Because Isreal is a jewsish state and introducing millions of muslims into it's population as first class citizens would break a covenant with God.
No, introducing millions of first-class muslim citizens would simply destroy the concept of "The Jewish State" (the Zionist dream), allowing no refuge for persecuted Jews from around the world to go to.
If copyright infringement is worse than just "copyright infringement", why stop there? Copyright infringers are not just thieves of creative meterial, they are also murderers of creativity and the incentive to create. They're also robbing bastards that kidnap the income from poor authors who got into the business thinking they're going to get paid big.
Oh - that's why its called "pirating".
Give me a break - copyright infringement is unauthorized copying. Nothing is being stolen, nothing is being murdered, the term "theft" and "piracy" are misleading propoganda. There is nothing that can justify copyright in its current form and violation of copyright restrictions is the natural consequence.
It is unlikely that you will get the comments right if you got the code wrong. Logical problems in code result from local misunderstandings which would affect the comments as well.
Doubling everything into comments is not a great way to find typos - tests are.
If you divide your code into very small functions (very few coders do this correctly), identifying code correctness becomes easier because you can see if the function is doing what its name is saying it is doing.
This also means that you need to have very good naming schemes which make the functionality clear from the name, as well as strict conventions about what side-effects are allowed and how.
In my code, I can identify the vast majority of mistakes this way. When I can't, its usually because of something from the "big picture" that I've missed. Having the same code written twice (once in a comment) doesn't help you find such mistakes.
Bah - its not "formal CS training" that's needed, its CS training.
Anyone can do his own CS training. Good things to do are to read about algorithms, complexity, learn C/assembly, etc. Read about data structures, implement them.
Ofcourse - do you think we'll ever see C dominating the language popularity as it has before?
Besides, C (and its horrid standard string library) is correctly attributed to many security problems, which is a good reason to abandon it (at least the library).
What can be written in code - should not be in comments.
The reason Perl programmers think lots of comments are good is because they tend to write their program twice. Once in obfuscated Perl code, and the other in some Python-like/English code within comments.
Given that you can call any new set of laws that involve the payment of authors "copyright laws", sure you can "fix" them by turning them around completely.
I believe that now that as copying becomes easier:
Restricting it becomes more and more of a burden on society.
The "Barrier of Entry" is minimized such that almost anyone can start his own authorship at home - reducing the required incentive to innovate and author works.
As copyright is supposed to balance Restrictions against the Required Incentive, it is becoming less and less necessary, while becoming more and more of a burden.
As an example, look at how increasingly competetive Free Software is becoming to properiaty software even now, when copyright gives a huge incentive to create software at the expense of a huge burden to society.
If Copyright no longer exists, some of the Free Market forces currently utilized to promote properiety software will be utilized to promote Free Software. This seems paradoxical to many, but even now a lot of Free Software is already developed for decent pays.
Since the Properiety model is inherently less efficient as well (requiring reimplementation of a lot of existing work due to licensing issues), those Free Market forces will be utilized more efficiently in the making of Free Software.
Now, I have to admit I don't really know what you were trying to get at with this (dubiously valid) observation. Can you explain further, please?
Why is it dubiously valid? When did copyright ever affect individuals before the digital age?
My point was that the original inventors of American copyright restrictions (contrary to common belief) did not deem it valid to place such restrictions on individuals. Even if we take for granted that the "Founding Fathers" were right on every issue it still does not mean we as individuals should be restricted by copyright.
As for RMS, I read his writings once, and I thought: "What a smart guy... makes sense to me!" Fortunately, I'm not twelve years old anymore.
Do you have any specific point RMS makes about copyright that you can refute?
And if everything is free, where exactly are you going to work? All software and copyrights being free equals many people being out of jobs.
"Free" is "Freedom", not price. You can still sell Free(dom) software, and its development.
For example, a firm needs software to do something -> a firm pays someone who develops it.
A government wants localization of Free Software -> government pays someone to do it.
I don't see how, nowadays, when the "barrier of entry" to program software is practically nil, people still think that we need special restricting laws to aid the Free Market in the generation of its software commodities.
But society decided long ago that that's a sacrifice we're willing to make in order to promote creativity.
That's exactly the thing - that decision was made before the digital age. Copyright was never meant to affect the individual. In its original conception, copyright only affected corporations - those with the ability to copy.
Copyright is not there to promote "Creativity" but to promote "Science and Useful arts" which according to the original interpretations (original copyright laws), means promoting the Public Domain. Copyright has since long stopped promoting the Public Domain.
Lets assume that the original copyright laws were a good balance between the restrictions on individuals and the promotion of the Public Domain. Consider that the original laws: A) Had everything go into the public domain in 14 years by default or 28 years if extended. B) Restricted copying when it was a difficult and expensive operation not carried out by individuals C) Came to promote the Public Domain and to stop NDA's and information secrecy (by offering an alternate way to profit than NDA's/secrecy)
Now consider that current laws: A) Have everything never go into the public domain (thus not promoting Science and Useful arts as specified and originally interpreted) B) Restrict copying which is virtually costless (a very heavy restriction on every individual in the world today). C) Encourage information secrecy by granting copyrights even on things such as binary data that does not promote Science and Useful arts via inspiration of new works.
I would say that the old-time balance of copyright was definitely violated.
I don't expect you to fully understand this. Maybe when you're a little older. Sorry if I sound patronizing, and I don't mean to be hurtful, but I don't have the time right now to color my writing in rose for you.
It was not me you were referring to, but I hold the same oppinions. From my experience, it is the young and ignorant who support copyright in its current form.
If you want to educate yourself, please read some of Richard Stallman's informative and interesting papers.
could have fooled me. if they're not fond of killing children then why continue to do so ?
Why don't you include some references so we know what the heck you're talking about?
what about the land owned by the arabs pre-48 ? no compensation, no right of return, nothing... another case of where its ok for Israel but not for the arabs.
Compensation? Those arabs left those villages on order from their own leaders, promising "ethnic cleansing" of the region's Jews. Should they be allowed back after they left of their own free will, and given back all of their property?
and thery're treated as second class citizens, and are not really considered "Israelies".
Second-class citizens in what way? Sure, its harder for them to get a job, and its hard for the army to trust them with all the hostilities going on. Hell, regarding the mandatory army service they get a choice whether they want to volunteer.
Arabs and all other citizens of Israel are equal by law and any inequalities are a result of inter-citizen relations. In a non-perfect hostile situation problems amongst citizens arise (See the status of Japense citizens in the US during WWII).
then why let the religious idiots run the country ? why call it a Jewish state and deny rights to people who are not Jewish ?
HUH?! How many in the government are religious? How many were religious in the last 5 governments?
Calling it a "Jewish State" is because its main purpose is to be a sanctuary for Jews from around the world -- what rights exactly are being denied from non-Jews?
just look the other way while their goverment commits horrific acts on their behalf ? kind of reminds me of a certain dictator in Germany.
You see, most Israelis get their information from better sources than you - for example, they serve in the territories during their reserves or they have friends that do. And thus, they see exactly how bad the situation is and what Israel is doing there.
With their vastly superior (to yours) source of information, they decide what Israel is doing is not worse than required in the situation (Putting roadblocks is bad, but far from genocide).
more bs.
Ah, now that I know its BS maybe I should try to go for a trip in an Arab city? Oh, right, it was already tried.
Do you have any evidence? Are you even following up on anything that's happening or just having the typical knee-jerk reaction in favor of "the underdog"?
When people say "Demo-cracy", they mean government of the people. The US is perhaps considered "A federal republic with strong democratic tradition", but people usually say "Democracy" for short.
Where all authorities are in check and can be replaced by free voting - and the people have some influence and some basic rights - its a "democracy".
This may not be the "end-all, be-all" government, but that's not to say it isn't far better than all forms of dictatorships [including the one you propose], and worth the lives of good men willing to die for it.
Its probably not really practical in many of the cases, or too dangerous.
It is also obvious the US also has interests in Iraqi oil - which is why Iraq was liberated and not other countries. To me, that's irrelevant - I still applaud a positive action when I see one, regardless of motive.
Who did Clinton back-stab? When did he lie about meaningful things, without a justifiable reason?
I am personally happy whenever a dictatorship and dictators are being threatened. I have never given a damn about the supposed WMD's but I was happy that another dictatorship will fall.
People deserve a democracy, and any step in that direction is a positive one.
People died to make America a democracy, and to keep it that way. People will die for other democracies, many believe its worth it.
How do you explain then, that the country with the highest use of robots (Japan) has one of the lowest rates of unemployment? How do you explain it being an example of a successful capitalist economy, despite being relatively low on natural resources?
Why are you bringing IP (Intellectual Property, a name for Trade Secrets, Copyrights and Patents) into the discussion about copyrights?
How can they "realize" that it promotes progress more than it stiffles it?
To me it is quite obvious that the many inefficiencies of copyright (The vast majority of work created by authors in the closed-software world, for example, are poor rehashes of work that was already done in the past). In a Free Software world, there's no need to inefficiently reimplement things as a result of copyright restrictions.
A Free Software world does not require wasting resources writing copyright protection schemes, licenses, legislation, policing, etc.
Combine this with the fact that incentive to create intellectual works exists in any case, and with the fact that the free market works even without stupid restrictions on it, and you come up with a simple conclusion: Copyright hinders progress ever since the digital revolution.
but when you violate their copyright you just look like an immature criminal.
But people don't care what they "look" like, at least not when they're copying music.
People just don't believe in the morality of the copyright laws, and don't believe that it is practically changable in the politic situation these days.
Continuously violating copyright has the potential of finally killing it, and many see this as a very fortune outcome.
In KDE 3 they just click the MP3 files for them to be enqueued in their Noatun application.
In KDE 3 users can organize their separate tasks into separate desktops. In Windows they have to take the time and effort and download one of the (half-assed, if I may add) desktop support applications. Windows today takes time and effort to get the functionality that usually comes without any help on their part on KDE 3.
Microsoft, as any huge company willing to abuse its power and resources is effectively above the law. As such, it will not be destroyed by the law.
The only ways it can be destroyed are:
The far-fetched scenario by which they fail to prevent the spread of Free Software to desktops.
The more reasonable scenario in which some other entity effectively above the law and with more power than Microsoft (some branch of government) decides that Microsoft needs to go. In such a case, the Corporation death penalty or such might actually be used.
At least gcc 3.3.2 (what I tested on), yields a: "warning: will never be executed" warning if compiled with "-Wunreachable-code" (in addition to -Wall, which does not really add "all" warnings).
This is because "&& (uid = 0)" always yields false, and the "then" part of the if never runs.
Maybe its a good idea to compile OpenSource code with all these warnings turned on:)
Slashdot Mirror
Because Isreal is a jewsish state and introducing millions of muslims into it's population as first class citizens would break a covenant with God.
No, introducing millions of first-class muslim citizens would simply destroy the concept of "The Jewish State" (the Zionist dream), allowing no refuge for persecuted Jews from around the world to go to.
Any evidence for these claims?
You seem to be spouting quite a bit of unbased propoganda yourself.
Do you have any evidence to these claims?
Did Arutz Sheva even TRY to get legal permission to broadcast?
And if you want government enforcement - sue.
If copyright infringement is worse than just "copyright infringement", why stop there?
Copyright infringers are not just thieves of creative meterial, they are also murderers of creativity and the incentive to create. They're also robbing bastards that kidnap the income from poor authors who got into the business thinking they're going to get paid big.
Oh - that's why its called "pirating".
Give me a break - copyright infringement is unauthorized copying. Nothing is being stolen, nothing is being murdered, the term "theft" and "piracy" are misleading propoganda. There is nothing that can justify copyright in its current form and violation of copyright restrictions is the natural consequence.
It is unlikely that you will get the comments right if you got the code wrong. Logical problems in code result from local misunderstandings which would affect the comments as well.
Doubling everything into comments is not a great way to find typos - tests are.
If you divide your code into very small functions (very few coders do this correctly), identifying code correctness becomes easier because you can see if the function is doing what its name is saying it is doing.
This also means that you need to have very good naming schemes which make the functionality clear from the name, as well as strict conventions about what side-effects are allowed and how.
In my code, I can identify the vast majority of mistakes this way. When I can't, its usually because of something from the "big picture" that I've missed. Having the same code written twice (once in a comment) doesn't help you find such mistakes.
This redundancy leads to difficulties in maintaining the synchronization, double-cost of all changes, etc.
It also means that your code is not readable enough by itself and someone has to decipher it and if it really is doing what the comments are doing.
This is why no good coder duplicates his work or code when he can avoid it - not even in comments.
Bah - its not "formal CS training" that's needed, its CS training.
Anyone can do his own CS training. Good things to do are to read about algorithms, complexity, learn C/assembly, etc. Read about data structures, implement them.
Ofcourse - do you think we'll ever see C dominating the language popularity as it has before?
Besides, C (and its horrid standard string library) is correctly attributed to many security problems, which is a good reason to abandon it (at least the library).
What can be written in code - should not be in comments.
The reason Perl programmers think lots of comments are good is because they tend to write their program twice. Once in obfuscated Perl code, and the other in some Python-like/English code within comments.
Given that you can call any new set of laws that involve the payment of authors "copyright laws", sure you can "fix" them by turning them around completely.
I believe that now that as copying becomes easier:
Restricting it becomes more and more of a burden on society.
The "Barrier of Entry" is minimized such that almost anyone can start his own authorship at home - reducing the required incentive to innovate and author works.
As copyright is supposed to balance Restrictions against the Required Incentive, it is becoming less and less necessary, while becoming more and more of a burden.
As an example, look at how increasingly competetive Free Software is becoming to properiaty software even now, when copyright gives a huge incentive to create software at the expense of a huge burden to society.
If Copyright no longer exists, some of the Free Market forces currently utilized to promote properiety software will be utilized to promote Free Software. This seems paradoxical to many, but even now a lot of Free Software is already developed for decent pays.
Since the Properiety model is inherently less efficient as well (requiring reimplementation of a lot of existing work due to licensing issues), those Free Market forces will be utilized more efficiently in the making of Free Software.
Now, I have to admit I don't really know what you were trying to get at with this (dubiously valid) observation. Can you explain further, please?
Why is it dubiously valid? When did copyright ever affect individuals before the digital age?
My point was that the original inventors of American copyright restrictions (contrary to common belief) did not deem it valid to place such restrictions on individuals. Even if we take for granted that the "Founding Fathers" were right on every issue it still does not mean we as individuals should be restricted by copyright.
As for RMS, I read his writings once, and I thought: "What a smart guy... makes sense to me!" Fortunately, I'm not twelve years old anymore.
Do you have any specific point RMS makes about copyright that you can refute?
And if everything is free, where exactly are you going to work? All software and copyrights being free equals many people being out of jobs.
"Free" is "Freedom", not price.
You can still sell Free(dom) software, and its development.
For example, a firm needs software to do something -> a firm pays someone who develops it.
A government wants localization of Free Software -> government pays someone to do it.
I don't see how, nowadays, when the "barrier of entry" to program software is practically nil, people still think that we need special restricting laws to aid the Free Market in the generation of its software commodities.
But society decided long ago that that's a sacrifice we're willing to make in order to promote creativity.
That's exactly the thing - that decision was made before the digital age. Copyright was never meant to affect the individual. In its original conception, copyright only affected corporations - those with the ability to copy.
Copyright is not there to promote "Creativity" but to promote "Science and Useful arts" which according to the original interpretations (original copyright laws), means promoting the Public Domain. Copyright has since long stopped promoting the Public Domain.
Lets assume that the original copyright laws were a good balance between the restrictions on individuals and the promotion of the Public Domain. Consider that the original laws:
A) Had everything go into the public domain in 14 years by default or 28 years if extended.
B) Restricted copying when it was a difficult and expensive operation not carried out by individuals
C) Came to promote the Public Domain and to stop NDA's and information secrecy (by offering an alternate way to profit than NDA's/secrecy)
Now consider that current laws:
A) Have everything never go into the public domain (thus not promoting Science and Useful arts as specified and originally interpreted)
B) Restrict copying which is virtually costless (a very heavy restriction on every individual in the world today).
C) Encourage information secrecy by granting copyrights even on things such as binary data that does not promote Science and Useful arts via inspiration of new works.
I would say that the old-time balance of copyright was definitely violated.
I don't expect you to fully understand this. Maybe when you're a little older. Sorry if I sound patronizing, and I don't mean to be hurtful, but I don't have the time right now to color my writing in rose for you.
It was not me you were referring to, but I hold the same oppinions. From my experience, it is the young and ignorant who support copyright in its current form.
If you want to educate yourself, please read some of Richard Stallman's informative and interesting papers.
could have fooled me. if they're not fond of killing children then why continue to do so ?
Why don't you include some references so we know what the heck you're talking about?
what about the land owned by the arabs pre-48 ? no compensation, no right of return, nothing... another case of where its ok for Israel but not for the arabs.
Compensation? Those arabs left those villages on order from their own leaders, promising "ethnic cleansing" of the region's Jews. Should they be allowed back after they left of their own free will, and given back all of their property?
and thery're treated as second class citizens, and are not really considered "Israelies".
Second-class citizens in what way? Sure, its harder for them to get a job, and its hard for the army to trust them with all the hostilities going on. Hell, regarding the mandatory army service they get a choice whether they want to volunteer.
Arabs and all other citizens of Israel are equal by law and any inequalities are a result of inter-citizen relations. In a non-perfect hostile situation problems amongst citizens arise (See the status of Japense citizens in the US during WWII).
then why let the religious idiots run the country ? why call it a Jewish state and deny rights to people who are not Jewish ?
HUH?! How many in the government are religious? How many were religious in the last 5 governments?
Calling it a "Jewish State" is because its main purpose is to be a sanctuary for Jews from around the world -- what rights exactly are being denied from non-Jews?
just look the other way while their goverment commits horrific acts on their behalf ? kind of reminds me of a certain dictator in Germany.
You see, most Israelis get their information from better sources than you - for example, they serve in the territories during their reserves or they have friends that do. And thus, they see exactly how bad the situation is and what Israel is doing there.
With their vastly superior (to yours) source of information, they decide what Israel is doing is not worse than required in the situation (Putting roadblocks is bad, but far from genocide).
more bs.
Ah, now that I know its BS maybe I should try to go for a trip in an Arab city? Oh, right, it was already tried.
How many counter-examples are there?
What "genocide" are you talking about exactly?
Do you have any evidence? Are you even following up on anything that's happening or just having the typical knee-jerk reaction in favor of "the underdog"?
I don't. If on the way to murdering somebody you helped an old lady cross the street then I would still insist that you go to jail.
Reread your own reply to see its utter lack of connection to the motive/action issue.
When people say "Demo-cracy", they mean government of the people. The US is perhaps considered "A federal republic with strong democratic tradition", but people usually say "Democracy" for short.
Where all authorities are in check and can be replaced by free voting - and the people have some influence and some basic rights - its a "democracy".
This may not be the "end-all, be-all" government, but that's not to say it isn't far better than all forms of dictatorships [including the one you propose], and worth the lives of good men willing to die for it.
All those people also deserve Democracies.
Load planes with bombs - I say.
Its probably not really practical in many of the cases, or too dangerous.
It is also obvious the US also has interests in Iraqi oil - which is why Iraq was liberated and not other countries. To me, that's irrelevant - I still applaud a positive action when I see one, regardless of motive.
Who did Clinton back-stab? When did he lie about meaningful things, without a justifiable reason?
I am personally happy whenever a dictatorship and dictators are being threatened. I have never given a damn about the supposed WMD's but I was happy that another dictatorship will fall.
People deserve a democracy, and any step in that direction is a positive one.
People died to make America a democracy, and to keep it that way. People will die for other democracies, many believe its worth it.
How do you explain then, that the country with the highest use of robots (Japan) has one of the lowest rates of unemployment?
How do you explain it being an example of a successful capitalist economy, despite being relatively low on natural resources?
Why are you bringing IP (Intellectual Property, a name for Trade Secrets, Copyrights and Patents) into the discussion about copyrights?
How can they "realize" that it promotes progress more than it stiffles it?
To me it is quite obvious that the many inefficiencies of copyright (The vast majority of work created by authors in the closed-software world, for example, are poor rehashes of work that was already done in the past). In a Free Software world, there's no need to inefficiently reimplement things as a result of copyright restrictions.
A Free Software world does not require wasting resources writing copyright protection schemes, licenses, legislation, policing, etc.
Combine this with the fact that incentive to create intellectual works exists in any case, and with the fact that the free market works even without stupid restrictions on it, and you come up with a simple conclusion: Copyright hinders progress ever since the digital revolution.
but when you violate their copyright you just look like an immature criminal.
But people don't care what they "look" like, at least not when they're copying music.
People just don't believe in the morality of the copyright laws, and don't believe that it is practically changable in the politic situation these days.
Continuously violating copyright has the potential of finally killing it, and many see this as a very fortune outcome.
In KDE 3 they just click the MP3 files for them to be enqueued in their Noatun application.
In KDE 3 users can organize their separate tasks into separate desktops. In Windows they have to take the time and effort and download one of the (half-assed, if I may add) desktop support applications. Windows today takes time and effort to get the functionality that usually comes without any help on their part on KDE 3.
The only ways it can be destroyed are:
The far-fetched scenario by which they fail to prevent the spread of Free Software to desktops.
The more reasonable scenario in which some other entity effectively above the law and with more power than Microsoft (some branch of government) decides that Microsoft needs to go. In such a case, the Corporation death penalty or such might actually be used.
(When properly configured).
:)
At least gcc 3.3.2 (what I tested on), yields a: "warning: will never be executed" warning if compiled with "-Wunreachable-code" (in addition to -Wall, which does not really add "all" warnings).
This is because "&& (uid = 0)" always yields false, and the "then" part of the if never runs.
Maybe its a good idea to compile OpenSource code with all these warnings turned on