(1) You now have to go out of your way to turn the +1 bonus off. It's not something that you must turn on for each and every post. People just leave it on, and I don't expect otherwise.
(2) "Funny" doesn't give karma, but "Overrated" decreases karma. Instead of preventing someone from getting karma for their non-funny post, you're actually hurting their karma. That's why many here (not me) rate jokes as insightful instead (when they get modded down they will have neutral karma that way, instead of negative.) I only mod non-funny jokes down if they fall under one of the other categories (such as "Flamebait").
Comment Moderation
sent by Slashdot Message System on Friday January 15, @04:05PM
Dear resident,, posted to Tower Switch-Off Embarrasses Electrosensitives, has been moderated Overrated (-1).
OK jerk. (not toadlife, obviously, unless he's using multiple accounts)
You've now successfully proven that joking on Slashdot is always dangerous to karma. I hope you're happy. Why don't you try making the world a better place? It's enjoyable too, believe it or not.
("happy"... reminds me of people who kick puppies and drown kittens. Such people don't know the meaning of the word "happy".)
If the shoe fits... (I do emphasize that I said "if you didn't get the joke".)
I discovered long ago that any joke I posted on Slashdot was always modded down by the incompetent unless I explicitly stated that I was joking. I don't need to be modded up on a joke, but I hate it when I get modded down because someone else cannot see the obvious.
Except that there really are pedophiles. That doesn't excuse the hysteria and baseless accusations which are sometimes flung about (and ruin lives), but at least there really is something to fear.
And the "EM sensitive" people are not nearly as numerous as the "every man is a pedophile" people. Comparing the two is kinda funny (in a dark humor sort of way).
Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because (on account) of this", is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) which states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation.
Ad hoc is a Latin phrase which means "for this purpose". It generally signifies a solution designed for a specific problem or task, non-generalizable, and which cannot be adapted to other purposes.
I'm sure he meant "post hoc", but if he didn't... would he be implying that the tower was placed there for the specific purpose of making residents sick? Or maybe that they wanted a lawsuit instigated against them? This just keeps getting weirder and weirder.
(Yes, I'm joking. I've learned the hard way that I need to say so to chase off the dumb who periodically receive mod points.)
If someone uses "Overrated" on anything less than a 3 (displayed to them, not necessarily current) I think it should burn karma. "Overrated" clearly implies disagreement, and the desire to lessen someone's perceived credibility. I don't fault anyone for using it that way. I do not, however, have pleasant things to say about people who use it to censor dissonant thought. It should only be used to lessen the impact of non-thought.
You may have noticed that we have recently broken ground on our new electronic communications tower. You will be pleased to note that the eyesore will not cause headaches, nausea, tinnitus, or dry burning itchy skin. Further,there is no way it could possibly disrupt sleep patterns or interfere with digestion. People who have claimed otherwise are loons. Besides, they've only been exposed to other towers and not this one.
If you notice any health changes, we're sure that you'll find they are imaginary or stress induced. We encourage you to find a responsible health care professional. If they tell you that our tower is involved then they are not responsible health care professionals and can be sued for malpractice.
Have a good day!
(Note to mods, this parody is a joke. If you didn't get the joke, step away from the computer and don't come back until you get "more smarter".)
I could easily be wrong, but I thought most decent encryption systems did comprehension first.
System - noun (1) an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex or unitary whole...
A cipher on its own does not constitute a system. In the most rudimentary of cases, it must have additional components such as input and output in order to make it whole. From the end-user perspective, decent encryption systems comprise a much greater number of components than that.
Now, programs that implement cryptographic ciphers might apply compression before encryption, but these two functions are quite seperate from each other.
Rightly so.
The reason you need to apply compression before encryption... is because both encryption and compression raise the entropy of a chunk of data. Compression algorithms work rather poorly on data with high entropy, but cryptographic ciphers don't care.
More specifically, compression algorithms attempt to decrease the size of data by removing non-essential information (thus maximizing entropy). Encryption, on the other hand, must either maximize entropy or make it appear maximized. (I know that some algorithms actively add entropy, but I don't know which ones.) In summary, you can't compress something that's well encrypted because entropy is already maximized.
I could easily be wrong, but I thought most decent encryption systems did comprehension first. (thus allowing overhead and injecting false data without bloat) (maybe that's what you meant by "you". Whatever.)
(This looks like a problem superficially. I'd be interested if there is a security measure in place. Your link is to a different, but related, problem - without reading the entire ~50K of the thread.)
Perl (at least some CPAN modules), mod_python, Pylons, and Rails (If I understand right, not sure about other Ruby interfaces).
(Want to find others, go look for yourself. I think you'll find it quite easy.)
Treating GET and POST the same is broken.
Sometimes. Not most of the time. Sometimes "strict" and "robust" are antonyms.
For one thing, GET is required to be idempotent, POST is not.
Well listen to yourself. We're talking about using POST for a web search. In other words, using POST for an idempotent request, not GET for a non-idempotent one.
When one takes care to know what GET and POST are, you can almost always determine which is the correct one to use to call the page, but handle both types of requests anyway.
A good point. Almost as important is control of the the caching DNS servers provided by the Chinese ISPs. If they could get someone to sign google.cn for them or disseminate state mandated root certs, they could effect a MiTM on Google.
(GET and POST are still in the same boat as per my last comment.)
(1) I'm aware of the PHP variables mentioned, but I wasn't only talking about PHP. There are other server side scripting languages you know. Those I've seen all seem to have something corresponding to $_REQUEST. I'm not sure what Google uses, but it's probably irrelevant. That was my point.
(2) I didn't discuss setting cookies or modifying server state. I would be surprised if Google cookie names collide with other request variables. Name collisions like that can happen, but are usually the result of poor planning. (Doing Google searches by setting and sending cookie variables is an amusing thought, but not at all what I was suggesting.)
"Anyways I have always explicitly used $_GET or $_POST depending on the way I expect to receive data." Uhm... Good for you? I only do something like that if I want to force the issue for some specific reason (prevent passwords in URL strings, etc). (That doesn't mean that I use GET and POST incorrectly, only that I allow for them to be used incorrectly.)
(3) "Also, it's not a good idea to accept data that modifies the server state via $_GET because someone will trick people into clicking links to give his stupid thing on your site more votes or whatever, or to automatically post a comment on a blog or something, etc." Uh... you can do POST via a link too. I'm not sure if that requires javascript or not, but I've seen it done. You might not run javascript in your browser, but I'm sure your visitors/patrons do. Using POST to modify server state is what the standard calls for, but it rarely makes a significant difference. YMWV
Disclaimer, I'm not a web guru. I've done some web work, but it's not my primary occupation.
That's exactly what I was thinking. Most HTTP servers and related software treat GET and POST variables in exactly the same way unless explicitly told not to. I haven't tried a POST request from Google yet, but I'd be very surprised if they don't support it.
Besides, GET should still remain private, as the first thing that happens in an HTTPS connection is the SSL handshake. (BEFORE the URL string is sent) All the government would know is that someone was connecting to google.cn via HTTPS.
That is a fallacy. This won't go over that poorly, but there is definitely such a thing as negative marketing. (It just has to be far worse than common sense dictates...)
At a minimum, it is a potential future necessity for most cases. You can very rarely say "this convicted criminal will never need to be incarcerated for a substantial duration."
Prison as a punishment is NOT necessary...
The learning process involves rewards and punishments. Prison (as it stands now) is too inconsistent a punishment and has unintended (poorly thought out) social consequences to those incarcerated.
We need to find something better. Unfortunately, most alternatives I've heard are probably worse. Some alternatives (house arrest, etc) are becoming feasible with technological advancement).
Wiping history of the names of criminals is quite foolish for academic and government needs; however, it does make sense to do so for the general populace... A good argument can be made for keeping the general public unaware and having some compassion for the criminal (something americans do not understand; I've likely lost most of them already.)
The place where you lost this American is at "cured criminal". Ideally, the released criminal would be rehabilitated somehow. He would be significantly less likely to commit a crime of the same nature than he was before his first offense. If this was backed up by a very low recidivism rate, I might buy your argument. In the mean time, there are many other reforms that must happen before I'm willing to back your position.
For the sake of this article, "life in prison" is incongruous with"cured criminal" (except overturned rulings, executive pardon, other edge cases). Being released because the system didn't feel like keeping them (for whatever reason) doesn't constitute "reformed".
Besides, here in the US, there would be constitutional issues with limiting free speech. Something can only be termed libel if it's actually false. "Sealed records" becomes a gray and uncomfortable area, but could never extend to outright censorship.
Sure, one could say that a pervert needs to be known... but if they are treated as the mental cases that they are; they will NOT get out of the system until they are actually treated - not some meaningless time period in a cage!...
That's funny... I'd say the same about most criminals. Granted most are not physically ill, but socially ill (it's hazy where perverts fall here). Note also that there is no generally accepted cure for pedophilia. Those that don't relapse admit that the urges are always there. Hopefully, "cured" is a word that will become appropriate in the future.
Errors always happen; its human run. If you want to start harming former criminals simply for the sake of potential future crimes you are entering a line of reasoning that easily can be extended into lots of unpleasant areas (and already is.)
sigh. According to many philosophies, the basis of intelligence is the ability to observe the past and predict the future. Again, if I observed a low recidivism rate (past data) I might reasonably predict the individual to be reformed. The reason we generally want to know is precisely because we anticipate a relapse. These relapses can be triggered by social pressure built up by being ostracized, or they can just happen. It depends on the individual.
Now, before you think that I marginalize formerly convicted individuals, believe me that I do not. I haven't dealt with many. Those that I have met, I've wanted to be reformed, and have treated them that way*. People tend to emulate the social behaviors around them. I want to encourage them (in admittedly very minor ways) to adopt the values that I have. That's the most important paradigm shift that society needs to make.
... Therefore, the right to be reformed... comes into conflict with the right to free speech...
You're equating a passage that limits federal power with one that grants federal power. That is a dangerous slope, particularly in light of the ninth and tenth amendments.
Besides, the purpose of those so-called preambles are different, as evidenced by the language used.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The binding statement here is the right of "the People" to bear arms. The preamble can easily be read as a rationale. Note which part stands on it's own as a complete sentence (or more precisely, a complete thought).
The Congress shall have power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
This, which you have termed a preamble, is the actual statement. It stands on its own as a complete sentence, and has the copyright portion tacked onto it. Promoting the progress of Science and useful Arts IS THE ENUMERATED POWER. The ability to grant copyrights and patents is a constitutional vehicle granted to them to carry out their responsibility.
Otherwise it would have been phrased:
The Congress shall have power... to secure for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries, promoting the Progress of Science and useful Arts.
Or:
The promotion of the Progress of Science and useful Arts being necessary for the general welfare, the Congress shall have power to secure for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Further note that none of the other powers enumerated in the section contain rationale. If you insist on treating the passage as an explanatory preamble, you must wonder why the framers of the Constitution felt that that one required it. The others didn't.
Oh, but they do mix. It's just that current patent law is utterly absurd. Just about any reasonable law can be stretched into one that harms society once taken to the extreme. It's like driving 5mph over the speed limit and getting slapped with a 6 figure fine. You can't turn around and say that speed laws and freedom don't mix.
(Yes I realize I'm responding to an AC troll. I wouldn't have done so if people didn't legitimately feel this way.)
IMHO, wikipedia isn't supposed to be a blog yet unsubstantiated statements can and do appear and even though they are tagged as needing a source it may not matter.
"unsubstantiated statement" is not synonymous with blog. Keep trying.
An unsubstantiated statement can be copy&pasted instantly by some entity that has a following e.g. a newspaper.
That's just bad journalism. I don't care if it's a newspaper, tv reporter, or a blogger. It's inexcusable, but admittedly commonplace. It still does not make Wikipedia a blog, and still does not differentiate bloggers from reporters.
Most people wouldn't bother to fact-check it themselves especially if their own belief coincides with the author's. Eventually a dubious statement becomes fact and it's next to impossible to reverse it.
Yep.
IMHO, the difference is the speed at which internet-based statements spread...
This has more to do with mainstream news sites and news aggregators. Information gets parroted without fact checking. If media sources which are widely distributed and widely considered credible did not participate, this would stop. On the other hand, this would still be a major problem if every blogger stopped writing this instant.
... and there's never a fact-check before it's posted.
Not true. Irresponsible bloggers (like irresponsible mainstream journalists) don't fact check. Responsible bloggers and journalists do. The percentage of responsible journalists may be higher, but it's still an embarrassment to the profession. You can't lump all bloggers together in this manner just as you can't lump all mainstream journalists together.
God gave us self governance to be used with wisdom and prudence (or he'd insist that we live in a theocracy). Freedom of the press was something that man decided was prudent for the type of society we want to live in. I'm unaware of any religion that teaches a divine right to a free press. (I can only name one that can make an indirect argument for this.)
Granted, I think we'll be held accountable to how we treat others, including which so-called rights we allow or deny them. I can imagine individual preachers touching upon the subject. Still,I doubt you can come up with specific passages from the sum canon belonging to major religions.
Let's see... a computer today costs less than a printing press then did (adjusting for inflation). Some bloggers attempt anonymity, which is easier to pull off online.
Granted, those are superficial to the excellent point you were making.
Wikipedia is not a blog. This isn't about the anonymity of the author, but about his sources. Difficulty in executing libel cases against non-blogs is a slightly different topic.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, no. I disagree on both counts.
(1) You now have to go out of your way to turn the +1 bonus off. It's not something that you must turn on for each and every post. People just leave it on, and I don't expect otherwise.
(2) "Funny" doesn't give karma, but "Overrated" decreases karma. Instead of preventing someone from getting karma for their non-funny post, you're actually hurting their karma. That's why many here (not me) rate jokes as insightful instead (when they get modded down they will have neutral karma that way, instead of negative.) I only mod non-funny jokes down if they fall under one of the other categories (such as "Flamebait").
Comment Moderation sent by Slashdot Message System on Friday January 15, @04:05PM Dear resident,, posted to Tower Switch-Off Embarrasses Electrosensitives, has been moderated Overrated (-1).
OK jerk. (not toadlife, obviously, unless he's using multiple accounts)
You've now successfully proven that joking on Slashdot is always dangerous to karma. I hope you're happy. Why don't you try making the world a better place? It's enjoyable too, believe it or not.
("happy"... reminds me of people who kick puppies and drown kittens. Such people don't know the meaning of the word "happy".)
If the shoe fits... (I do emphasize that I said "if you didn't get the joke".)
I discovered long ago that any joke I posted on Slashdot was always modded down by the incompetent unless I explicitly stated that I was joking. I don't need to be modded up on a joke, but I hate it when I get modded down because someone else cannot see the obvious.
Except that there really are pedophiles. That doesn't excuse the hysteria and baseless accusations which are sometimes flung about (and ruin lives), but at least there really is something to fear. And the "EM sensitive" people are not nearly as numerous as the "every man is a pedophile" people. Comparing the two is kinda funny (in a dark humor sort of way).
A quick trip to Wikipedia:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because (on account) of this", is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) which states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation.
Ad hoc is a Latin phrase which means "for this purpose". It generally signifies a solution designed for a specific problem or task, non-generalizable, and which cannot be adapted to other purposes.
I'm sure he meant "post hoc", but if he didn't... would he be implying that the tower was placed there for the specific purpose of making residents sick? Or maybe that they wanted a lawsuit instigated against them? This just keeps getting weirder and weirder.
(Yes, I'm joking. I've learned the hard way that I need to say so to chase off the dumb who periodically receive mod points.)
If someone uses "Overrated" on anything less than a 3 (displayed to them, not necessarily current) I think it should burn karma. "Overrated" clearly implies disagreement, and the desire to lessen someone's perceived credibility. I don't fault anyone for using it that way. I do not, however, have pleasant things to say about people who use it to censor dissonant thought. It should only be used to lessen the impact of non-thought.
Dear resident,
You may have noticed that we have recently broken ground on our new electronic communications tower. You will be pleased to note that the eyesore will not cause headaches, nausea, tinnitus, or dry burning itchy skin. Further,there is no way it could possibly disrupt sleep patterns or interfere with digestion. People who have claimed otherwise are loons. Besides, they've only been exposed to other towers and not this one.
If you notice any health changes, we're sure that you'll find they are imaginary or stress induced. We encourage you to find a responsible health care professional. If they tell you that our tower is involved then they are not responsible health care professionals and can be sued for malpractice.
Have a good day!
(Note to mods, this parody is a joke. If you didn't get the joke, step away from the computer and don't come back until you get "more smarter".)
Ah. That too was almost too subtle. Good catch.
I didn't say application just as I didn't say cipher. And yes, many people use the word "system" incorrectly.
(And Firefox can really be said to have an encryption sub-system, though Firefox is not an "encryption system" itself, per se.)
Why?
What? ah... I see.
I could easily be wrong, but I thought most decent encryption systems did comprehension first.
System - noun (1) an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex or unitary whole...
A cipher on its own does not constitute a system. In the most rudimentary of cases, it must have additional components such as input and output in order to make it whole. From the end-user perspective, decent encryption systems comprise a much greater number of components than that.
Now, programs that implement cryptographic ciphers might apply compression before encryption, but these two functions are quite seperate from each other.
Rightly so.
The reason you need to apply compression before encryption... is because both encryption and compression raise the entropy of a chunk of data. Compression algorithms work rather poorly on data with high entropy, but cryptographic ciphers don't care.
More specifically, compression algorithms attempt to decrease the size of data by removing non-essential information (thus maximizing entropy). Encryption, on the other hand, must either maximize entropy or make it appear maximized. (I know that some algorithms actively add entropy, but I don't know which ones.) In summary, you can't compress something that's well encrypted because entropy is already maximized.
I could easily be wrong, but I thought most decent encryption systems did comprehension first. (thus allowing overhead and injecting false data without bloat) (maybe that's what you meant by "you". Whatever.)
He's not referring to the updater. He's referring to the initial download from http://download.mozilla.org/?product=firefox-3.5.7&os=win&lang=en-US. Note the "http"?
(This looks like a problem superficially. I'd be interested if there is a security measure in place. Your link is to a different, but related, problem - without reading the entire ~50K of the thread.)
Name three.
Perl (at least some CPAN modules), mod_python, Pylons, and Rails (If I understand right, not sure about other Ruby interfaces).
(Want to find others, go look for yourself. I think you'll find it quite easy.)
Treating GET and POST the same is broken.
Sometimes. Not most of the time. Sometimes "strict" and "robust" are antonyms.
For one thing, GET is required to be idempotent, POST is not.
Well listen to yourself. We're talking about using POST for a web search. In other words, using POST for an idempotent request, not GET for a non-idempotent one.
When one takes care to know what GET and POST are, you can almost always determine which is the correct one to use to call the page, but handle both types of requests anyway.
A good point. Almost as important is control of the the caching DNS servers provided by the Chinese ISPs. If they could get someone to sign google.cn for them or disseminate state mandated root certs, they could effect a MiTM on Google.
(GET and POST are still in the same boat as per my last comment.)
(1) I'm aware of the PHP variables mentioned, but I wasn't only talking about PHP. There are other server side scripting languages you know. Those I've seen all seem to have something corresponding to $_REQUEST. I'm not sure what Google uses, but it's probably irrelevant. That was my point.
(2) I didn't discuss setting cookies or modifying server state. I would be surprised if Google cookie names collide with other request variables. Name collisions like that can happen, but are usually the result of poor planning. (Doing Google searches by setting and sending cookie variables is an amusing thought, but not at all what I was suggesting.)
"Anyways I have always explicitly used $_GET or $_POST depending on the way I expect to receive data." Uhm... Good for you? I only do something like that if I want to force the issue for some specific reason (prevent passwords in URL strings, etc). (That doesn't mean that I use GET and POST incorrectly, only that I allow for them to be used incorrectly.)
(3) "Also, it's not a good idea to accept data that modifies the server state via $_GET because someone will trick people into clicking links to give his stupid thing on your site more votes or whatever, or to automatically post a comment on a blog or something, etc." Uh... you can do POST via a link too. I'm not sure if that requires javascript or not, but I've seen it done. You might not run javascript in your browser, but I'm sure your visitors/patrons do. Using POST to modify server state is what the standard calls for, but it rarely makes a significant difference. YMWV
Disclaimer, I'm not a web guru. I've done some web work, but it's not my primary occupation.
That's exactly what I was thinking. Most HTTP servers and related software treat GET and POST variables in exactly the same way unless explicitly told not to. I haven't tried a POST request from Google yet, but I'd be very surprised if they don't support it.
Besides, GET should still remain private, as the first thing that happens in an HTTPS connection is the SSL handshake. (BEFORE the URL string is sent) All the government would know is that someone was connecting to google.cn via HTTPS.
there is no such thing as negative marketing
That is a fallacy. This won't go over that poorly, but there is definitely such a thing as negative marketing. (It just has to be far worse than common sense dictates...)
Prison is a matter of necessity in SOME cases...
At a minimum, it is a potential future necessity for most cases. You can very rarely say "this convicted criminal will never need to be incarcerated for a substantial duration."
Prison as a punishment is NOT necessary...
The learning process involves rewards and punishments. Prison (as it stands now) is too inconsistent a punishment and has unintended (poorly thought out) social consequences to those incarcerated.
We need to find something better. Unfortunately, most alternatives I've heard are probably worse. Some alternatives (house arrest, etc) are becoming feasible with technological advancement).
Wiping history of the names of criminals is quite foolish for academic and government needs; however, it does make sense to do so for the general populace... A good argument can be made for keeping the general public unaware and having some compassion for the criminal (something americans do not understand; I've likely lost most of them already.)
The place where you lost this American is at "cured criminal". Ideally, the released criminal would be rehabilitated somehow. He would be significantly less likely to commit a crime of the same nature than he was before his first offense. If this was backed up by a very low recidivism rate, I might buy your argument. In the mean time, there are many other reforms that must happen before I'm willing to back your position.
For the sake of this article, "life in prison" is incongruous with"cured criminal" (except overturned rulings, executive pardon, other edge cases). Being released because the system didn't feel like keeping them (for whatever reason) doesn't constitute "reformed".
Besides, here in the US, there would be constitutional issues with limiting free speech. Something can only be termed libel if it's actually false. "Sealed records" becomes a gray and uncomfortable area, but could never extend to outright censorship.
Sure, one could say that a pervert needs to be known... but if they are treated as the mental cases that they are; they will NOT get out of the system until they are actually treated - not some meaningless time period in a cage!...
That's funny... I'd say the same about most criminals. Granted most are not physically ill, but socially ill (it's hazy where perverts fall here). Note also that there is no generally accepted cure for pedophilia. Those that don't relapse admit that the urges are always there. Hopefully, "cured" is a word that will become appropriate in the future.
Errors always happen; its human run. If you want to start harming former criminals simply for the sake of potential future crimes you are entering a line of reasoning that easily can be extended into lots of unpleasant areas (and already is.)
sigh. According to many philosophies, the basis of intelligence is the ability to observe the past and predict the future. Again, if I observed a low recidivism rate (past data) I might reasonably predict the individual to be reformed. The reason we generally want to know is precisely because we anticipate a relapse. These relapses can be triggered by social pressure built up by being ostracized, or they can just happen. It depends on the individual.
Now, before you think that I marginalize formerly convicted individuals, believe me that I do not. I haven't dealt with many. Those that I have met, I've wanted to be reformed, and have treated them that way*. People tend to emulate the social behaviors around them. I want to encourage them (in admittedly very minor ways) to adopt the values that I have. That's the most important paradigm shift that society needs to make.
... Therefore, the right to be reformed... comes into conflict with the right to free speech...
Ah. An interesti
You're equating a passage that limits federal power with one that grants federal power. That is a dangerous slope, particularly in light of the ninth and tenth amendments.
Besides, the purpose of those so-called preambles are different, as evidenced by the language used.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The binding statement here is the right of "the People" to bear arms. The preamble can easily be read as a rationale. Note which part stands on it's own as a complete sentence (or more precisely, a complete thought).
The Congress shall have power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
This, which you have termed a preamble, is the actual statement. It stands on its own as a complete sentence, and has the copyright portion tacked onto it. Promoting the progress of Science and useful Arts IS THE ENUMERATED POWER. The ability to grant copyrights and patents is a constitutional vehicle granted to them to carry out their responsibility.
Otherwise it would have been phrased:
The Congress shall have power... to secure for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries, promoting the Progress of Science and useful Arts.
Or:
The promotion of the Progress of Science and useful Arts being necessary for the general welfare, the Congress shall have power to secure for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Further note that none of the other powers enumerated in the section contain rationale. If you insist on treating the passage as an explanatory preamble, you must wonder why the framers of the Constitution felt that that one required it. The others didn't.
Oh, but they do mix. It's just that current patent law is utterly absurd. Just about any reasonable law can be stretched into one that harms society once taken to the extreme. It's like driving 5mph over the speed limit and getting slapped with a 6 figure fine. You can't turn around and say that speed laws and freedom don't mix.
(Yes I realize I'm responding to an AC troll. I wouldn't have done so if people didn't legitimately feel this way.)
The same goes for copyright law.
IMHO, wikipedia isn't supposed to be a blog yet unsubstantiated statements can and do appear and even though they are tagged as needing a source it may not matter.
"unsubstantiated statement" is not synonymous with blog. Keep trying.
An unsubstantiated statement can be copy&pasted instantly by some entity that has a following e.g. a newspaper.
That's just bad journalism. I don't care if it's a newspaper, tv reporter, or a blogger. It's inexcusable, but admittedly commonplace. It still does not make Wikipedia a blog, and still does not differentiate bloggers from reporters.
Most people wouldn't bother to fact-check it themselves especially if their own belief coincides with the author's. Eventually a dubious statement becomes fact and it's next to impossible to reverse it.
Yep.
IMHO, the difference is the speed at which internet-based statements spread...
This has more to do with mainstream news sites and news aggregators. Information gets parroted without fact checking. If media sources which are widely distributed and widely considered credible did not participate, this would stop. On the other hand, this would still be a major problem if every blogger stopped writing this instant.
... and there's never a fact-check before it's posted.
Not true. Irresponsible bloggers (like irresponsible mainstream journalists) don't fact check. Responsible bloggers and journalists do. The percentage of responsible journalists may be higher, but it's still an embarrassment to the profession. You can't lump all bloggers together in this manner just as you can't lump all mainstream journalists together.
Whoa! Slow down there!
God gave us self governance to be used with wisdom and prudence (or he'd insist that we live in a theocracy). Freedom of the press was something that man decided was prudent for the type of society we want to live in. I'm unaware of any religion that teaches a divine right to a free press. (I can only name one that can make an indirect argument for this.)
Granted, I think we'll be held accountable to how we treat others, including which so-called rights we allow or deny them. I can imagine individual preachers touching upon the subject. Still,I doubt you can come up with specific passages from the sum canon belonging to major religions.
I don't see how bloggers are all that different.
Let's see... a computer today costs less than a printing press then did (adjusting for inflation). Some bloggers attempt anonymity, which is easier to pull off online.
Granted, those are superficial to the excellent point you were making.
Wikipedia is not a blog. This isn't about the anonymity of the author, but about his sources. Difficulty in executing libel cases against non-blogs is a slightly different topic.