Bull. I bought the ps2, so fuck any 'terms of use' that may or may not come with it. I bought physical property, which i may use however i like. I don't really care if they include a paper that says i can't do this or that with it. Plus the fact that this paper was probably out of site when i purchesed the ps2. The terms of use were not present during the purchase, and once the purchase is complete, they cannot add terms after the fact. I really don't care what the courts or laws have to say about that either. It just doesn't make sense to allow such a thing.
And you're right; you wouldn't get away with leasing a car. But in that case you are basically renting it. So yes i would be wrong to mod the ps2 i bought from blockbuster; not b/c modding was wrong, but b/c i was altering someone elses property. In this case though, the owners were asking someone to mod it.
Right. But the act of modifying it is still not illegal, even though you MIGHT use the extra horsepower to speed (or get away from cops during a bank robbery, as another example).
In your example, how you use the modified car matters. This guy wasn't using the modded ps2s at all. He was merely putting more horsepower into it. If the owner decides to break the law, well thats not this guys fault.
Actually i would argue thats a good excuse. If a society has so many laws that you can't reasonably be expected to know them, perhaps that society should reevaluate the laws.
You'll have another problem: How do you get permission if you aren't allowed to mail them without permission? Asking-for-permission mails ok? How long will it take before every spam asks for permission to send you more information about whatever?
No problem. The person that wants the mail initiates everything. Obviously some things are implied. If i order something, the company fufuling that order may contact me ABOUT THE ORDER (but not to send advertisments for other crap).
The only regulation which the internet needs is the right to deny service so that spammers can't sue their way back into your inbox.
I wasn't talking about internet regulation; this would apply to snail mail as well as phone calls. Basically people have a right to privacy and to be left alone.
If they law they come up with is 'no one may email without your permission', i don't see the problem.
As far as your idea about iding who sends you mail; you can do that. Just tell everyone that if they want to email you, they need pgp and have to sign every email. Then you can setup something that deletes any emails that are signed digitally.
Not true. AOL had IMs way before they had AIM. But at that time, the only way to IM would be to have AOL. AIM just lets you get to the IM feature of aol without having aol.
That was a much better radio station before ClearChannel bought them, which if i remember was 98. The station actually had its own 'personality' and didn't sound like every other station in the country.
Plus, it seemed like they actually cared about the commercials they played, in that there were no loud ones, or ones with some guy screaming at the top of his lungs to sell you a car.
Of course the best part was they played mostly the rock that college people listened to (which i was when i was living in rochester).
If a software application representing 5000 hours uses GPL code that reflects only 100 hours, is the GPL fair in its argument that the entire product is GPL?
Then let them invest the 100 hours to reimplement the code, on their own of course.
After all, if proprietary software vendors don't like the terms of a software license, they should not reasonably be expected to abide by it.
Good, then as a customer i can be expected to do the same. Why should anyone else abide by licenses they don't like if proprietary software vendors don't have to?
So bang on as far as our freedoms go, but do recognize that time not spent watching television won't be productive by default.
Exactly, and there's a good reason for this. Most of us spend all day being productive, so this 'wasted' time to me isn't really wasted, its called relaxing.
Would permiting speeding psychologically harm others by increasing fear of drastic bodily harm via auto accidents?
I see people speed, it doesn't scare me. its when they are being impatient and agressive that make me think somethings going to happen. Even then though, i am glad they are moving further away from me faster. I think the reason i'm not scared though is b/c i'm paying close attention and have confidence in my ability to avoid an accident. Which brings me to the cause of most accidents; people either are not paying enough attention (driving ALWAYS must come first to everything else you're doing in the car), or they are being careless.
And if so, do the fearful deserve compensation?
No. No one deserves compensation b/c someone else scared them. They need to grow up and handle thier emotions. In the case of driving, if you ARE scared of speeders or being in an accident in general, stay off the highway! Driving is inherently dangerous. If you cannot accept that you might be hurt or killed while driving, you should not be driving. Not everything you do is safe.
Alternately, at what level of probability should a possible transgression be punished?
You do not punish people for things that have not happened. I know for a fact that some people drive 80mph in a 55 zone on i276. i see it EVERYDAY. Yet there's not an accident everyday (nor every month, at least for the time i spend on the road, ~2hrs total. And yes i know thats only 1/12th of the time people are on the road, but those 2 hrs are rush hour which i imagine would have a higher probability of something happening). Giving the number of cars on the road, the number involved in accidents is pretty low.
I mean why not profile people, and if they are (according to the profile) likely to commit some crime, arrest them on the spot?
For instance, should an act that has a low probability of causing harm be forbidden if the unlikely harm is extremely high?
Thats the problem with trying to punish something that hasn't happened. You never really know where to draw the line. I'll admit i speed; but in my 8 years of driving so far, i have never caused an accident. And the ONE i was in was b/c some people where not paying attention, not b/c they were speeding (i believe they WERE doing the speed limit, actually).
If that sort of question interests you, hrm. Nozick's "Anarchy, State and Utopia" might intrigue you. It does NOT promise answers...
I gather its a philosophical book, which always interest me.:-) I'll probably check it out.
But there are crimes I break. I smoke Marijuana, I drive above the speed limit and I serve alcohol to minors (not all at the same time, mind you...). But I'm well aware of the consequences and I feel it is my right to break those laws, just as it is the government's right to punish me for doing so.
Although i would argue that the gov't DOESNT have the right to punish you, since those laws violate your rights or the rights of others. (Speeding != dangerous driving, necessarly. Its only a contributating factor).
It's hard to administer a network when you spend half the day rebooting. Who has time for patches? By the time you punch the clock at the end of the day you pray that the network will hold up until the next day.
I hope you are not an admin speaking for yourslef, or that you are joking. If this really is how it is where you work, you're a pretty piss poor admin.
I'd have to say that my rights are being infringed if i can get a case file started on me just b/c i might say bush is an ass or something to that effect. I wasn't really arguing from a privacy standpoint, but a free speech one.
Slashdot Mirror
Which i thought had been or is being challenged in the courts.
Except when buying a PS2, you're not signing any contract. You exchange money for a physical product. Thats the extent of the agreement.
And i actually believe its illegal for ford (or other car manufacters) to attempt to shut down 'unauthorized' mechanics.
Bull. I bought the ps2, so fuck any 'terms of use' that may or may not come with it. I bought physical property, which i may use however i like. I don't really care if they include a paper that says i can't do this or that with it. Plus the fact that this paper was probably out of site when i purchesed the ps2. The terms of use were not present during the purchase, and once the purchase is complete, they cannot add terms after the fact. I really don't care what the courts or laws have to say about that either. It just doesn't make sense to allow such a thing.
And you're right; you wouldn't get away with leasing a car. But in that case you are basically renting it. So yes i would be wrong to mod the ps2 i bought from blockbuster; not b/c modding was wrong, but b/c i was altering someone elses property. In this case though, the owners were asking someone to mod it.
Right. But the act of modifying it is still not illegal, even though you MIGHT use the extra horsepower to speed (or get away from cops during a bank robbery, as another example).
In your example, how you use the modified car matters. This guy wasn't using the modded ps2s at all. He was merely putting more horsepower into it. If the owner decides to break the law, well thats not this guys fault.
If its legal for him to sell it knowing someone else will install it, why would it be illegal for him to just install it for them?
I fail to see any real difference here. AFAIK making a fake ID is just as illegal as selling them.
Actually i would argue thats a good excuse. If a society has so many laws that you can't reasonably be expected to know them, perhaps that society should reevaluate the laws.
You mean like opening the hood of my car and making modifications so that it runs with more horsepower?
Um, no sorry. What i do in my house is my own buisness.
Lets see you start this ball rolling by installing cameras in your house we can access 24hrs a day 7 days a week.
Or move to a country that already lacks any concept of privacy.
You'll have another problem: How do you get permission if you aren't allowed to mail them without permission? Asking-for-permission mails ok? How long will it take before every spam asks for permission to send you more information about whatever?
No problem. The person that wants the mail initiates everything. Obviously some things are implied. If i order something, the company fufuling that order may contact me ABOUT THE ORDER (but not to send advertisments for other crap).
The only regulation which the internet needs is the right to deny service so that spammers can't sue their way back into your inbox.
I wasn't talking about internet regulation; this would apply to snail mail as well as phone calls. Basically people have a right to privacy and to be left alone.
Its probably costing companies more to deal with it then companies are making off of its 'benefits'
The difference here is that someone is violating your rights.
If they law they come up with is 'no one may email without your permission', i don't see the problem.
As far as your idea about iding who sends you mail; you can do that. Just tell everyone that if they want to email you, they need pgp and have to sign every email. Then you can setup something that deletes any emails that are signed digitally.
Well if the memory fills, it would stop scanning until it cleared some space out i'd imagine. Unless you have a cheap fax.
Companies have not quams about taking advantage of me. Why should i have any over taking advantage of them?
Not true. AOL had IMs way before they had AIM. But at that time, the only way to IM would be to have AOL. AIM just lets you get to the IM feature of aol without having aol.
That was a much better radio station before ClearChannel bought them, which if i remember was 98. The station actually had its own 'personality' and didn't sound like every other station in the country.
Plus, it seemed like they actually cared about the commercials they played, in that there were no loud ones, or ones with some guy screaming at the top of his lungs to sell you a car.
Of course the best part was they played mostly the rock that college people listened to (which i was when i was living in rochester).
Knowing you current location is not that far off from knowing your adress.
Except that knowing your address wont' tell anyone that you go to a strip club every night.
I agree. If you feel he is important, why were you only paying average salray?
If a software application representing 5000 hours uses GPL code that reflects only 100 hours, is the GPL fair in its argument that the entire product is GPL?
Then let them invest the 100 hours to reimplement the code, on their own of course.
After all, if proprietary software vendors don't like the terms of a software license, they should not reasonably be expected to abide by it.
Good, then as a customer i can be expected to do the same. Why should anyone else abide by licenses they don't like if proprietary software vendors don't have to?
So bang on as far as our freedoms go, but do recognize that time not spent watching television won't be productive by default.
Exactly, and there's a good reason for this. Most of us spend all day being productive, so this 'wasted' time to me isn't really wasted, its called relaxing.
Would permiting speeding psychologically harm others by increasing fear of drastic bodily harm via auto accidents?
:-) I'll probably check it out.
I see people speed, it doesn't scare me. its when they are being impatient and agressive that make me think somethings going to happen. Even then though, i am glad they are moving further away from me faster. I think the reason i'm not scared though is b/c i'm paying close attention and have confidence in my ability to avoid an accident. Which brings me to the cause of most accidents; people either are not paying enough attention (driving ALWAYS must come first to everything else you're doing in the car), or they are being careless.
And if so, do the fearful deserve compensation?
No. No one deserves compensation b/c someone else scared them. They need to grow up and handle thier emotions. In the case of driving, if you ARE scared of speeders or being in an accident in general, stay off the highway! Driving is inherently dangerous. If you cannot accept that you might be hurt or killed while driving, you should not be driving. Not everything you do is safe.
Alternately, at what level of probability should a possible transgression be punished?
You do not punish people for things that have not happened. I know for a fact that some people drive 80mph in a 55 zone on i276. i see it EVERYDAY. Yet there's not an accident everyday (nor every month, at least for the time i spend on the road, ~2hrs total. And yes i know thats only 1/12th of the time people are on the road, but those 2 hrs are rush hour which i imagine would have a higher probability of something happening). Giving the number of cars on the road, the number involved in accidents is pretty low.
I mean why not profile people, and if they are (according to the profile) likely to commit some crime, arrest them on the spot?
For instance, should an act that has a low probability of causing harm be forbidden if the unlikely harm is extremely high?
Thats the problem with trying to punish something that hasn't happened. You never really know where to draw the line. I'll admit i speed; but in my 8 years of driving so far, i have never caused an accident. And the ONE i was in was b/c some people where not paying attention, not b/c they were speeding (i believe they WERE doing the speed limit, actually).
If that sort of question interests you, hrm. Nozick's "Anarchy, State and Utopia" might intrigue you. It does NOT promise answers...
I gather its a philosophical book, which always interest me.
But there are crimes I break. I smoke Marijuana, I drive above the speed limit and I serve alcohol to minors (not all at the same time, mind you...). But I'm well aware of the consequences and I feel it is my right to break those laws, just as it is the government's right to punish me for doing so.
Although i would argue that the gov't DOESNT have the right to punish you, since those laws violate your rights or the rights of others. (Speeding != dangerous driving, necessarly. Its only a contributating factor).
(after all, they cancelled Star Trek).
The majority of my tv time is actually spent watching star trek.
It's hard to administer a network when you spend half the day rebooting. Who has time for patches? By the time you punch the clock at the end of the day you pray that the network will hold up until the next day.
I hope you are not an admin speaking for yourslef, or that you are joking. If this really is how it is where you work, you're a pretty piss poor admin.
I'd have to say that my rights are being infringed if i can get a case file started on me just b/c i might say bush is an ass or something to that effect. I wasn't really arguing from a privacy standpoint, but a free speech one.