Just look at history. If you want freedom, then yes, I am right, as our founding fathers were. They looked at history too, and found that pretty much every government abused its citizens. You say the majority of people can decide between total anarchy (which I've never advocated, so I don't know why you're bringing it up) and a dictatorship. Yet the majority doesn't see a need for the second amendment, and a majority of high schoolers don't see a need for the first. Its pretty scary.
The bottom line is that even though the majority doesn't think something should be said, doesn't mean they have any right whatsoever to stop something from being said. Might does not make right, and what I see happening more and more is the majority stomping even more on the minority than before. Everybody IS wrong because they are violating the rights of others.
Again, I have no idea why you're bringing up total anarchy; I've never advocated it, and can only assume you're trying to paint me as such to 'prove' your point. You're free to ignore history and our constitution all you want.. but that doesn't make it 'right.'
The problem is all the spectrum is being hogged up with the analog cable channels. The cable companies are itching to get rid of these - once the price point is low enough on set top boxes so they can give them for free to anyone who needs them, you're going to see available bandwidth over coax explode.
Adelphia already got rid of them. They programed the boxes over thier wires. So far, my internet connection has yet to see a speed boost, and the box now frequently 'drops' frames and sound. Its very frustrating to watch TV to have the picture freeze, start again (after missing a few seconds) and then have the sound out of sync. These problems started when they went all digital.
No thanks, I'll take the FTTH from the city, when it comes in a few months.
Open source != GPL. I worked for a company that built web applications in ASP (with allthe logic contained in the page). It was open source in the sense they could see and modify it, but they were not allowed to redistribute it.
Your arguement falls apart in that the city does actually own the garage and the equipment in it, and thus had every right to remove whoever it chose.
What this is more akin to is a hospital, which owns the equipment, stops paying licensing fees for software running the equipment, and tried to get someone else to make it run.
Your analogy sucks, and is not even necessary. You don't need to say 'see, its like this.' We are all familar with what the issues are. Your argument based on your analogy sucks even more.
You bought most Mac games because you didn't have much of a choice. Assuming all the titles available for PC are available for Linux and Mac, you have the same options PCers do. Suddenly, there's a good chance that your game WON'T be bought, because they buy a competitors game. 100K seems like an awful lot of potential customers, but they are only potential. And in the grand scheme of things, 100K may not even be significate if you're expecting 20 million copies to sell.
Which brings me back to the original point; the cost of doing the testing for a smaller number of sales likely doesn't make it economical to do so. Testing alone may wipe out the Mac sales profits, even if they did get all 100K people to buy the Mac version.
This mean any machine more than a year old can no longer play new PC games!
Huh? That's simply not true. Just before Doom 3 came out, I got a new card, and its most certainly more than a year old. I'm pretty sure it can handle the games of today as well; Doom 3 plays fine, on some of the highest settings. The card wasn't expensive either, $150. Not bad considering it plays the older 3D games better and the current ones today, even though its two years old.
You don't NEED a new computer, nor the latest graphics cards..
I'm not meaning to moralize here. I mean, I can see the reasoning used - "I'm poor, I can't afford to buy it, someone's willing to share it, so why not?"
Why is this any more moral than 'I want to play it but its too crumy to pay for?' If your poor, maybe you should be worrying about how to get out of that situation instead of playing games...
2) Game makers don't generally port to multiple operating systems. I know I'm in the vast minority of users, but I don't have (or want) Windows. I want and use Linux exclusively. PC games are a luxury item to me, and if they aren't on Linux then I don't play them. If PC game makers would ditch DirectX and move to cross platform development, they would extend their markets with almost no added expense.
I'm going to take issue with this, mostly your last comment. The reason is that your last comment TOTALLY ignores QA time. When building websites, we had to test the site in each browser that the client wanted supported. This increased the time, because not only did we have to test in browser X on OS Y, when we found something, we had to go back, make the fix and start testing ALL over again. For a game, the situation is the same, but the testing is (likely) much more involved and time consuming.
Its the old Java addage, but it applies to cross platform development regardless of language; write once, test everywhere.
Oh, I'd also like to point out that during the revolutionary war, there were ALOT of people that DID support Britian as well, and I'm pretty sure it was a pretty bloody war as well too. I guess it depends how bad you want freedom. I'm guessing from your post you'd rather live a slave. Just to make it clear again, I DON'T think we're at a point yet were a revolution is needed, and I'm not advocating that. Just saying that your reasoning isn't really valid, as all those were items were turn at the time of the revolutionary war.
Aside from the obvious problems of legality, morality, and ethical legitimacy of such action, it would probably only make things worse.
Actually, the founders would probably argue there's no moral or ethical issues in this action; indeed they may see it as the ethical and moral thing to do. They DID kill the people taking away their freedoms, did they not? As far as legality goes, well, that's a non-issue. Laws which restrict freedoms are immoral anyway. Laws made by a corrupt goverment are not laws to be respected. Of course all this assumes that one think we've reached the point were a revolution is necessary. I'm not sure we have yet.
Just what am I supposed to do? Go and protest at one of GWB's speeches and get arrested? How will that change anything? How will that help? Will my being in prison make other people more free?
The answer would be yes, you should. This is how progress was made in the civil rights movement. However, its not feasible today. You get arrested and jailed, and that's all people want to hear. You MUST have done something wrong, criminal. Very sad, really.
** Solution: Federal government should get all its money from the states. Then it could not withhold money from the states to get more power. As a bonus, the states could stand up to the federal government by withholding money.
I agree; remove the federal income tax completely, and let the feds get money from the states. The states could then withhold their funding to the federal level, for some aspects (some money MUST be given). The problem with states being able to totally shut down the feds, is that they can totaly shut down the feds.. not quite what we want..
And yet it is to the peoples benefit that this 15 year old mugger is not allowed to mug more people.
Agreed. And the cops could have carried that out, but they have to follow proper process, including getting a warrant. Ripping down the cameras has nothing to do with catching the 15 year old.
And the parent IS responsible for that gun being on his property. Parents do have some responsibility for the actions of the minors in their care.
They do; they could believe they bought it legally though too. It might have nothing at all to do with their kid.
And as far as the laws on handguns being unjust. That is your opinion. It would seem that the majority of the people do not agree with you in this case.
The majority of people don't understand why rights are important. The majority of people don't seem to want freedom anymore, they want a police state. That doesn't make them right either.
Indeed, the entire reason we are supposed to be a republic and not a direct democracy is because the people elected have the duty to ignore knee jerk reactions and calls to action which remove freedom. Alas though, our system finally appears to be breaking down, and the majority of people are going to get what they want.. a police state.
Fair Use is still applying to the consumer though. They don't end up with the new format of the DVD. What good is fair use if not all consumers can exercise it? CC isn't distributing anything; they are offering a copy service for their customers, customers which ARE allowed to have copies for personal use.
$5 isn't exactly 'making money hand over fist.' There is the cost of their employee to run the machine, the cost of the machine in the first place, ongoing maintence of said machine.. that adds up.
I'm not going to try to talk to you about that anymore; it's hopeless.
Indeed, you're defeated.
But I have to ask: you were in 5th grade when you were 18?
I was in college when I was 18. Doesn't matter that you're 18 or even about to graduate HS though; I've seen PLENTY of kids come out of HS (barely) and still can't think beyond a 5th grade level. You're another example of that. Graduating HS doesn't really mean anything anymore, since most high schools are a joke....says the guy who can't spell hypocrite.
I realize you don't understand this yet, but this is slashdot. I type fast to try and get my message out. But its simply not with the time to find all the mistakes in my post. For you I know, there isn't anything else to do. That's ok, in a few years, after living on your own (assuming you can handle it... I'm not so sure) you'll realize this.
I didn't say that rapists have a right to rape, only that people need to defend themselves. Which is possible - controlling your life by carrying a knife, or controlling someone else's life by finding out who's about to rape someone?
If you say its the victims fault that they were raped, that means its NOT the rapists fault. How will carrying a knife help if you are snuck up on? Its not always possible to defend yourself, yet you in all cases blame the victim.. and now that you've been called out, you're trying to back pedel.
Ahh. The generation that doesn't beilieve in personal responsibility and relies on the government to raise their children. I can almost uderstand your thinking; you've never actually been in a situation where you needed to defend youself, or needed to feed a starving family. How does your mom feel she raised a selfish dick who would stand by and not give a dying person the basic necesseties of life?
I don't support govermnet 'raising of children.' I've been in situtations were I've had to defend myself, although I've never been close to starving (because I make SURE I have a job to pay for things I need). You claim personal responsiblity, yet if someone isn't responsible and ends up without food, you then claim I'm being selfish. Hmm, nice thinking there. Its the victims fault if she is raped, but someone that gambled away their life, well its not there fault at all is it! Oh and learn to spell "understand!"
And it IS also the rapist's fault, but the rape victim shares equal responsibiliy except in extreme cases like gang rape.
Your exact words: "If you make a conscious decision not to protect yourself, for any reason, you accept the consequences." So even in the case of gang rape, according to this statement, its the victims fault. Again, more back peddeling.
That doesn't even make sense... Internet access is a want, and if I'm not hurting anyone and want it badly, I will use it. Your reasoning sucks; I'd advise you to read more.
But you are causing them harm, you are stealing from them. We already established this. I think your reasoning is the one thats off; not only do you feel entitled to steal to feed yourself (because you choose not to work for a living) you feel entitled to someone else's luxury. I think you're the one that needs to read more.
I know you don't, because you're an upper-class^W sorry, upper-middle class class fat cat.
Even though I already told you I'm lower to mid middle class, you insist I'm upper middle class. You just don't want to listen, do you? Don't let the facts get in the way of your beliefs, I suppose. Never stopped to think the reason I don't try to feed others is because I'm trying to keep my own life together. But please, continue to think of me as some rich guy lighting my cigar with $100 bills.
You're right. I have a responsibility to feed and clothe myself, and if it means I have to steal from people who are too rich to be affected, I will do it.
They never taught you about rationalization did they? I
That's because its easier to support just one browser, when your site is limited in who views it (that is, its not really public). Why should a corperate intranet or extranet put any effort into supporting anything else? Seriously? Why should Toyota dealers be able to use anything they want?
If its ok for the consumer to do their own format shifting, why is it a problem for a company to offer such a service? The consumer can by the original and the blank; all CC is doing is offering a service.
Also, isn't there a service that you can send your CDs to, and get them back on a DVD as MP3s? I'm pretty sure I recall such a service.
If you are not mistaken, please procide proof. I have never seen a case where it was upheld.
Really, you never ripped a CD into MP3? Check out the Creative case when they first released the Rio. The courts said format shifting was legal, the MPAA claimed it would violate copyrights.
That said, however, the rights actually protected by the U.S. Constitution are rather limited. If it isn't named there, you just don't have it. U.S. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542.
How does that wash with the Ninth and Tenth amendments?
Beyond that, the courts typically presume that a later-enacted thing supercedes any previosly-enacted thing, unless it provides otherwise. Therefore a later-enacted treaty would over-ride any previous statute law. It could not, however, over-ride the U.S. Constitution.
It would seem than that no treaty could override the First Amendment, since it IS part of the constitution, correct?
I don't think you could be any more wrong. The right to be free of unreasonable search & siezure IS the entire point; that is you have the right to privacy (which can also be stated as the right to be left alone) unless there's reasonable suspicion you have done something illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
Just look at history. If you want freedom, then yes, I am right, as our founding fathers were. They looked at history too, and found that pretty much every government abused its citizens. You say the majority of people can decide between total anarchy (which I've never advocated, so I don't know why you're bringing it up) and a dictatorship. Yet the majority doesn't see a need for the second amendment, and a majority of high schoolers don't see a need for the first. Its pretty scary.
The bottom line is that even though the majority doesn't think something should be said, doesn't mean they have any right whatsoever to stop something from being said. Might does not make right, and what I see happening more and more is the majority stomping even more on the minority than before. Everybody IS wrong because they are violating the rights of others.
Again, I have no idea why you're bringing up total anarchy; I've never advocated it, and can only assume you're trying to paint me as such to 'prove' your point. You're free to ignore history and our constitution all you want.. but that doesn't make it 'right.'
The problem is all the spectrum is being hogged up with the analog cable channels. The cable companies are itching to get rid of these - once the price point is low enough on set top boxes so they can give them for free to anyone who needs them, you're going to see available bandwidth over coax explode.
Adelphia already got rid of them. They programed the boxes over thier wires. So far, my internet connection has yet to see a speed boost, and the box now frequently 'drops' frames and sound. Its very frustrating to watch TV to have the picture freeze, start again (after missing a few seconds) and then have the sound out of sync. These problems started when they went all digital.
No thanks, I'll take the FTTH from the city, when it comes in a few months.
Did you ever think you're losing interest because they aren't targeting you (because its harder than targeting 18-35 year olds)?
I think there is enough pressure already put on by the loss of parking fees the city would have been able to charge. No need to catch innocent people.
FWIW, its not moral to hold a person hostage over a contract dispute; nor should it be moral (or legal) to hold a 3rd parties property hostage.
Open source != GPL. I worked for a company that built web applications in ASP (with allthe logic contained in the page). It was open source in the sense they could see and modify it, but they were not allowed to redistribute it.
Your arguement falls apart in that the city does actually own the garage and the equipment in it, and thus had every right to remove whoever it chose.
What this is more akin to is a hospital, which owns the equipment, stops paying licensing fees for software running the equipment, and tried to get someone else to make it run.
Your analogy sucks, and is not even necessary. You don't need to say 'see, its like this.' We are all familar with what the issues are. Your argument based on your analogy sucks even more.
You bought most Mac games because you didn't have much of a choice. Assuming all the titles available for PC are available for Linux and Mac, you have the same options PCers do. Suddenly, there's a good chance that your game WON'T be bought, because they buy a competitors game. 100K seems like an awful lot of potential customers, but they are only potential. And in the grand scheme of things, 100K may not even be significate if you're expecting 20 million copies to sell.
Which brings me back to the original point; the cost of doing the testing for a smaller number of sales likely doesn't make it economical to do so. Testing alone may wipe out the Mac sales profits, even if they did get all 100K people to buy the Mac version.
This mean any machine more than a year old can no longer play new PC games!
Huh? That's simply not true. Just before Doom 3 came out, I got a new card, and its most certainly more than a year old. I'm pretty sure it can handle the games of today as well; Doom 3 plays fine, on some of the highest settings. The card wasn't expensive either, $150. Not bad considering it plays the older 3D games better and the current ones today, even though its two years old.
You don't NEED a new computer, nor the latest graphics cards..
I'm not meaning to moralize here. I mean, I can see the reasoning used - "I'm poor, I can't afford to buy it, someone's willing to share it, so why not?"
Why is this any more moral than 'I want to play it but its too crumy to pay for?' If your poor, maybe you should be worrying about how to get out of that situation instead of playing games...
2) Game makers don't generally port to multiple operating systems. I know I'm in the vast minority of users, but I don't have (or want) Windows. I want and use Linux exclusively. PC games are a luxury item to me, and if they aren't on Linux then I don't play them. If PC game makers would ditch DirectX and move to cross platform development, they would extend their markets with almost no added expense.
I'm going to take issue with this, mostly your last comment. The reason is that your last comment TOTALLY ignores QA time. When building websites, we had to test the site in each browser that the client wanted supported. This increased the time, because not only did we have to test in browser X on OS Y, when we found something, we had to go back, make the fix and start testing ALL over again. For a game, the situation is the same, but the testing is (likely) much more involved and time consuming.
Its the old Java addage, but it applies to cross platform development regardless of language; write once, test everywhere.
In the future, quote the original text. It was 'Life, Liberty and Property' for starters..
Oh, I'd also like to point out that during the revolutionary war, there were ALOT of people that DID support Britian as well, and I'm pretty sure it was a pretty bloody war as well too. I guess it depends how bad you want freedom. I'm guessing from your post you'd rather live a slave. Just to make it clear again, I DON'T think we're at a point yet were a revolution is needed, and I'm not advocating that. Just saying that your reasoning isn't really valid, as all those were items were turn at the time of the revolutionary war.
Aside from the obvious problems of legality, morality, and ethical legitimacy of such action, it would probably only make things worse.
Actually, the founders would probably argue there's no moral or ethical issues in this action; indeed they may see it as the ethical and moral thing to do. They DID kill the people taking away their freedoms, did they not? As far as legality goes, well, that's a non-issue. Laws which restrict freedoms are immoral anyway. Laws made by a corrupt goverment are not laws to be respected. Of course all this assumes that one think we've reached the point were a revolution is necessary. I'm not sure we have yet.
Just what am I supposed to do? Go and protest at one of GWB's speeches and get arrested? How will that change anything? How will that help? Will my being in prison make other people more free?
The answer would be yes, you should. This is how progress was made in the civil rights movement. However, its not feasible today. You get arrested and jailed, and that's all people want to hear. You MUST have done something wrong, criminal. Very sad, really.
** Solution: Federal government should get all its money from the states. Then it could not withhold money from the states to get more power. As a bonus, the states could stand up to the federal government by withholding money.
I agree; remove the federal income tax completely, and let the feds get money from the states. The states could then withhold their funding to the federal level, for some aspects (some money MUST be given). The problem with states being able to totally shut down the feds, is that they can totaly shut down the feds.. not quite what we want..
And yet it is to the peoples benefit that this 15 year old mugger is not allowed to mug more people.
Agreed. And the cops could have carried that out, but they have to follow proper process, including getting a warrant. Ripping down the cameras has nothing to do with catching the 15 year old.
And the parent IS responsible for that gun being on his property. Parents do have some responsibility for the actions of the minors in their care.
They do; they could believe they bought it legally though too. It might have nothing at all to do with their kid.
And as far as the laws on handguns being unjust. That is your opinion. It would seem that the majority of the people do not agree with you in this case.
The majority of people don't understand why rights are important. The majority of people don't seem to want freedom anymore, they want a police state. That doesn't make them right either.
Indeed, the entire reason we are supposed to be a republic and not a direct democracy is because the people elected have the duty to ignore knee jerk reactions and calls to action which remove freedom. Alas though, our system finally appears to be breaking down, and the majority of people are going to get what they want.. a police state.
Fair Use is still applying to the consumer though. They don't end up with the new format of the DVD. What good is fair use if not all consumers can exercise it? CC isn't distributing anything; they are offering a copy service for their customers, customers which ARE allowed to have copies for personal use.
$5 isn't exactly 'making money hand over fist.' There is the cost of their employee to run the machine, the cost of the machine in the first place, ongoing maintence of said machine.. that adds up.
I'm not going to try to talk to you about that anymore; it's hopeless.
...says the guy who can't spell hypocrite.
Indeed, you're defeated.
But I have to ask: you were in 5th grade when you were 18?
I was in college when I was 18. Doesn't matter that you're 18 or even about to graduate HS though; I've seen PLENTY of kids come out of HS (barely) and still can't think beyond a 5th grade level. You're another example of that. Graduating HS doesn't really mean anything anymore, since most high schools are a joke.
I realize you don't understand this yet, but this is slashdot. I type fast to try and get my message out. But its simply not with the time to find all the mistakes in my post. For you I know, there isn't anything else to do. That's ok, in a few years, after living on your own (assuming you can handle it... I'm not so sure) you'll realize this.
I didn't say that rapists have a right to rape, only that people need to defend themselves. Which is possible - controlling your life by carrying a knife, or controlling someone else's life by finding out who's about to rape someone?
If you say its the victims fault that they were raped, that means its NOT the rapists fault. How will carrying a knife help if you are snuck up on? Its not always possible to defend yourself, yet you in all cases blame the victim.. and now that you've been called out, you're trying to back pedel.
Ahh. The generation that doesn't beilieve in personal responsibility and relies on the government to raise their children. I can almost uderstand your thinking; you've never actually been in a situation where you needed to defend youself, or needed to feed a starving family. How does your mom feel she raised a selfish dick who would stand by and not give a dying person the basic necesseties of life?
I don't support govermnet 'raising of children.' I've been in situtations were I've had to defend myself, although I've never been close to starving (because I make SURE I have a job to pay for things I need). You claim personal responsiblity, yet if someone isn't responsible and ends up without food, you then claim I'm being selfish. Hmm, nice thinking there. Its the victims fault if she is raped, but someone that gambled away their life, well its not there fault at all is it! Oh and learn to spell "understand!"
And it IS also the rapist's fault, but the rape victim shares equal responsibiliy except in extreme cases like gang rape.
Your exact words: "If you make a conscious decision not to protect yourself, for any reason, you accept the consequences." So even in the case of gang rape, according to this statement, its the victims fault. Again, more back peddeling.
That doesn't even make sense... Internet access is a want, and if I'm not hurting anyone and want it badly, I will use it. Your reasoning sucks; I'd advise you to read more.
But you are causing them harm, you are stealing from them. We already established this. I think your reasoning is the one thats off; not only do you feel entitled to steal to feed yourself (because you choose not to work for a living) you feel entitled to someone else's luxury. I think you're the one that needs to read more.
I know you don't, because you're an upper-class^W sorry, upper-middle class class fat cat.
Even though I already told you I'm lower to mid middle class, you insist I'm upper middle class. You just don't want to listen, do you? Don't let the facts get in the way of your beliefs, I suppose. Never stopped to think the reason I don't try to feed others is because I'm trying to keep my own life together. But please, continue to think of me as some rich guy lighting my cigar with $100 bills.
You're right. I have a responsibility to feed and clothe myself, and if it means I have to steal from people who are too rich to be affected, I will do it.
They never taught you about rationalization did they? I
That's because its easier to support just one browser, when your site is limited in who views it (that is, its not really public). Why should a corperate intranet or extranet put any effort into supporting anything else? Seriously? Why should Toyota dealers be able to use anything they want?
When someone's rights are violated, we all suffer... or something like that.
If its ok for the consumer to do their own format shifting, why is it a problem for a company to offer such a service? The consumer can by the original and the blank; all CC is doing is offering a service.
Also, isn't there a service that you can send your CDs to, and get them back on a DVD as MP3s? I'm pretty sure I recall such a service.
If you are not mistaken, please procide proof. I have never seen a case where it was upheld.
Really, you never ripped a CD into MP3? Check out the Creative case when they first released the Rio. The courts said format shifting was legal, the MPAA claimed it would violate copyrights.
That said, however, the rights actually protected by the U.S. Constitution are rather limited. If it isn't named there, you just don't have it. U.S. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542.
How does that wash with the Ninth and Tenth amendments?
Beyond that, the courts typically presume that a later-enacted thing supercedes any previosly-enacted thing, unless it provides otherwise. Therefore a later-enacted treaty would over-ride any previous statute law. It could not, however, over-ride the U.S. Constitution.
It would seem than that no treaty could override the First Amendment, since it IS part of the constitution, correct?
I don't think you could be any more wrong. The right to be free of unreasonable search & siezure IS the entire point; that is you have the right to privacy (which can also be stated as the right to be left alone) unless there's reasonable suspicion you have done something illegal.