I, evidently among many others, interpreted "Copyright infringement and mugging share a common moral space in that they are both against the law." as a statement that roughly equates to, "Copyright infringement is wrong because it's against the law.".
Sure, that point is dumb, but I'm not about to assume that the poster made the intelligent insight of "regardless of which is worse, they are both against the law"; if he had intended to make that point, he should have said that, or "Morality aside, it's still illegal.".
Or, in other words, I reserve the right to take something the way the person said it.
Especially when they haven't gotten around to apologizing for being unclear, and they've said something that I've heard before.
All that said, of COURSE Google should turn him in; I'd rather have a neat service that uses fair use to the utmost than a neat service that gets shut down because it doesn't bother to follow court orders.
And people should already know to expect to get sued when they touch something made by Fox.
Lack of coverage: There is no cell tower within range.
Cell outage: The cell tower didn't work right for some period of time.
For the former, read Consumer Reports, look at coverage maps, and ask current users. For the latter... Well, it'd be kinda nice to know, but the government, for whatever reason, says that we're better off being kept in the dark, at least about outages that aren't big enough to make the news.
But taking that into account, I'll be there are still a huge number of copyright violators who would be outraged if their own copyright was violated. I find that kind of double standard pretty lame and disappointingly common
I agree with you in theory, but I have difficulty with one point: If the law is going to take down copyright violating sites, it should take down copyright violating sites of all stripes.
Or, in other words, I find it perfectly reasonable for a person to be downloading all sorts of "free" music, singing "Happy Birthday" as a public performance without paying for it, and still be annoyed that someone is blatantly infringing on their copyright, not because of some moral issue with the infringement, but because it's a blatant infringement that would have been shut down under most other circumstances.
That said, I believe that this is just as much of a fair use as Google's use of still-copyrighted books in their search database; it's a substantially different use than what the copyright owners have provided, and it couldn't exist without that sort of fair use.
'course, if Google isn't allowed to index copyrighted books, TurnItIn shouldn't be allowed to index copyrighted papers. Perhaps that sort of a result would increase the pressure on congress to make copyright law more reasonable.
"0% informational" means that one would never learn anything useful from a program. Stating that the Daily Show is "0% informational" is about as fair as stating that Fox News is "100% right-wing slant".
Both are quite obviously untrue if someone bothers to watch either the Daily Show or Fox News. Stating either shows a lack of perspective.
I had the same problem with Ameritrade, asked them about it, and got this response:
Please know that even though you provided your e-mail address only to Ameritrade, it does still sit on a server that other people can see and may gain access to. If you receive an e-mail from one of the following addresses, it is ours:... In the case you are speaking of, we have not yet been able to rid ourselves of the spam. The issue is still being worked on.
I also had the same problem with match.com(as has my brother, who lives several states away), and they sent me a nice form letter blaming me--err, reminding me that if I give my e-mail address to other websites, the e-mail address will be out there.
Full security is difficult. However, owning up to mistakes when caught(and trying to fix them) shouldn't be.
>Someone makes a claim and no matter what evidence they provide,
>the hearing from someone else that that person had heard it was
>"debunked" is enough for them to discard it.
I imagine taking a bunch of skeptics out to a field of their choice and finding mines and buried body parts would be rather enough evidence to merit further study and quiet the debunkers.
If they can't do that, "debunking" is hardly needed, as there are a lot of crazy claims which I'm not going to bother using mind space on -- there's too much real science with actual solid evidence for me to keep up on, already.
Much like in the case of this possible new tomb -- once they dig up that plot of land, I imagine it'll be pretty darn obvious whether or not there's another tomb in the area.
I agree fully that Freecycle doesn't scale well for getting stuff off of it, as it takes huge swaths of time to look through everything, find something you actually want, and be fast and lucky enough to actually get the item.
So I don't do that. It's not worth it.
But, when I had six cases and a couple of bags full of old, mostly worthless, computer crap that would have been an absolute pain to eBay, I freecycled it, got four or five offers, and a day later I had freed up 10+ square feet of floor space.
Frankly, it's utterly amazing the kind of crap people will take when it's free.
Personally, I'm fond of disruptive change. If FOSS software manages to find a better solution to the problems we have, and FOSS costs 98% of programmers their jobs, then that's wonderful as it's better for society in the long run.
There will always be new fields and new ways of making money; we didn't stop building robots for car manufacturing because we wanted to protect the jobs of factory workers. Why would we want to stop building certain types of software because it might force people into different careers?
You say that like it's a bad thing... if "progress" is an advancement of the neo-con Republican party agenda, and lack of progress is blocking that from happening, I'd love to see some of that gridlock.
That was my point. I guess I'm so used to talking about "progress" in a negative way I didn't state that clearly enough. I dislike both parties, not because they're the same, but because they're awful in two different ways. I've personally taken to calling people like Fritz Hollings(because of the SSSCA/CBDTPA, among other things) and Michael Powell(Because of the broadcast flag, among other things) "enemies of freedom", using Bush's over-the-top terminology to express how people in both parties do not have consumer interest at the front of their mind.
Well, yes, but a vote for Kerry was a vote for split government, and a vote for split government is a vote for gridlock and lack of "progress".
As for the FCC... Short of having Boucher(R-VA) as president, I'm thinking that hoping for an appointment that pleases the Slashdot crowd is just hoping to get lucky and have a fair-use advocate sneak in.
So, I'm happy Powell is gone(and I'm happy that Hollings is gone), their replacements probably won't be better, and there still aren't many people in government who grok why fair use is important to protect.
I often wonder why people think that voting is a good thing, and everyone voting would be a very good thing, when the grand majority of people don't pay very much attention to politics most of the time.
What we want is for everyone to know exactly how awful these trade deals/laws/whatever are, and then have those people vote. We want the people who don't follow this stuff to not vote, because then politicians would have to worry about actually addressing the issues in their campaigns rather than running on a kissing babies and an, "I believe in what you believe" platform.
Frankly, if we got all the uninformed people to stop voting we'd probably have a bit more of an uproar about esoteric issues like copyright and trademark law.
My issue with Verisign's SiteFinder is functionality; back when Internet Explorer started searching the net for the mistyped domain name, I quickly turned it off because I wanted to be able to fix my mistype in the address bar, and Internet Explorer's/MSN's search screwed it up. Verisign's search does the same, and you can't turn it off, or switch browsers..museum gives you an informative page and still allows you to correct your mistake in the address bar.
This is another one of those "features" that I'd prefer to avoid having foisted on me.
Slashdot Mirror
I, evidently among many others, interpreted "Copyright infringement and mugging share a common moral space in that they are both against the law." as a statement that roughly equates to, "Copyright infringement is wrong because it's against the law.".
Sure, that point is dumb, but I'm not about to assume that the poster made the intelligent insight of "regardless of which is worse, they are both against the law"; if he had intended to make that point, he should have said that, or "Morality aside, it's still illegal.".
Or, in other words, I reserve the right to take something the way the person said it.
Especially when they haven't gotten around to apologizing for being unclear, and they've said something that I've heard before.
All that said, of COURSE Google should turn him in; I'd rather have a neat service that uses fair use to the utmost than a neat service that gets shut down because it doesn't bother to follow court orders.
And people should already know to expect to get sued when they touch something made by Fox.
Wasted money? But... Tang!
Ah, Wired wildly predicting things; it's as if we've never left 1994, much less 2006. Bring on the memories.
Lack of coverage: There is no cell tower within range.
Cell outage: The cell tower didn't work right for some period of time.
For the former, read Consumer Reports, look at coverage maps, and ask current users. For the latter... Well, it'd be kinda nice to know, but the government, for whatever reason, says that we're better off being kept in the dark, at least about outages that aren't big enough to make the news.
Does that clear things up?
Or, in other words, I find it perfectly reasonable for a person to be downloading all sorts of "free" music, singing "Happy Birthday" as a public performance without paying for it, and still be annoyed that someone is blatantly infringing on their copyright, not because of some moral issue with the infringement, but because it's a blatant infringement that would have been shut down under most other circumstances.
That said, I believe that this is just as much of a fair use as Google's use of still-copyrighted books in their search database; it's a substantially different use than what the copyright owners have provided, and it couldn't exist without that sort of fair use.
'course, if Google isn't allowed to index copyrighted books, TurnItIn shouldn't be allowed to index copyrighted papers. Perhaps that sort of a result would increase the pressure on congress to make copyright law more reasonable.
"0% informational" means that one would never learn anything useful from a program. Stating that the Daily Show is "0% informational" is about as fair as stating that Fox News is "100% right-wing slant".
Both are quite obviously untrue if someone bothers to watch either the Daily Show or Fox News. Stating either shows a lack of perspective.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200605250003, which references an National Annenberg Election Survey which found that, "Overall, Daily Show viewers scored the highest out of any group surveyed, with Daily Show viewers answering, on average, 60 percent of the questions correctly."
Is that enough of a defense of the grandparent post's weasel words?
I also had the same problem with match.com(as has my brother, who lives several states away), and they sent me a nice form letter blaming me--err, reminding me that if I give my e-mail address to other websites, the e-mail address will be out there.
Full security is difficult. However, owning up to mistakes when caught(and trying to fix them) shouldn't be.
>Someone makes a claim and no matter what evidence they provide,
>the hearing from someone else that that person had heard it was
>"debunked" is enough for them to discard it.
I imagine taking a bunch of skeptics out to a field of their choice and finding mines and buried body parts would be rather enough evidence to merit further study and quiet the debunkers.
If they can't do that, "debunking" is hardly needed, as there are a lot of crazy claims which I'm not going to bother using mind space on -- there's too much real science with actual solid evidence for me to keep up on, already.
Much like in the case of this possible new tomb -- once they dig up that plot of land, I imagine it'll be pretty darn obvious whether or not there's another tomb in the area.
I agree fully that Freecycle doesn't scale well for getting stuff off of it, as it takes huge swaths of time to look through everything, find something you actually want, and be fast and lucky enough to actually get the item.
So I don't do that. It's not worth it.
But, when I had six cases and a couple of bags full of old, mostly worthless, computer crap that would have been an absolute pain to eBay, I freecycled it, got four or five offers, and a day later I had freed up 10+ square feet of floor space.
Frankly, it's utterly amazing the kind of crap people will take when it's free.
Personally, I'm fond of disruptive change. If FOSS software manages to find a better solution to the problems we have, and FOSS costs 98% of programmers their jobs, then that's wonderful as it's better for society in the long run.
There will always be new fields and new ways of making money; we didn't stop building robots for car manufacturing because we wanted to protect the jobs of factory workers. Why would we want to stop building certain types of software because it might force people into different careers?
Well, yes, but a vote for Kerry was a vote for split government, and a vote for split government is a vote for gridlock and lack of "progress".
As for the FCC... Short of having Boucher(R-VA) as president, I'm thinking that hoping for an appointment that pleases the Slashdot crowd is just hoping to get lucky and have a fair-use advocate sneak in.
So, I'm happy Powell is gone(and I'm happy that Hollings is gone), their replacements probably won't be better, and there still aren't many people in government who grok why fair use is important to protect.
I often wonder why people think that voting is a good thing, and everyone voting would be a very good thing, when the grand majority of people don't pay very much attention to politics most of the time.
What we want is for everyone to know exactly how awful these trade deals/laws/whatever are, and then have those people vote. We want the people who don't follow this stuff to not vote, because then politicians would have to worry about actually addressing the issues in their campaigns rather than running on a kissing babies and an, "I believe in what you believe" platform.
Frankly, if we got all the uninformed people to stop voting we'd probably have a bit more of an uproar about esoteric issues like copyright and trademark law.
My issue with Verisign's SiteFinder is functionality; back when Internet Explorer started searching the net for the mistyped domain name, I quickly turned it off because I wanted to be able to fix my mistype in the address bar, and Internet Explorer's/MSN's search screwed it up. Verisign's search does the same, and you can't turn it off, or switch browsers. .museum gives you an informative page and still allows you to correct your mistake in the address bar.
This is another one of those "features" that I'd prefer to avoid having foisted on me.