ring on a floppy that's with you at all times?
Copy protection != copyright enforcement.
(and, FWIW, copy protection still thrives in the gaming world... and MSFT's registration/activation system for Windows XP certainly looks like another copy protection scheme).
The software companies still do go after significant violators, as is their right.
A Google search refers to Mark 16:15-18 as stipulating...
17 And these signs will accompany those who
believe: In my name they will drive out
demons; they will speak in new tongues;
18 they will pick up snakes with their hands;
and when they drink deadly poison, it will
not hurt them at all; they will place
their hands on sick people, and they will
get well.'
So for those that take these lines literally (rather than, say, a generic belief that their Lord will protect them, or as a possible mistranslation of an idiom)... yes.
I spent a couple of summers working there. The people there are people with their own diverse interests. I knew SDEs for instance who were curious about Linux, and how the Linux/UNIX community viewed Microsoft and their products, and so forth. Some definitely experimented with non-MSFT operating systems; there was even a discussion group (ISTR that's the Outlook term for a local bboard) focused solely on Linux, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't a termination trap set up to catch those deviating from the company line.
That said, there was, on the whole, a bit more awe and sheer enthusiasm regarding the company than seemed normal... but that's from a cynic's point of view.
Kids should certainly be aware that "evil people do evil things". Life ain't the set of Barney. Hell, many of the strictures -- "Don't talk to strangers", especially -- often told to kids are based PRECISELY on fear of evil. Would you rather treat them as incomprehending robots whom you control, instead of rational beings that should question WHY?
And you wonder why people can't distinguish fact from fiction? Hell, if you try to "protect" them from the nastier parts of life, you're immersing them in a fictional Wonderland. If you're telling them lies, should you be at all surprised when they lie to others?
Vast amounts of "advice" like "If at first you don't succeed, try try again" are clearly excessively optimist drivel. To repeatedly try again with different expectations has been cited as one version of insanity... Pah. I'd rather they be contemplative, rational beings who realize that people have different perspectives and motivations than their own, rather than be little self-centered robots who are naive enough to assume that others' perceptions, beliefs and values are necessarily anywhere close to their own. If they realize that some people will freely resort to force to achieve their objectives, then that's better than naively trusting or distrusting on somebody's say-so; forewarned is forearmed.
You're talking about Internet filtering restrictions applied to libraries receiving E-rate discounts.
First of all, that's a Government subsidy, which is COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY for any given library to accept. This is NOT an entitlement. The government is NOT obligated to give them this money, nor for the library to accept it.
Second, once it's noted that the Government is indeed paying (at least partially) for the access, the Government therefore gains an interest in WHAT is being transferred.
This has NO EFFECT on what can be posted, since this is client-side and not server-side.
This also has NO EFFECT on libraries NOT accepting this public money.
For a library which would only have 'net access due to a grant (because the locals apparently aren't willing to subsidize it enough at their level), then the end result is a *net plus* -- there is access where there is none before.
Face it -- Government money, ranging from highway funding (legal BAC levels, speed limits, et al) and onwards, provides leverage. And both parties have been willing to tolerate this, because on a whole the people don't give a damn.
At least a flag burning AMENDMENT is Constitutional as long as they correctly follow the ratification process -- which, to my knowledge, they did (after trying and failing to simply use a bill rather than an amendment).
Simply saying "To Hell with the Constitution, let's pass a law anyway" is in my mind far worse, since it establishes a precedent that laws are only to be followed when it is expedient to do so.
A really far-thinking capitalist will have to at least consider asteroid mining at some point; exploration, then, would be prospecting and surveying. Earth's mineral resources are quite finite, and at some point scarcity would probably make it worth it. I'd be surprised if there actually weren't a whole host of ways to economically exploit space and its contents...