I really hate statements to this effect. Not because the principle isn't true. Sure, you're right; objectivity, in the strictest sense of the word, is impossible. However, that doesn't justify slanting what is advertised as an implicitly objective forum with intentional bias.
Although there is no such thing as "unbiased reporting," that fact shouldn't lead you to the conclusion that the pursuit of objectivity is pointless endeavor. It's like deciding to close your eyes while driving because of the assertion that car accidents are sometimes beyond control.
There are many court cases setting the limits, of course. However, the "Privatkopie" right is quite broad, and it does include making a few (the generally agreed limit is 5 or 6 in total) copies for friends.
What about my friends on Kazaa? If one were to make a P2P client that only gave out at most five copies of any given file, would it be legal according to German law?
The rebuttal for weak dependence is, if the morals exist independent of God and we have unrestrained (non-interfering) free will, there is no requirement for God at all. He cannot interfere to drive us toward morality, and he cannot be the source of morality; he is unneeded in the theory. Ockham's Razor implies that if something is unneeded to explain a theory, it is probably not part of the theory. As such, weak dependence combined with unrestrained free will yields a weak proof of non-existence.
The trouble is that Ockham's Razor is a principle involving the scientific method with regard to physical studies. Since God is a meta-physical being (or concept, if you wish), Ockham's Razor doesn't apply. As a matter of fact, no scientific principle can prove or disprove any meta-physical concept because we lack the means to verifiably experiment on such matters.
Furthermore, the debunking of Devine Command Theory doesn't automatically lend itself to the assertion that God doesn't exist. All it establishes is that the standards of morality exist independently of God or His commands. This, despite the fact that God AND His commands may be coincidently be classified as undeniably good.
The establishment of Free Will doesn't prevent God from ever "interfering." Many events (like the recent Tsunami) occur as a result of circumstances completely out of human control/choice. What prevents God from acting on events outside of human choice? Also, we know from psychology that things such as music, smells, colors, and so on can have power effects upon the disposition and mood of people. Even with Free Will established what prevents God from doing influencing human affairs in a subtle way such as this?
There's a problem of vantage point when we attempt to establish moral principles like the one you did above ("The murder of an innocent person can never be a moral/ethical obligation.") and apply them to a higher being. First of all, we don't know what happens after we die. Perhaps there is some sort of compensation for those slain by acts of God. We don't know. Secondly, our approach to morality and justice is limited by our lack of understanding with regard to the future and all possible permutations resulting from any given decision. It's easy for us to condemn the death of an innocent person as a categorically evil event, and yet, we have no way of measuring how "good" the reverse might have been. What if the recent Tsunami awakens in us, the people of the world, a spirit of common humanity that transcends cultures, and ultimately starts the process towards ending all wars worldwide--having a net-beneficial effect upon innocent people of the future? If this were the case (for the sake of the discussion), wouldn't then such an intuitively terrible event be for the better? Regardless, we don't know the future. Therefore, any system of ethics we can devise MUST condemn such events as terrible. However, that doesn't mean a meta-physical being such as God has that same, limited perspective AND resulting moral principles. In fact, given your definition (omnipotent, omniscient, etc.), God's vantage point is nothing like ours, making any attempt at applying our systems of ethics to God inherently flawed.
This isn't *just* about some users getting more bandwidth than they are paying for. Messing with some of the settings can seriously screw up the network for everyone.
For instance, on most cable modems the upload bandwidth is much smaller than the download. Why? Because there is an issue known as a "hidden node" that affects the many-to-one side of communications (the upstream). Suffice it to say that without this limit, service can be seriously degraded to the point of non-functionality to *everyone* on that part of the network. The cable company knows this, but dollars-to-donuts the script kiddie screwing with the settings won't.
And that's just one setting. As another poster commented, others like dB can cause even worse problems.
No, trust that the cable company *does* care and rightfully so.
Why should one HAVE to do that [factor piracy into sales]? Because software pirates say so?
No, you factor it in because the reality of the situation (not pirates) dictates it. It's like factoring the cost of the locks on the doors when you build your house. The fact that some people ignore such an unnatural convention as "intellectual property," is a reality no different than the fact that some people will steal.
Which doesn't matter. You don't have the right to pirate something just because you think the price is too high.
I don't think he was saying that. Simple economics dictates that the price match the highest price the market could bear. It should be no wonder that a company that a company whose price is too high would go out of business.
Just because current IP laws allow you to get literally something for tangibly nothing, that shouldn't lead to the conclusion that you can charge anything you want. The fundamentals of economics still apply, and I believe that was the purpose of the original poster's statement.
This is the piracy justification I posted about elsewhere in this thread. This is where you start offering reasons and defense for the piracy. You blame it on the software company. "I've decided your software was too expensive, and you made bad decisions! You should just accept piracy because it's your fault!" This is the same reasoning software pirates use so that they don't feel guilty about their behavior. When you point this out to them, they often lash out. Here on Slashdot, that lashing usually comes in the form of downmods.
Now wait a minute. Sure some posters/mods on slashdot are merely apologetic with regard to piracy, but that doesn't change the fact that there are serious and legitimate problems with our IP laws as they exist today. Not only that, but some people, myself included, aren't convinced that the concepts of physical ownership should apply to things as diffuse and indefinable as an idea.
While I admit I feel the story you describe is quite unfortunate and probably happens more often than most slashdotters would think, I feel you're missing the greater question: Would stricter IP legislation/enforcement have a net beneficial effect on a small software development house like the one in your example?
I don't think it would. Take the article, for instance. So the FBI busts a college kid sharing 13,000 files. Do you actually think those files were small business applications? No... they weren't. They were movies, songs and maybe a few Microsoft/Adobe programs, and that's the only reason he got busted. Face it, the FBI is acting on behalf of big business, and no increase in legislation or enforcement is going to change that. The only people who will be busted for sharing software developed by small developers are people who are sharing big business software/content too.
But let's suppose, for the sake of the argument, that it did. Increased legislation/enforcement saved the mom-and-pop software development house from (arr!) pirates. Let's say that they make so much money that they end up on Microsoft or some other big company's radar. With broad software patents on even things like double-clicking, they will find SOMETHING that infringes. So, back to the courts, we go. Without a patent portfolio of your own for leverage, you can't settle and without virtually unlimited patience and legal funds of a large corporation, a small software house will lose or at least go bankrupt if they win. Out of the pot and into the frying pan.
So, even in our imaginary situation where piracy were completely eliminated, which isn't possible in the information era in which we find ourselves, the small business goes under. And, more interestingly, does so as a direct result of the IP laws/enforcement you posit would save it.
If you see offering torrents of copyrighted material as a social protest on the level of the Montgomery Freedom March, and you really think it's worth moving to Ethiopia to pursue this noble and glorious goal of allowing cheapskate teenagers the world over to download their music instead of buying it, then good luck and Godspeed. [Emphasis mine]
From this one:
...At any rate, back when I cracked and pirated Apple software in the 80's, the word had the same definition that it did today, and we flew the jolly roger proudly.
So, what are you saying here? "Stealing," according to your terms, is only okay if you do it? Or are you arguing that your youthful indiscretions had no effect upon Apple unlike the pirates--arr!--of today, despite the fact that the same arguments of de-valuement could apply?
I think you and a lot of other people are victims of the content industry's deceptive--albeit brilliant--public relations. Instead of justifying why copyright protections are longer than the expected lifespan of the average male in the U.S., we put our debates in terms of teenagers downloading and the disputable losses that may or may not have result. Instead of questioning how it is that our representatives could pass laws so obviously against the people they supposedly represent, we end up talking about our moral obligation to support industries dead-set on continuing business models viable only before the information era in which we find ourselves. Lastly, instead of asking the most important question of all, "Does the current intellectual property regime have a net beneficial effect?", we get caught up in the semantics regarding the ownership of an intangible objects.
That a system is too chaotic to predict on a microlevel does not mean we can't understand or predict it on a macrolevel.
Are they really predicting anything, though? or are they just correllating the average temperature of the earth with the atmospheric composition--without any knowledge at to which one caused the other?
Here's my point. No honest person who has seen the data can deny that carbon production is increasing (and has always been on an exponential rise since the beginning of man) and that this increase is beginning to have an effect upon the planet on a global scale now. But ask five different scientists what that means for the future, and you'll get ten different, conflicting answers.
Moreover, there's no real direct evidence that anything we can realistically do would stop this escalation of carbon production. If you put the carbon composition of the atmosphere on a timeline of human history you get only two points where the exponential trend temporarily levels off: the plague, and the great depression. So, going by the same data, what makes environmentalists think that things like the Kyoto treaty and solar-powered cars will do anything beyond making us feel good about ourselves?
If we're going to fault the Bush administration for ignoring the data, shouldn't we get a grip on it ourselves? Going by history, the only thing that can stop the trend of carbon production is, well, a catastrophe.
The problem with the optimistic idea that Islamic extremists hate the United States because of our failings in international affairs is that, taken as a whole, United States policies have been quite neutral with regard to the Muslim world.
Osama likes to cite reasons like our involvement in Israel as a justification, but take note that he and his ilk never mention the good things the United States has done for the Muslim world such stopping ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, kicking Saddam out of Kuwait, halting Israel's counter-attack of Egypt (after Egypt attacked first), supporting the formation of a Palestinian state, sending relief in the wake of disasters like the recent earthquake in Turkey, and so on. No, the historical reasons they cite are, at best, selective and, at times, revisionist.
The parent was spot-on when he asserted that this is a culture-thing. Islamic extremists don't hate us for what we've done, they hate us because of what we are and the impact that our mere existence (due to globalization) is having upon their way of life. With every McDonalds that opens and every episode of Baywatch that gets aired in an Islamic country, it's becoming harder and harder for the Islamic demagogues to convince their people that the squalor they live in as a direct result of Islamic theocracies/Sharia law is worth it. At some point, it doesn't matter how many virgins you're promised in the afterlife if you're repressed and hungry now.
So, as counter-intuitive as it sounds, there's a lot of truth in the "he hates us because he hates our freedom" statement. Unfortunately, it's rarely ever defended or explained (on TV at least) because it's not an idea that's easily expressed.
Fact 2: regardless of his thoughts, the election results do not make much sense.
No, they don't make sense if you're wrapped-up in the message the democratic party developed this election--"Anybody but Bush!"
I'm not saying that there wasn't fraud. There may have been. We simply don't know, and I hope the authorities thoroughly and publicly investigate every accusation. However, what I am saying is that this notion that fraud must have occurred because John Kerry lost HAS TO STOP.
Like the linked parent's roommate's page, for instance is ridiculous. SO WHAT if the proportion of democratic votes don't match the proportion of registered democrats? Since when is everyone required or even expected to vote along party lines? What if, rather than a national conspiracy of unparalleled magnitude to disenfranchise democrats, people simply voted Republican? What if it turns out that all or at least a disproportionate (>50%) amount of the independent voters (or even conservative democrats), turned off by the Democratic Party's embracement of extremists like Michael Moore (I, a registered Independent, distinctly remember him being ON-STAGE at the national convention), voted Republican?
If the liberal democrats in this country can't accept that their candidate lost without--or at least before--any definitive evidence (and I would hardly classify this guy's nonsensical accusations as that) to prove otherwise, they're only going to marginalize themselves in the minds of reasonable Americans more than they already have. And, even though I voted for Bush, I really hope that doesn't happen. We need a healthy, viable opposition for our system to work.
What's really sad is that Slashdot, a website supposedly for scientifically-minded people can't even understand the basic tenet of science that is "correlation does not equal causation".
All the article said was that they found a correlation between multiple computers in the home and poor academic performance, but that doesn't imply, as the headline states "Too many computers Hurt Learning." It could just mean that spoiled kids with access to computers don't do well in school because they've had everything handed to them. But of course, that wouldn't be as sensational, now would it?
More military->more wars->less humans-> better enviroment
Sadly, the fact of the matter is that is not far from the truth.
People like to advocate decreasing CO2 production as a means for controlling global warming. However, if one puts the CO2 composition of the atmosphere on a timeline of human history they'd find only TWO instances where the exponential trend temporarily declines. These two points in human history? World War II and the Great Depression. Meaning, while lip-service like the Kyoto treaty and the inventions mentioned in this article can't hurt, the only meaningful way to stop the trend is well... a catastrophe.
Either way, a Bush was wrong. So which one was wrong?
Bush Sr.
We shouldn't have stopped at simply kicking them out of Kuwait. It's at that crucial point that we could have instituted a regime change and democratized Iraq with the almost unanimous support of the Arab world. But when the time came for a tough call, Bush Sr. blinked, presumably fearing something similar to the unpredictable situation that we have today or, even worse, heavy losses upon invasion as in Vietnam.
In both cases, however, notice that the U.N. too consumed by its petty squabbling and member states' political antics, stood contrary to the best interests of us (except Saddam Hussein) all in both instances.
So left to their own devices most children would come around on their own. The ones who don't want to can live exciting lives with a grade 10 education.
But you do realize that, in this wonderful democracy of ours, their vote will count just as much--maybe more if they're in Ohio--as yours, right? Will you be so flippant with regard to their education and "exciting lives" when you have to pay more in taxes to help pay for their welfare check and/or jail term?
My point is, our children, including the "dumb" ones, matter. Our FUTURE matters. Children are affected by not only by what we say but also what we do. If we set forth an example that it's OKAY for the authorities to monitor your every movement for our children now, how much easier do you think it will be able to convince them unwarranted searches are similarly okay in the future?
Nobody is policing anybody. The companies are merely suing in civil court because people are stealing (is that the right word? Why yes it is!) their movies.
First of all, no "stealing" is not the right word. Otherwise, why aren't they suing for theft of private property? Why isn't this going to small claims court instead of trials involving oftentimes millions of dollars in damages for what could be, at most, hundreds of dollars in CDs/DVDs? It's COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT; get it right.
Secondly, I think you're right, this isn't policing--it's something far worse: vigilantism (a related sub-set of the word policing; v. 1) via the public courts and an army of lawyers. Copyright infringement of even a single movie can carry a fine of $120,000. With those kinds of damages, it doesn't matter if the person is guilty or not. Risking the financial destitution of you and your loved ones for, at best, public vindication over what is socially, a minor crime (like speeding*) isn't much of a choice. The ?IAAs know this, and that's why they don't continue cases against people who fight back with the legal help of groups like the EFF. As a matter of fact, I don't remember ANY of these cases going all the way to a verdict. This isn't about the law. It's about punishing (via settlements or court/lawyer costs) those whom the content industry deems guilty and scaring the general populace into submission. Their actions go contrary to the very spirit (although you can be sure not the letter) of law and order itself.
-Grym
*-Over sixty-million people (more people than the number of people that voted for the president in the most recent election which some even touted as a "mandate") share copyrighted files.
The beautiful thing is the industry is also raping the public domain.. 75 years ago. Go lord, you watched something that even those with survived WWI watched in their childhood?
The real absurdity of the time limit becomes apparent when you realize that, seventy-five years ago, we were just entering the sound-era in film and Hollywood, as we know it (the bloated, industry that wants these laws the most), didn't even exist.
Even more absurd, the average lifespan of a U.S. male is 77.43 for males (80.36 for females). Meaning, if you're male, you'll probably never be able to experience any of your favorite movies, books, or music--pieces of our common culture and heritage--without paying for it. And if you're female, you're not much better off because you're only LIKELY to see copyrighted material from before your sixth birthday go public domain.
Of course, this whole scenario is paranoid and unrealistic.
Paranoid and unrealistic? I MIGHT have said the same a few years ago, but after witnessing the RIAA suing a 12-year old girl and THEN spinning it as some kind of moral victory against "pirates," I'm not so sure.
For everyone BUT multi-million dollar corporations, intellectual property laws are broke. Now the only real question left is: who among our representatives has the guts to say so?
"...I don't think you would argue the farmers should give their food away for free, because it is tangible, but that you should give away the less tangible intellectual property. Honestly, it sounds backwards. The hard things that are progressive are the things that should be rewarded."
But if genetic material can be considered Intellectual Property, what's the difference between a genetic sequence resulting from meticulous breeding and a genetic sequence resulting from genetic modification? In other words, why should BioTech companies be limited to patent protections when farmers have, in essence, been doing the same thing for centuries? Is it the "millions of dollars in research" or is it, let's be honest, the million-dollar lawyers?
And back to the "millions of dollars in research:" What obligates the government to protect your business model? The fact that you've sank a lot of money into it? If your business model isn't viable without stringent legal enforcement and inconsistent laws, perhaps, rather than litigating us all into submission, it's time to go back to the drawing board. There are a number of ways to turn a profit without even involving IP laws. Although, I suspect the alternatives don't involve the same profit margin, which is why we've ended up in this situation (and a lot of others) to begin with--corporate greed.
Moreover, forgive me if I'm wrong here, but the state of the science with regard to Genetic Modification is, at best, moving genes from one species into another. It's not like engineers are "writing" useful genes base by base. Now, sure, the resulting sequence is new, but the individual sections are old and not protected by IP laws. It's akin to me copying large portions of Hamlet and interjecting an excerpt from the Illiad and then claiming complete ownership of the entire work. In light of this analogy, isn't a bit dishonest to claim that this is "intellectual property"?
The predominant crops in Iraq are barley and wheat, both of which are self-pollinators that do not rely on the wind to propagate.
You're right. Contamination, while possible, isn't likely with the crops being grown in Iraq.
However, one of the most difficult aspects to explain to people is that it doesn't have to be likely for GMO contamination to occur for mass genetic contamination to soon follow.
Here's why: GM crops are, by definition, better at surviving. While we normally think of animals when we think of the word competition, the truth is that all organisms, including plants, compete. Those that compete better, reproduce better, and are, therefore, better represented (proportionally) in subsequent generations. This phenomenon is called natural selection. And the basis for the differences doesn't have to be likely--only possible--for it to have widespread effects.
Look at bacteria. Mutations aren't likely. In fact, the mutational rate in mitochondrial DNA is 1.6 x 10^-7 per site per generation (Evolutionary Analysis, Third Edition). The one for nuclear DNA (I can't find it right now) is even lower. And yet, anti-biotic resistance stemming from these unlikely mutations is becoming ever more problematic to the point where some studies have predicted many antibiotics to soon become completely ineffective.
So, here's an example of the problem: One of the planting seasons, a stray pollen from a GM crop lands in a natural crop and forms a viable offspring with only ONE other plant. We can agree that, while this event is rare in and of itself, it is bound to happen eventually given the number of plants, the amount of pollen, and the time involved. The offspring formed from this union are more resilient than their peers and produce more seeds. Now, let's assume our farmer is dumb and doesn't artificially select for the plants that produced the most. Instead, he randomly picks seeds from his entire crop. The seeds for the next generation have a small amount of the GM seeds in them, but since GM plants compete better, this proportion increases at an exponential rate every season. In fact, given enough time, the GM plants (or at least their descendants) will force the competing plants out of existence. Thus complete genetic contamination occurred, regardless of the fact that the individual event of contamination is rare. Granted, for our example, years, perhaps even decades have passed for the complete change in the crop, but remember, we are assuming that 1.) Contamination only occurs once 2.) No major disruptions (drought, flood, pestilence, etc.) occur, which would dramatically speed up this process and 3.) Our farmer has no fore-thought and doesn't select seeds only from the best plants to put in the next generation.
The real evil thing about all of this is that the genetic engineers (or should I say the corporations) holding the patents know this. All of this is ecology and evolutionary biology 101. But it's not like a judge is going to know that. I guess the prospect of every farmer paying licensing fees every season is too much to resist.
Oh. I didn't read the context of your post within the discussion. Sorry for making the assumption that you were taking that position.
Regardless, I've seen that kind of argument (i.e. "animals do it too!") in the past, and it always irked me a bit.
Conversely, if you can defend intolerance or bigotry of any group of people in anyway, let me know that too. Even if you believe homosexuality is a sin, shouldn't you "hate the sin and love the sinner?"
Nope, you're absolutely right. I do not condone intolerance or bigotry of any group, including homosexuals.
That being said, I'm not convinced that the gay marriage issue constitutes either. Homosexuals aren't being put to death. Homosexuals can vote. Legally, a homosexual has just as many rights as a heterosexual. Moreover, given the fact that hate crime legislation is only enforced for minorities, one could say they have MORE rights than heterosexuals.
I think the gay marriage issue is less about tolerance and more about acceptance. There is a difference. I tolerate the fact that you have a different opinion than I do but that doesn't mean I accept your opinion as right. Groups like GLAAD aren't so much as challenging the idea that people have different opinions as they are about making homosexuality accepted; hence, the challenging of definition of the institution known as "marriage" instead of pursuing other avenues such as civil unions.
In fact, from a purely tolerance standpoint, I would say that the gay marriage issue is a perfect example of the ideological intolerance that politically-correct politics creates. For instance, look at how those who oppose gay marriage are portrayed. They're backwater bigots or bible-thumping zealots rather than people with different opinions.
Yes, actually: there are animals other than man who are homosexual. Zealots brush off this evidence with comments such as "but they don't have souls" or say that leprosy isn't "right" or "normal," even if it is a natural occurance. Of course neither argument is able to defend intolerance to animals, lepers, or gay people.
Regardless of your opinion on the morality of homosexuality, the fact that some animals engage in homosexual behavior is not a good basis for the argument that humans should too. Many animals, including male lions routinely commit infanticide (killing of another male's young). Many animals compete to the death over mates. Lastly, groups of male whales have actually been observed (I've seen the video tape... ugh...) gang-raping female whales. By your logic, should we humans do these things too?
Now, my statement isn't that the natural world is immoral. Quite to the contrary, my statement is that the acts of animals are neither moral nor immoral, simply because animals lack the ability to differentiate what is right or wrong. Humans do, by and large, have this ability. Therefore, justifying behavior for humans by pointing to animals is NOT a valid point.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/zoomquilt.ph p
There's no such thing as "unbiased reporting".
I really hate statements to this effect. Not because the principle isn't true. Sure, you're right; objectivity, in the strictest sense of the word, is impossible. However, that doesn't justify slanting what is advertised as an implicitly objective forum with intentional bias.
Although there is no such thing as "unbiased reporting," that fact shouldn't lead you to the conclusion that the pursuit of objectivity is pointless endeavor. It's like deciding to close your eyes while driving because of the assertion that car accidents are sometimes beyond control.
-Grym
There are many court cases setting the limits, of course. However, the "Privatkopie" right is quite broad, and it does include making a few (the generally agreed limit is 5 or 6 in total) copies for friends.
What about my friends on Kazaa? If one were to make a P2P client that only gave out at most five copies of any given file, would it be legal according to German law?
-Grym
The rebuttal for weak dependence is, if the morals exist independent of God and we have unrestrained (non-interfering) free will, there is no requirement for God at all. He cannot interfere to drive us toward morality, and he cannot be the source of morality; he is unneeded in the theory. Ockham's Razor implies that if something is unneeded to explain a theory, it is probably not part of the theory. As such, weak dependence combined with unrestrained free will yields a weak proof of non-existence.
The trouble is that Ockham's Razor is a principle involving the scientific method with regard to physical studies. Since God is a meta-physical being (or concept, if you wish), Ockham's Razor doesn't apply. As a matter of fact, no scientific principle can prove or disprove any meta-physical concept because we lack the means to verifiably experiment on such matters.
Furthermore, the debunking of Devine Command Theory doesn't automatically lend itself to the assertion that God doesn't exist. All it establishes is that the standards of morality exist independently of God or His commands. This, despite the fact that God AND His commands may be coincidently be classified as undeniably good.
The establishment of Free Will doesn't prevent God from ever "interfering." Many events (like the recent Tsunami) occur as a result of circumstances completely out of human control/choice. What prevents God from acting on events outside of human choice? Also, we know from psychology that things such as music, smells, colors, and so on can have power effects upon the disposition and mood of people. Even with Free Will established what prevents God from doing influencing human affairs in a subtle way such as this?
There's a problem of vantage point when we attempt to establish moral principles like the one you did above ("The murder of an innocent person can never be a moral/ethical obligation.") and apply them to a higher being. First of all, we don't know what happens after we die. Perhaps there is some sort of compensation for those slain by acts of God. We don't know. Secondly, our approach to morality and justice is limited by our lack of understanding with regard to the future and all possible permutations resulting from any given decision. It's easy for us to condemn the death of an innocent person as a categorically evil event, and yet, we have no way of measuring how "good" the reverse might have been. What if the recent Tsunami awakens in us, the people of the world, a spirit of common humanity that transcends cultures, and ultimately starts the process towards ending all wars worldwide--having a net-beneficial effect upon innocent people of the future? If this were the case (for the sake of the discussion), wouldn't then such an intuitively terrible event be for the better? Regardless, we don't know the future. Therefore, any system of ethics we can devise MUST condemn such events as terrible. However, that doesn't mean a meta-physical being such as God has that same, limited perspective AND resulting moral principles. In fact, given your definition (omnipotent, omniscient, etc.), God's vantage point is nothing like ours, making any attempt at applying our systems of ethics to God inherently flawed.
-Grym
Who knows if they'd be that interested though?
This isn't *just* about some users getting more bandwidth than they are paying for. Messing with some of the settings can seriously screw up the network for everyone.
For instance, on most cable modems the upload bandwidth is much smaller than the download. Why? Because there is an issue known as a "hidden node" that affects the many-to-one side of communications (the upstream). Suffice it to say that without this limit, service can be seriously degraded to the point of non-functionality to *everyone* on that part of the network. The cable company knows this, but dollars-to-donuts the script kiddie screwing with the settings won't.
And that's just one setting. As another poster commented, others like dB can cause even worse problems.
No, trust that the cable company *does* care and rightfully so.
-Grym
Why should one HAVE to do that [factor piracy into sales]? Because software pirates say so?
No, you factor it in because the reality of the situation (not pirates) dictates it. It's like factoring the cost of the locks on the doors when you build your house. The fact that some people ignore such an unnatural convention as "intellectual property," is a reality no different than the fact that some people will steal.
Which doesn't matter. You don't have the right to pirate something just because you think the price is too high.
I don't think he was saying that. Simple economics dictates that the price match the highest price the market could bear. It should be no wonder that a company that a company whose price is too high would go out of business.
Just because current IP laws allow you to get literally something for tangibly nothing, that shouldn't lead to the conclusion that you can charge anything you want. The fundamentals of economics still apply, and I believe that was the purpose of the original poster's statement.
This is the piracy justification I posted about elsewhere in this thread. This is where you start offering reasons and defense for the piracy. You blame it on the software company. "I've decided your software was too expensive, and you made bad decisions! You should just accept piracy because it's your fault!" This is the same reasoning software pirates use so that they don't feel guilty about their behavior. When you point this out to them, they often lash out. Here on Slashdot, that lashing usually comes in the form of downmods.
Now wait a minute. Sure some posters/mods on slashdot are merely apologetic with regard to piracy, but that doesn't change the fact that there are serious and legitimate problems with our IP laws as they exist today. Not only that, but some people, myself included, aren't convinced that the concepts of physical ownership should apply to things as diffuse and indefinable as an idea.
-Grym
While I admit I feel the story you describe is quite unfortunate and probably happens more often than most slashdotters would think, I feel you're missing the greater question: Would stricter IP legislation/enforcement have a net beneficial effect on a small software development house like the one in your example?
I don't think it would. Take the article, for instance. So the FBI busts a college kid sharing 13,000 files. Do you actually think those files were small business applications? No... they weren't. They were movies, songs and maybe a few Microsoft/Adobe programs, and that's the only reason he got busted. Face it, the FBI is acting on behalf of big business, and no increase in legislation or enforcement is going to change that. The only people who will be busted for sharing software developed by small developers are people who are sharing big business software/content too.
But let's suppose, for the sake of the argument, that it did. Increased legislation/enforcement saved the mom-and-pop software development house from (arr!) pirates. Let's say that they make so much money that they end up on Microsoft or some other big company's radar. With broad software patents on even things like double-clicking, they will find SOMETHING that infringes. So, back to the courts, we go. Without a patent portfolio of your own for leverage, you can't settle and without virtually unlimited patience and legal funds of a large corporation, a small software house will lose or at least go bankrupt if they win. Out of the pot and into the frying pan.
So, even in our imaginary situation where piracy were completely eliminated, which isn't possible in the information era in which we find ourselves, the small business goes under. And, more interestingly, does so as a direct result of the IP laws/enforcement you posit would save it.
-Grym
From another post:
If you see offering torrents of copyrighted material as a social protest on the level of the Montgomery Freedom March, and you really think it's worth moving to Ethiopia to pursue this noble and glorious goal of allowing cheapskate teenagers the world over to download their music instead of buying it, then good luck and Godspeed. [Emphasis mine]
From this one:
...At any rate, back when I cracked and pirated Apple software in the 80's, the word had the same definition that it did today, and we flew the jolly roger proudly.
So, what are you saying here? "Stealing," according to your terms, is only okay if you do it? Or are you arguing that your youthful indiscretions had no effect upon Apple unlike the pirates--arr!--of today, despite the fact that the same arguments of de-valuement could apply?
I think you and a lot of other people are victims of the content industry's deceptive--albeit brilliant--public relations. Instead of justifying why copyright protections are longer than the expected lifespan of the average male in the U.S., we put our debates in terms of teenagers downloading and the disputable losses that may or may not have result. Instead of questioning how it is that our representatives could pass laws so obviously against the people they supposedly represent, we end up talking about our moral obligation to support industries dead-set on continuing business models viable only before the information era in which we find ourselves. Lastly, instead of asking the most important question of all, "Does the current intellectual property regime have a net beneficial effect?", we get caught up in the semantics regarding the ownership of an intangible objects.
-Grym
That a system is too chaotic to predict on a microlevel does not mean we can't understand or predict it on a macrolevel.
Are they really predicting anything, though? or are they just correllating the average temperature of the earth with the atmospheric composition--without any knowledge at to which one caused the other?
Here's my point. No honest person who has seen the data can deny that carbon production is increasing (and has always been on an exponential rise since the beginning of man) and that this increase is beginning to have an effect upon the planet on a global scale now. But ask five different scientists what that means for the future, and you'll get ten different, conflicting answers.
Moreover, there's no real direct evidence that anything we can realistically do would stop this escalation of carbon production. If you put the carbon composition of the atmosphere on a timeline of human history you get only two points where the exponential trend temporarily levels off: the plague, and the great depression. So, going by the same data, what makes environmentalists think that things like the Kyoto treaty and solar-powered cars will do anything beyond making us feel good about ourselves?
If we're going to fault the Bush administration for ignoring the data, shouldn't we get a grip on it ourselves? Going by history, the only thing that can stop the trend of carbon production is, well, a catastrophe.
-Grym
The problem with the optimistic idea that Islamic extremists hate the United States because of our failings in international affairs is that, taken as a whole, United States policies have been quite neutral with regard to the Muslim world.
Osama likes to cite reasons like our involvement in Israel as a justification, but take note that he and his ilk never mention the good things the United States has done for the Muslim world such stopping ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, kicking Saddam out of Kuwait, halting Israel's counter-attack of Egypt (after Egypt attacked first), supporting the formation of a Palestinian state, sending relief in the wake of disasters like the recent earthquake in Turkey, and so on. No, the historical reasons they cite are, at best, selective and, at times, revisionist.
The parent was spot-on when he asserted that this is a culture-thing. Islamic extremists don't hate us for what we've done, they hate us because of what we are and the impact that our mere existence (due to globalization) is having upon their way of life. With every McDonalds that opens and every episode of Baywatch that gets aired in an Islamic country, it's becoming harder and harder for the Islamic demagogues to convince their people that the squalor they live in as a direct result of Islamic theocracies/Sharia law is worth it. At some point, it doesn't matter how many virgins you're promised in the afterlife if you're repressed and hungry now.
So, as counter-intuitive as it sounds, there's a lot of truth in the "he hates us because he hates our freedom" statement. Unfortunately, it's rarely ever defended or explained (on TV at least) because it's not an idea that's easily expressed.
-Grym
Fact 2: regardless of his thoughts, the election results do not make much sense.
No, they don't make sense if you're wrapped-up in the message the democratic party developed this election--"Anybody but Bush!"
I'm not saying that there wasn't fraud. There may have been. We simply don't know, and I hope the authorities thoroughly and publicly investigate every accusation. However, what I am saying is that this notion that fraud must have occurred because John Kerry lost HAS TO STOP.
Like the linked parent's roommate's page, for instance is ridiculous. SO WHAT if the proportion of democratic votes don't match the proportion of registered democrats? Since when is everyone required or even expected to vote along party lines? What if, rather than a national conspiracy of unparalleled magnitude to disenfranchise democrats, people simply voted Republican? What if it turns out that all or at least a disproportionate (>50%) amount of the independent voters (or even conservative democrats), turned off by the Democratic Party's embracement of extremists like Michael Moore (I, a registered Independent, distinctly remember him being ON-STAGE at the national convention), voted Republican?
If the liberal democrats in this country can't accept that their candidate lost without--or at least before--any definitive evidence (and I would hardly classify this guy's nonsensical accusations as that) to prove otherwise, they're only going to marginalize themselves in the minds of reasonable Americans more than they already have. And, even though I voted for Bush, I really hope that doesn't happen. We need a healthy, viable opposition for our system to work.
-Grym
This is slashdot, that's pretty much a given.
What's really sad is that Slashdot, a website supposedly for scientifically-minded people can't even understand the basic tenet of science that is "correlation does not equal causation".
All the article said was that they found a correlation between multiple computers in the home and poor academic performance, but that doesn't imply, as the headline states "Too many computers Hurt Learning." It could just mean that spoiled kids with access to computers don't do well in school because they've had everything handed to them. But of course, that wouldn't be as sensational, now would it?
-Grym
No, they died because they began to charge 75 cents to a full dollar just to play a single game. No kid can afford that!
-Grym
More military->more wars->less humans-> better enviroment
Sadly, the fact of the matter is that is not far from the truth.
People like to advocate decreasing CO2 production as a means for controlling global warming. However, if one puts the CO2 composition of the atmosphere on a timeline of human history they'd find only TWO instances where the exponential trend temporarily declines. These two points in human history? World War II and the Great Depression. Meaning, while lip-service like the Kyoto treaty and the inventions mentioned in this article can't hurt, the only meaningful way to stop the trend is well... a catastrophe.
-Grym
Either way, a Bush was wrong. So which one was wrong?
Bush Sr.
We shouldn't have stopped at simply kicking them out of Kuwait. It's at that crucial point that we could have instituted a regime change and democratized Iraq with the almost unanimous support of the Arab world. But when the time came for a tough call, Bush Sr. blinked, presumably fearing something similar to the unpredictable situation that we have today or, even worse, heavy losses upon invasion as in Vietnam.
In both cases, however, notice that the U.N. too consumed by its petty squabbling and member states' political antics, stood contrary to the best interests of us (except Saddam Hussein) all in both instances.
-Grym
So left to their own devices most children would come around on their own. The ones who don't want to can live exciting lives with a grade 10 education.
But you do realize that, in this wonderful democracy of ours, their vote will count just as much--maybe more if they're in Ohio--as yours, right? Will you be so flippant with regard to their education and "exciting lives" when you have to pay more in taxes to help pay for their welfare check and/or jail term?
My point is, our children, including the "dumb" ones, matter. Our FUTURE matters. Children are affected by not only by what we say but also what we do. If we set forth an example that it's OKAY for the authorities to monitor your every movement for our children now, how much easier do you think it will be able to convince them unwarranted searches are similarly okay in the future?
-Grym
Nobody is policing anybody. The companies are merely suing in civil court because people are stealing (is that the right word? Why yes it is!) their movies.
First of all, no "stealing" is not the right word. Otherwise, why aren't they suing for theft of private property? Why isn't this going to small claims court instead of trials involving oftentimes millions of dollars in damages for what could be, at most, hundreds of dollars in CDs/DVDs? It's COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT; get it right.
Secondly, I think you're right, this isn't policing--it's something far worse: vigilantism (a related sub-set of the word policing; v. 1) via the public courts and an army of lawyers. Copyright infringement of even a single movie can carry a fine of $120,000. With those kinds of damages, it doesn't matter if the person is guilty or not. Risking the financial destitution of you and your loved ones for, at best, public vindication over what is socially, a minor crime (like speeding*) isn't much of a choice. The ?IAAs know this, and that's why they don't continue cases against people who fight back with the legal help of groups like the EFF. As a matter of fact, I don't remember ANY of these cases going all the way to a verdict. This isn't about the law. It's about punishing (via settlements or court/lawyer costs) those whom the content industry deems guilty and scaring the general populace into submission. Their actions go contrary to the very spirit (although you can be sure not the letter) of law and order itself.
-Grym
*-Over sixty-million people (more people than the number of people that voted for the president in the most recent election which some even touted as a "mandate") share copyrighted files.
Ummm... You do realize that we, fellow American, already do pay a blank media tax, don't you?
It must be good to have the cake and eat it too, eh?
-Grym
The beautiful thing is the industry is also raping the public domain.. 75 years ago. Go lord, you watched something that even those with survived WWI watched in their childhood?
The real absurdity of the time limit becomes apparent when you realize that, seventy-five years ago, we were just entering the sound-era in film and Hollywood, as we know it (the bloated, industry that wants these laws the most), didn't even exist.
Even more absurd, the average lifespan of a U.S. male is 77.43 for males (80.36 for females). Meaning, if you're male, you'll probably never be able to experience any of your favorite movies, books, or music--pieces of our common culture and heritage--without paying for it. And if you're female, you're not much better off because you're only LIKELY to see copyrighted material from before your sixth birthday go public domain.
-Grym
Of course, this whole scenario is paranoid and unrealistic.
Paranoid and unrealistic? I MIGHT have said the same a few years ago, but after witnessing the RIAA suing a 12-year old girl and THEN spinning it as some kind of moral victory against "pirates," I'm not so sure.
For everyone BUT multi-million dollar corporations, intellectual property laws are broke. Now the only real question left is: who among our representatives has the guts to say so?
-Grym
"...That and spending millions in research...."
"...I don't think you would argue the farmers should give their food away for free, because it is tangible, but that you should give away the less tangible intellectual property. Honestly, it sounds backwards. The hard things that are progressive are the things that should be rewarded."
But if genetic material can be considered Intellectual Property, what's the difference between a genetic sequence resulting from meticulous breeding and a genetic sequence resulting from genetic modification? In other words, why should BioTech companies be limited to patent protections when farmers have, in essence, been doing the same thing for centuries? Is it the "millions of dollars in research" or is it, let's be honest, the million-dollar lawyers?
And back to the "millions of dollars in research:" What obligates the government to protect your business model? The fact that you've sank a lot of money into it? If your business model isn't viable without stringent legal enforcement and inconsistent laws, perhaps, rather than litigating us all into submission, it's time to go back to the drawing board. There are a number of ways to turn a profit without even involving IP laws. Although, I suspect the alternatives don't involve the same profit margin, which is why we've ended up in this situation (and a lot of others) to begin with--corporate greed.
Moreover, forgive me if I'm wrong here, but the state of the science with regard to Genetic Modification is, at best, moving genes from one species into another. It's not like engineers are "writing" useful genes base by base. Now, sure, the resulting sequence is new, but the individual sections are old and not protected by IP laws. It's akin to me copying large portions of Hamlet and interjecting an excerpt from the Illiad and then claiming complete ownership of the entire work. In light of this analogy, isn't a bit dishonest to claim that this is "intellectual property"?
-Grym
The predominant crops in Iraq are barley and wheat, both of which are self-pollinators that do not rely on the wind to propagate.
You're right. Contamination, while possible, isn't likely with the crops being grown in Iraq.
However, one of the most difficult aspects to explain to people is that it doesn't have to be likely for GMO contamination to occur for mass genetic contamination to soon follow.
Here's why: GM crops are, by definition, better at surviving. While we normally think of animals when we think of the word competition, the truth is that all organisms, including plants, compete. Those that compete better, reproduce better, and are, therefore, better represented (proportionally) in subsequent generations. This phenomenon is called natural selection. And the basis for the differences doesn't have to be likely--only possible--for it to have widespread effects.
Look at bacteria. Mutations aren't likely. In fact, the mutational rate in mitochondrial DNA is 1.6 x 10^-7 per site per generation (Evolutionary Analysis, Third Edition). The one for nuclear DNA (I can't find it right now) is even lower. And yet, anti-biotic resistance stemming from these unlikely mutations is becoming ever more problematic to the point where some studies have predicted many antibiotics to soon become completely ineffective.
So, here's an example of the problem: One of the planting seasons, a stray pollen from a GM crop lands in a natural crop and forms a viable offspring with only ONE other plant. We can agree that, while this event is rare in and of itself, it is bound to happen eventually given the number of plants, the amount of pollen, and the time involved. The offspring formed from this union are more resilient than their peers and produce more seeds. Now, let's assume our farmer is dumb and doesn't artificially select for the plants that produced the most. Instead, he randomly picks seeds from his entire crop. The seeds for the next generation have a small amount of the GM seeds in them, but since GM plants compete better, this proportion increases at an exponential rate every season. In fact, given enough time, the GM plants (or at least their descendants) will force the competing plants out of existence. Thus complete genetic contamination occurred, regardless of the fact that the individual event of contamination is rare. Granted, for our example, years, perhaps even decades have passed for the complete change in the crop, but remember, we are assuming that 1.) Contamination only occurs once 2.) No major disruptions (drought, flood, pestilence, etc.) occur, which would dramatically speed up this process and 3.) Our farmer has no fore-thought and doesn't select seeds only from the best plants to put in the next generation.
The real evil thing about all of this is that the genetic engineers (or should I say the corporations) holding the patents know this. All of this is ecology and evolutionary biology 101. But it's not like a judge is going to know that. I guess the prospect of every farmer paying licensing fees every season is too much to resist.
-Grym
Oh. I didn't read the context of your post within the discussion. Sorry for making the assumption that you were taking that position.
Regardless, I've seen that kind of argument (i.e. "animals do it too!") in the past, and it always irked me a bit.
Conversely, if you can defend intolerance or bigotry of any group of people in anyway, let me know that too. Even if you believe homosexuality is a sin, shouldn't you "hate the sin and love the sinner?"
Nope, you're absolutely right. I do not condone intolerance or bigotry of any group, including homosexuals.
That being said, I'm not convinced that the gay marriage issue constitutes either. Homosexuals aren't being put to death. Homosexuals can vote. Legally, a homosexual has just as many rights as a heterosexual. Moreover, given the fact that hate crime legislation is only enforced for minorities, one could say they have MORE rights than heterosexuals.
I think the gay marriage issue is less about tolerance and more about acceptance. There is a difference. I tolerate the fact that you have a different opinion than I do but that doesn't mean I accept your opinion as right. Groups like GLAAD aren't so much as challenging the idea that people have different opinions as they are about making homosexuality accepted; hence, the challenging of definition of the institution known as "marriage" instead of pursuing other avenues such as civil unions.
In fact, from a purely tolerance standpoint, I would say that the gay marriage issue is a perfect example of the ideological intolerance that politically-correct politics creates. For instance, look at how those who oppose gay marriage are portrayed. They're backwater bigots or bible-thumping zealots rather than people with different opinions.
-Grym
Yes, actually: there are animals other than man who are homosexual. Zealots brush off this evidence with comments such as "but they don't have souls" or say that leprosy isn't "right" or "normal," even if it is a natural occurance. Of course neither argument is able to defend intolerance to animals, lepers, or gay people.
Regardless of your opinion on the morality of homosexuality, the fact that some animals engage in homosexual behavior is not a good basis for the argument that humans should too. Many animals, including male lions routinely commit infanticide (killing of another male's young). Many animals compete to the death over mates. Lastly, groups of male whales have actually been observed (I've seen the video tape... ugh...) gang-raping female whales. By your logic, should we humans do these things too?
Now, my statement isn't that the natural world is immoral. Quite to the contrary, my statement is that the acts of animals are neither moral nor immoral, simply because animals lack the ability to differentiate what is right or wrong. Humans do, by and large, have this ability. Therefore, justifying behavior for humans by pointing to animals is NOT a valid point.
-Grym
The best idea is to fool the users. Keep the E icon for Internet Explorer, but have it point to the Firefox executable. That's idiot-proofing.
Actually, for about a month after getting Firefox I had to do this to myself. Clicking the familiar IE icon had become almost instinctual.
-Grym