I've read a few posts of you before responding, and you seem reasonable enough.:-)
Ok...I'll be honest. I saw most of the footage on youtube, and here's what I think: the guy was pretty wacko, most of his questions were largely irrelevant (though the skull and bones IS actually true), and yes, he made a big scene when the cops got at him: he was clearly an attention-seeker.
But still, I can't really agree with some of your (and others') arguments.
An annoying idiot or not, and on private property or not, ultimately, he didn't resort to violence: the only thing he did was asking questions and being annoying about it. You say: "I agree that people should get their voices out, but they should accept the consequences of their actions." Well, ok, but the consequences of asking annoying questions and going above your alloted time *should not be* getting arrested and tazed. Certainly not seen the fact that the one he asked those questions to (Kerry himself, thus) said: "That's ok, I'll answer that" when he saw the cops move in towards the guy. I mean, if *he* said that to them, shouldn't the cops have shown a bit more patience?
Also, to be honest, I find the argument used by many 'he got what he deserved' slahdotcrowd a bit unfair; the "he was distrubing and going above his allotted time"....well...meh. One can see for oneself on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaiWCS10C5s : frankly, I've seen a lot more 'disturbing' in a lot of meetings and debates I went too. He actually starts with thanking Kerry, he recommends a book, and he asks two questions, and says he should have 2 minutes if Kerry had 2 hours... it's hardly anything that really qualifies as creating havoc or even a disturbance of any importance. and for the 'allowed time'...from the point where he starts talking till the moment he gets arrested he used exactly...1 minute 31 seconds. Heh. Looking at some of the posts who says he deserved it, one would think he was taking up precious hours in which no-one else could use their right of free speech. For f- sake! It was less then 2 minutes; hardly a huge deprivation or denial of others to use their right on free speech.
My point is: he didn't really do anything exessive. He didn't 'take' the word (as some claim), he was given the word by Kerry himself; so one hardly call that disruptive. The cops didn't really 'ask him gently to leave'; the first time they speak up, the police woman said he needs to ask a question, after he talked 40 seconds or so. Well... is that for her to decide? Kerry doesn't mind. And then, he DOES ask his questions, and the mic gets cut off. I mean, it's hard to imagine it really deserved all this - I rather get the impression the 'disturbance of peace' is rather a convenient excuse as oposed to this 'inconvenient truth'; they just didn't like what he said and how he said it. There was very little actual 'disturbance' noticable, unless you call his rather bold remark to that policewoman a disturbance on itself.
And even if they did feel the irresistable need to decide his free speech rights were revoked...shouldn't they have handled it differently? I mean, the question was already asked by then, and Kerry was already answering it. What exactly, WAS the problem at that time? I even thought cutting off his mic was uncalled for, let alone arrest him and taze him.
All in all, even though I don't doubt the guy is seldom constructive (at least his questions weren't all that constructive), it looks to me more of a case where the police didn't like his brazen attitude and his response about the "I think I'm allowed two minutes after his two hours" to the policewoman, than anything else. I mean, c'mon; he wasn't REALLY a disturbance. Kerry didn't think so neither. To get smacked down by 6 cops and getting tazed is just...way overboard. If he had taken the word himself, talked for a long time without letting anyone else speak, was violent or agressive towards Kerry or other people...I wou
"No, you do *not* have unlimited rights to say what you want, where and when you want, as loudly as you want."
That's a non-argument.
The police does *not* have unlimited rights to arrest someone, where and when they want, as violently as they want, neither.
Such statements are completely nonsensical and unhelpful. The question is, what free speech was used? And the fact is, he was asking questions, not shouting 'fire' (to use the much abused counterclaim). Annoying questions? Perhaps. Above his alloted time for asking them? Perhaps.
But was it still free speech according to the constitution? Yes. Does asking annoying questions warrant an arrest? No.
Being 'disruptive' (note, btw, that Kerry DID want to answer his questions) is no reason to revoke the right of free speech, let alone arrest someone for it. I'm sure a lot of republican politicians find the protests against the war in Iraq disruptive too...so, should we follow your reasoning consistently, then?
There are limitations to free speech indeed (as with yelling 'fire' in a theatre), but those are restricted and pretty narrowly defined. I'm quite sure the supreme court didn't rule that asking questions on a public forum that disturbs some of the other spectators is sufficient cause to loose your rights of free speech.
So your counterargumentation really doesn't amount to much in this case.
"Freedom of speech is not a freedom to be heard and/or given an audience"
Ok, so, when he chinese police arrest some dissident and say to him he's free to say whatever he wants in his cel, they are respecting his free speech too?
"He can say whatever he wants to whoever wants to listen."
In a public forum, he can actually say it to who doesn't want to listen. Forbidding anything else would be ludicrous. I mean, do I want to listen to some pro-iraq-war people who are marching in front of my house? No. Could I then, following your reasoning, forbid it? Should the moslim community be allowed to forbid the making of cartoons, because they don't want to see them?
If you don't want to listen, then don't listen. In a public place, you can't deprive someone of his free speech because you don't want to listen to it; that would amount to NO free speech. In the case of this Kerry-debate I'm not sure how far the public analogy goes; maybe it was on university grounds or the organisation was in the hands of Kerry&co. In that case, it for THEM to draw the line (and one with no exesive violence, at that). Note, however, that Kerry was *willing* to answer the question. He actually said to the cops when they started moving "it's allright, I will answer that". But the cops didn't listen. So, what? THEY decide when the alloted time for a question is passed? They decide such a thing warrants arrest?
People can be annoyed and I'm sure a lot of those people there didn't want to listen to his questions - but does that give anyone the right to arrest him? According to your reasoning, it does. Needles to say this is impossible to maintain, since you will ALWAYS have those that don't want to listen to someone else. Heck, then republicans could arrest every democrat that opens his mouth. As a general rule, the "free speech is only ok to people who wants to hear you" is completely absurd when applied consistently.
"He doesn't have the right to hijack someone else's venue and force his views down other's throats."
You can't force a view by asking questions. The only thing that does that efficiently is propagnda. The USA media are quite good at that, actually, so maybe one should arrest the guys from FOX-news? You're using a lot of emo-laden hyperbole (hijacking, forcing,...), but the fact is, he was asking questions, and that's free speech, and that's protected by the constitution. Nowhere is it mentionned you can only have free speech to people who like your viewpoint. The importance of free speech is the most apparent if you can also use it when people DO NOT want to hear it. Otherwise, minorities would NEVER be able to protest against anything the majority doesn't want to hear.
"You split the company up or write fines. Which leaves you not with the desired competitive atmosphere but a wounded monopoly, still a monopoly nevertheless."
Does AT&T ring a bell, mayhaps?
The company got split up, exactly as you say, and it's monopoly was over, and competition and innovation were abound.
While it may be true that a company strives to become a monopoly, it's equally true the state should strive to *not* let a company become a monopoly (or at least, deal with their abusive because of the monopoly-position). Quod licit Jovis non licit bovis; a surprising outcome has nothing to do with it.
While some may portray it as being an EU versus USA thing, it's actually much broader then that. To be sure; that sentiment *IS* there, and it certainly has played a role, especially concerning the popular support (the general EU IT-populace). It's doubtful however that the judges let themselves be swept away by any anti-americanism, however.
I think it's as much a 'global corporation which tries to screw you over'-sentiment than anything else, and that's why a lot of open source people (also in the USA) are rejoicing. But... that sentiment played little to no role in the ruling neither.
Basically, it's quite simple: they went against EU law and were dragging their feet to comply. No judge likes THAT.
Personally, I think they deserve a much higher penalty. The EU commision is way to soft on them - actually softer then on big EU corporations they tried to deal with in the past. And also, the 'provide an XP without the mediaplayer'-thing was outright stupid. *Everyone* with half a brain could see this would have no effect. First of all, it's too limited in scope: what about win-OSses other than XP, what about all those other applications other then the media player? Is the EU going to fight a 10 year struggle over every OS and application that comes along and has the same issues as was now decided on?
And apart from that: it's just suilly. Nobody is going to buy XP without mediaplayer if, for the same price, one can get one *with* it. By now, this obvious deduction has been proven right. No, what they should do is making it obliged that *every* OS MS makes gives the oportunity to install (or not) any application that comes with it (browser, media player, virusscanner, etc.). That way, you let consumers decide, and you give the opportunity to choose other applications instead of the windows-included-ones.
Such a ruling would have made better sense, coppled with opening up their code for compatibility and an even huger fine would make it clear to MS that no corporation is above the law, not even a giant USA one with lots of money and lawyers.
"(*resists urge to lash out against people who comment on this submission without actually reading through the linked materials, only to notice that parenthetical note yields to urge*)"
Your self-restraint is appreciated!;-)
"The basic idea is that you can't slap your own copyright notice on something you don't own; you have to do some meaningful amount work before you can claim that you've got a derivative work."
Certainly that's the basic idea; but if you allow others to copy/distribute/etc. it (under various rules) then that basic point becomes moot, and it depends on the rules that the licence sets forth. It is always claimed that the BSD was even far more permissive then the GPL.
And this is what I find a bit confusing. The author seems to focus on the general law to say it's not allowed, but really it depends what is said in the licence itself. I mean, if I make something and I licence it with the condition that everyone is free to do with it what he wants (not saying the BSD is like that, just giving this as an example), then it really doesn't matter what the 'general idea' is. So doesn't it boil down to (the interpretation of) the BSD licence? And isn't that a bit of the problem in this case, since it's not always evident which author did what under what (exact) licence. For instance, in one of the links, one can read: "Most newer OpenBSD code uses ISC license which is even more permissive." This indicates differtent (variations of) licences are being used. I'm sure that won't help anything.
But soit, I'm not an expert in legalese, it just stroke me as a bit weird that BSD people would make such a fuss about it when it concerns the GPL, when (for instance) years ago they had code taken from them by MS, and nobody really knows how 'substantial' their modifications were, since it's closed source. Let's be realistic here: some properietary applications may have lots of BSD-licenced code in them, but nobody from the BSD-crowd really made much fuss about it. On the contrary, it was always portrayed as an advantage and being 'more free' than GPL.
It seems a bit silly to now suddenly make a big deal of it.
What law? In the USA, in south-africa,...? And where, exactly, is the clause that says it has to be 'substantial modifications', before you can use BSD code and place that under another licence? I'm not saying what you claim is untrue, but I can't find anything that actually says that. the closest I found on wikipedia was this:
"The BSD License allows proprietary commercial use, and for the software released under the license to be incorporated into proprietary commercial products. Works based on the material may even be released under a proprietary license (but still must maintain the license requirements). Some notable examples of this are the use of BSD networking code in Microsoft products, and the use of numerous FreeBSD components in Mac OS X.
It is possible for something to be distributed with the BSD License and some other license to apply as well. This was in fact the case with very early versions of BSD itself, which included proprietary material from AT&T."
Note that they only said; "works based on the material". Technically, a work that has even one character of code added is still 'based on the material'. What I mean is, if he's going to say it's illegal to do so, it's not derived *inherently* from the licence, but from the law of the country (in determining what 'based on' means). And that, of course, is dependent on the country.
It may well be that it might be totally legit in some countries, thus.
Of course, I'm not that of an expert on BSD-licenses, so I might have overlooked the 'substantial modification'-clause. I would be greatfull if you could give a link to that, since in that case, it would be inherent to the license itself.
"the theory that BSD code can simply be relicensed to the GPL without making significant changes to the code is false"
This is complete bullocks. The whole point of the BSD vs. GPL (eternal) debate is just that the former always claim it's more free (to use/distribute). In fact, with the BSD, it's completely possible (and legal) to take it and make a proprietary program/application of it. And now one would claim it can't be turned into GPL 'without changes to the code'? Where does that guy get that crap?
One has the distinct feeling TFA is one (in a row) of articles meant to be controversial and nothing else, for the sake of being in the spotlight...you know, the '15-minutes of fame'. There is no way that a person, even slightly knowledgable about the licenses, would come up with such crap - unless for the reasons I just mentionned.
"It would depend on scale of the thread's strength to the variability of the factors affecting it."
Quite right. If storms and all other variables can only amount to a 2% increase in tension, it would still leave 36% as extra safety. You just need to know what strength it HAS to have to be able to use it safe during normal operations - which may be a bit tricky, but not impossible.
Variations of the orbit, storms, etc. can all be calculated. Maybe some unforseen things are still going to break it (like a meteorite striking it) but one can't take such extra-ordinaire variables into consideration. (Otherwise, every project would have to be halted).
But then again, you're talking to a staunch skeptic, IMHO, so you'll never convince him. I'm skeptical they are ever going to be able to build such a thing in the next 30 years, but I do believe, since we've covered all the basic principles, it's just a matter of time and further development/engineering. Sooner or later, as long as it will be economical beneficial, the thing *will* be build.
In all honesty, I doubt that this is always true. I mean, it might be, and probably is to some degree - which may culturally vary; in the USA I suspect it will be higher than in the EU, for instance... but I don't think it's so one-sided as parents deciding/buying boring kids' games, and the kids having no influence on it.
In many cases, kids have peers (and peer-pressure) and see dad play all this 'other cool stuff'; and they will nag your head of to get a similar game, even if it's not really suited for them. and many parents cave in to that too.
You can see that as a positive or a negative thing, but the fact remains the same: many kids play games which aren't 'officially' meant for their age. GTA will have a 'mature' rating, but how many kids don't play it? an awful lot, I presume, even though parents are well aware it may not be 'suitable' they let the kids play. (Maybe rightfully so, because as long as you make the difference very clear between the game and reality, I don't think there is a real problem).
There was an FA on/, not so long ago about penalising selling 'violent' games to kids. Meh. Ridiculous. It's all based on the false 'the columbine-kids did those things because they played Doom3'-argument. The problem is not the 'violence in games' (which is not the same as real violence anyway), nor the selling. It's up for parents to take interest in what thier kids do, and to decide if it's ok as entertainment vs. suitability.
As long as that doesn't happen, it won't make a difference. Kids will still want those games, and they'll get them, whether they can be sold to minors or not. Just as with alcohol (at least in the USA), one can easily find someone older who can get the game *for* them.
Anyway, to come back to my original point; I think that, in reality, there is a mix of usage of 'kids'games and 'non-kids' games being played by kids already. (Of course, I leave the question alone if 'non-kids' games are always that fun either...;-)
"Sure, a game for kids can be spared the dramas and plots within plots some adults are suckers for, but it doesn't mean it has to be dumbed down into oblivion."
What'ya mean? Oblivion was a *great* game, and not dumbed down at all!;-p
But honestly, even if they are all rational (greedy) bastards who calculate the benefits versus the cost, wouldn't a 5 year imprisonment and a fine of millions not be enough? I mean, I can't imagine them saying: "ok, my spamming is worth 5 years and millions in fines" (which you would have if you only gave a week and a fine of 100 bucks, obviously).
What I'm saying is, at some point it really doesn't matter anymore. One can differ at what level that would be, 5 years, 10... but I think one must relise that, say, if they're not deterred with 50 years, they won't be deterred by 65. I think we can agree on the priniple, thus. And according to me, purely looking at the benefits versus costs, 5 years and a fine of millions should be enough to deter them, at least in a pure 'calculated' economical sense.
With one parameter to be yet determined: the chance of getting cought.
And really, if you want such practises to be stopped, I think that variable is far more important than going from 5 years to 65. It just doesn't work that way, IMHO. A 65 year sentence if the chance they get you remains , say, 5%, is a pretty worthless deterent - the extra years just don't make much difference anymore. A 5 year sentence will be more than enough, however, if the chance is 50%.
So, instead of making laws higher and higher as a deterent, they should rather focus on nailing them down.
"My point is simply that I would have no problem with the sentence for spamming exceeding the sentence for murder if that was proven to be an effective deterrent and, that sentencing guidelines should not be thought up solely based on the heinousness of a crime for the sake of "consistency.""
I rather value consistency. Mostly, when laws are not consistent (or consistently applied) it breeds arbitrary judgement and unfairness - or simply doesn't make sense. But anyway, there have been comparisons between countries with high penalties for theft, and those with low penalties..but also with theft, no correlation could be found. This indicates the 'thougher' stance is not only flwaed for crimes of passion (unless you coinsider theft to be that). I don't quite see why spam would suddenly react well to such a mechanism, when it fails with other crimes. (Mind you, they did warn it was difficult to make ferm conclusions, because there were many variables; such as economical and cultural differences, etc. But I still think a strong link would have shown some correlation by now).
So, I *really* doubt the deterrent-factor is going to work, solely based on getting higher punishments. Of course, even being consistent, it DOES depend on the premise you start with, in regard to the purpose of jails. Is it punishment in 'an eye for an eye' fashion? Is the goal rehabilitation into society as a model citizen? Is it to saveguard society?
Most will chose the second and third reason. And in that case, one might wonder if even those nasty spammers do not deserve a second chance, after 5 years in prison and their belongings being confiscated? So, I can agree with you to a certain point, where you argue crimes of passion should be less severly punished then, say, calculated murder (and certainly serial killings), because their chance of recidivism is lower than those others...but I still think the 'henious' factor is still an element nevertheless. This is, because I truelly believe a life taken remains far worse then time wasted on spam, EVEN if you put that time all together. It just seems such an artificial, silly thing to calculate it that way. It would be as if you wouild put a man in prison for as long as for murder, because he broke bones in 3 people, and if you put all the broken bones together, a person could die from them.
With the difference you don't die from spam. I understand the sentiment that says: and now it is enough, spam must stop! and the notion of hitting them hard....but when you look at it a bit more rationally (adn with empathy) you realise it sho
"Speaking as a British eurofederalist, it's painful to admit it, but de Gaulle was right. We should never have been allowed in, and for that very reason."
We're in full agreement, then.
I don't mind the UK becomming part of the EU on itself, but you guys have got to decide: you're either part of Europe, or an unofficial state of the USA. (Or even, just remain an independend island without outspoken allegiances one way or another). But fuck, I hate the current mentality of eating from both hands, and at the same time biting both hands (though biting mostly EU-hands, because we're such wussies and you guys know it). I have the feeling that the biggest obstacle holding the EU back is, in fact, the UK.
Frankly, we should just kick you out, and wait untill you really made up your mind what way you want to go. I still remember the ones protesting the loudest against an EU-army, was the EU. The concept of an EU with two speeds (thus, countries that wanted to go further with the integration of the EU) was stopped by the UK. I mean; why? If YOU don't want to go any further, fine! But why make a ruckus if others DO want to go further?
And then to form a fist towards the USA...well, difficult to do, if you have a snake at ones' heart that willfully weakens any internal resolve. I mean, if you like the USA so much and agree to their every whim (as especially Blair does), THEN QUIT the EU and join the US.
hmm...sorry for the rant, I got carried away.
"Sometimes I think we should be kicked out post-haste, especially when we act up. "
Hm, I see we are in agreement on that too, thus. Well, you're the proof not all hope is lost. You guys should just get your act together and finally decide where you belong to; the US, the EU, or none. In all honesty, I don't think we *should* let you guys in...it's just that ALL anglo-saxon countries seem to be heading the same way lately. And that's the USA's way.
"2) If you continuously spam all people, you are left with a society that wastes ALL time. Therefore, society as a whole cannot survive; it suffocates."
I do see a logical fallacy there; that would only be true if *all* time is always 100% spend on spam. But this can not be (at least not inherently). For instance, if your mail (or other post) would consist 100% out of spam, you would lose LESS time, because you didn't need to shift through the mail to look for non-spam mail. (Or, alternatively, you could just stop using that manner of communication altogether). Also, the proportion of ones' life that can possibly come in contact with spam, is limited, and never 100%, thus, the time a person has, can never be wasted 100% on that spam.
So, there is a way for society to deal with getting 100% spam *without* wasting 100% time. There is no way for society to deal with 100% deaths and continue in *any* way.
So, murder is still worse than spam. Only if one would argue that 100% spam is inherently linked to 100% waste of *all* time they have (time necessary for the society to exist), would your argument be true.
Ofcourse, you partly skip this problem by saying spam is not unsollicited bulk email but 'the wasting of time of many people'. I think this definition is too broad to be useful, and actually a bit misleading.
Let's be honest here: the guy will not get 65 years for 'wasting time', but for sending spam (among other things). The issue here (certainly the legal issue) is about sending the spam, and spam IS defined as unsollicited bulk email, *not* as 'wasting time'.
In fact, if 'wasting time' *on itself* would be deemed punishable with 65 years, then it might be those that read the spam that may be put in jail. I mean, *who* exactly is wasting his time? Not the spammer, but the guy reading or shifting through it.
Granted, you were smart enough to add 'many people'....but even then, I know some managers in companies who have two meetings a day and waste the time of everyone else at the meeting, so maybe they should get 30 years in prison as well?;-)
As one can see, the definition 'wasting time for many people' may be a bit TOO broad, if one would actually apply it.
"That's why black-and-white morality is an inadequate framework for real life. Sometimes you need to compare apples and oranges."
The problem is, when comparing oranges and apples, WHAT kind of measurement (to compare) does one take? With equal or similar goods, you can compare the same traits. With completely different objects, all comparison is arbitrary. I can find wasting time, even huge amounts of it, less important then a murder. But I mean, all that is subjective. Just the same with trying to determine what 'wasted time' means. How can you prove that somebody wouldn't have wasted his time on something else then spam, if he didn't had gotten spam, for instance? If you're at work and a few babes come along, and all the male populace looks at them, instead of working, didn't those women just waste their time? The men themselves may think; no. The other women may think: yes. Maybe also the employer.
I mean, if you and your colleges get distracted by some students outside the schools every day, who play loud music even if you already told them it is disturbing, shouldn't they get 65 years for it? Is playing that music also worse then killing someone? If the union strikes, and hundreds, nay, thousands of automobilists have to waste their time for hours and hours while waiting for the roads to clear up, are the courts going to sentence the union-members to 65 years? Nope. So...why do it for a spammer, but not the rest, if wasting time is the determining factor?
I think we can agree that, with that definition of 'spam', soon everybody could get 65 years.
You yourself said that murder is boolean...maybe you should take the boolean factor as a me
I'm really not going to keep continuing the thread, it's long enough as it is, but maybe one or two more for the sake of it.:-)
"However, there are other ways in which someone can use a house:
c) look at it
d) re-arrange some subatomic particles that the owner could not detect and would not care if he chose to detect.
Why are a) and b) costs, while c) and d) are not? The answer: the homeowner cares about the distinction in some but not others."
I'm sorry, but that's your own interpretation for it. I'll give you another answer: if "looking at a house" is considered a good (as you seem to do) then *that* good is non-scarce. Thus, if a legal constuct would exist which forbids looking at a house, I would deem that unvalid too. I still remain fully consistent.
As for d): damage that can not be detected is the same as no damage at all. Doing no damage, as far as it is considered a good, is non-scarce. If a legal construct would exist which sanctions undetectable damage, I would deem it unvalid too. Again, I remain consistent.
"You can just as easily say that, to someone who produced a song X, "song X which no one has heard" is better than "song X which many have already heard" and therefore, for a third party to convert the former to the latter is not costless to the artist!"
I really think you're grasping at strows now. HOW in gods' name would a song differ whether it is heard before or not? It's EXACTLY the same. If that person could really hear a difference if the song was already heard or not, do a double blind test where the subject doesn't know when it is heard and when not. I assure you, he will fail to hear any difference. If you can demonstrate anyone can statistically find the 'better' sounding music (above the statistical chance) in that case, I'll think about such a silly notion, but for now I think the argument is complete bullocks.
"That is, *any* time person A wants the state of the universe to be Z, while B wants not Z, there must be a rule determining who wins, i.e., who may get his way, or who may do what in bringing or preventing Z."
This is not true; I've just explained in the above post that for non-scarce goods, you do not *need* a rule determining who gets what, because an infinite amount of people can get it without depriving it for others. Of course, a person can *WANT* a non-scarce good to follow the same rules as for a scarce good, but it's just *that* which I deem unvalid, because it is not necessary, and the necessity for a construct is (for me) an important element to decide whether a construct or not is valid. That's why, if A wants a scarce good to be Z, and a legal construct is made for it, I may find it valid, because it *needs* a mechanism to decide who gets what. And that's why, if A wants a non-scarce good to be Z, and a legal construct is made to decide who gets what, I find it unvalid, because there is no need for such a mechanism.
Remember that I said I found the legal construct valid because it is necessary to regulate an infinite number of people trying to use a finite good to prevent a far worse mechanism to take place, namely 'the strongest takes all'. If it's an infinite good, an infinite number of people can use it, so a legal construct is not necessary. THAT is the reason I find some legal constructs valid, and some not. It is NOT because somebody 'wants' a legal construct that it has any validity in my eyes. Because, I'm well aware your point is, that A needs a legal construct, but the reason he needs it, has nothing to do with having to regulate a scarce, limited resource. And if it's not for that inherently necessary reason, I find it unvalid.
That's why I used the example of the air so many times. If tomorrow someone would gain all rights to the use of air, *he* needs a legal construct, granted, but *I* would not accept that legal construct, because it pertains to a non-scarce good. For me, it's not enough to have a conflict of interest to find all legal constructs valid.
Ok, I said I was going to stop, but after a day, and reading your last post again, I feel sort of compelled to answer (again;).
"- I claim that's irrelevant under your principle - while it cannot be infinitely used without cost, it can be finitely used without cost. Specifically, to let someone use it when the owner's not there would be costless."
Ok, I have 3 objections to that:
1)There is always a direct cost to the owner: when people live in a house, they wear it out, thereby lessening the value or changing things which makes the good not the same anymore...as well for the owner or other future occupants, and thus, THEY can not use the *same* good anymore: the others use a good that is slightly different. Thus, by the simple fact that people have lived in a house (the good), the use of that exact same good is being deprived to others.
With digital information, a copy *is* the same as the original, even if others have copied it before you.
2)The owner loses indirectly: if other people already live in there, HE can't live there anymore. Or he can't put other people in there anymore who would want to hire it. Even if one would argue that the people living in it would have to leave when he wants to live there, in reality people just can't disappear in an instant, leaving the house in an identical state as it was before. Therefor, even *then* there will ALWAYS be a cost of time (and money) involved when others want to use the same good.
3)Since it is finite, you can't put infinite people in there. Since more people can apply to live there than the good is able to sustain, one HAS to have a mechanism to decide who does and who doesn't get to live in it. That's inherent for scarce goods, but NOT for non-scarce goods. There, infinite people *can* use it, so a mechanism to control who gets what is unnecessary. I mean; if you do not have such a mechanism, then people will continue to come even if it's impossible for the scare good to be of any use anymore. In practise, this will lead to a natural mechanism: the strongest will get the most. That's why in that case, a legal construct is made, to provide a better mechanism. That mechanism is: the owner decides.
Such a mechanism is NOT necessary for a non-scarce product, hence, a legal construct that deals with a scarce good may be valid, but a legal construct pertaining to a non-scarce good could be argued to be not valid. This does not mean one is inconsistently applying the validity of legal constructs.
While I laugh at the silly (part of the) USA where this sort of crap is passed, the sad thing is, I have a feeling that it will blow over to europe sooner or later too.
The influence of the USA is just too insidious to stop it, certainly with the open backdoor they have in the EU with their fellow-anglo-saxon-mentality country; the UK.
I even fear the day, EU-countries will begin to mandate ID has to be learned at school too.
It's actually one of the reasons I support (moderate) anti-americanism (not defined in the classical broad way). I think we're far too much influenced by how the US wants to see the world and we're *obliging* it far too many times. I don't understand that from our top-politicians; even when they do not agree with what the US says or does, they still buckle in the end. They cave in every god damn time...well, how is a bully ever going to learn his lesson, if he always gets his way?
I truelly wished we weren't so damn weak. you can't say what a strong europe we have (as out politicians do) and then show you cave in to every demand. If we don't make ourself stronger (in international affairs), in 20 years, we will cave in to china too.
I think it's mainly a problem from the EU political-structure; it just sucks. We should get rid of that commision of unelected bureacrats, and just vote directly for a president. As it is now, it pains me to acknowledge that the EU, seen on a worldscale, is a wussy.
Well, since it IS slashdot, and it IS a bad analogy, you know what comes next, don't you?;-)
"Society is like a house. Murder is akin to a window being broken: It's a highly visible problem that needs to be fixed, but a window broken on the first floor doesn't affect the second. Spam is like termites; you can't even see it, but it's slowly eating away the structure."
I'll take what the analogy stands for and view it in an ethical way according to Kants' categorical imperatif.
1)If you murder all people, you are left with no society anymore, therefor, society as a whole can not survive
2)If you spam all people, you are left with a society that wastes more time (or can't use email anymore), therefor, society as a whole can survive
If the premise is, that society is more important than the individual (debatable on itself), it's clear 'no society' is far worse than a 'society without email'. Thus, the impact, even on society, would be worse in the former case, hence, the act of murdering should be considered worse too.
Now, while I find Kants' reasoning a very good tool in evaluating ethical topics, one could also consider other means to decide the ethics of something.
Say, you claim *one* murder is as worse as 10000000 spams that waste peoples' time....
Ok...if you really believe that, it would mean that, if you *had* to choose between someone being killed, and 11000000 spams being send, you would rather opt for the former. Somehow, I don't see that as the most moral choice. Ofcourse, one could be an egotistical bastard, and say: go ahead! But then I would ask: would you really say the same if YOU were the person to be killed?
This question is not without importance, because one CAN make an ethical case where the death of one man is deemed less important than, say, the deaths of 11000000. And I would agree with that...*even* if I was the person to be killed.
Now, why is there this difference? Because, frankly, spam and murder are simply not comparable, nomatter how much spam it is. They are on a completely different level. And that's why there will be very few people who *really* think their lives are worth less than 11000000 spam-messages in their mailbox. If people don't think it is as important, neither should society. And thus, it shouldn't act as if it is neither.
The problem I have with the 'he wasted so and so many seconds per person, and add them all up and you come to the same'...is that it's not really the same, because it's on a totally different level.
If that (your reasoning) would really be true, it would mean that, for instance, if you *had* to choose between a person being killed and millions of people having to waste a minute of their time, one would choose the latter, because if one would add it all up, it would be more than the equivalent of a lifetime. Would you really, *really* make such a decision? Somehow, it seems absurd.
At least for me. My moral compass would indicate that I'd prefer to not have a person killed than to save millions (or even billions) a few minutes of their time from being wasted. In my ethical view, wasting time of the many *does not* equal the death of even one. And frankly, I have difficulty understanding how one could conclude the opposite.
"To balance the equation and make spamming no longer such an attractive deal you have to be very harsh and, personally I have no problem putting putting spammers in prison twice as long as murderers if that's what it takes to make people respect the risk they would be taking to start a spamming business."
That argument would be more convincing if it would be demonstrated to be true. I mean, that's one of the exact same arguments proponents of the deathpenalty use to justify it; "others will not do it if they know they'll get capital punishment for it".
However, again and again, scientific research has demonstrated there is NO correlation between the two. This means, the "how tougher we make it, how less crime we'll get" is just bullocks. Just as you have in economics a diminuishing return, so do you have with punishments. Sure, if you would only give a one-day sentence to a spammer making millions out of it, there would not be any incentive to stop, not would it be a deterent at all. But, I assure you, if people are not detered by a sentence of 5 year inmprisonment and a fine of millions, they won't be by 50 neither.
I do not believe that, in actuality, it gives any more benefit in that regard to push it up to 65 years. One could still argue that it would be a good thing to saveguard society from recedivists, perhaps, but to the detriment of being humane. (Of course, that is a subjective stance, the worth of being humane to prisoners is relative, as I've noted by another debate I had on/. with someone who even wanted all beggers to be put in jail for long times).
I just want to point out that the "the tougher, the less crime" is not a valid argument above a certain treshold.
"They affected millions of people. OK, maybe it's difficult to quantify the damage, but if you think how much time, money and effort has been spent on fighting people like him (all those spam filter programs written and bought). There's also all the extra bandwidth used which has probably increased the costs of internet access for everyone to compensate. Never mind all the resources (electricity, time, Internet fees) that he stole from the people unwittingly on his botnets. Then there's the fraudulent nature of much of the spam as well."
First of all, you can't put all the costs combatting all spammers on this spammer alone. That would be equal to claiming all costs of anti-breaking&entering tools and other theft-prevention and security systems shops and buildings employ are considered the integral cost of thief catched. In that case, a thief should get hundreds of years and billions of damages.
No, a thief is only sentenced for what he did, and so should a spammer. Therefor, it is irrelevant how much costs ISPs have done to combat spammers; the spammer himself should be sentenced for the actual damages HE did.
Furthermore, even if one would argue the damage he did was worse then killing people, there is still something fishy with the inconsistency. Fraudulent CEO's have often caused millions of damages, and caused hardship for thousands...I can't remember anyone of those getting 65 years... If the reason for the though law would be what you claim it is, it should be valid for others too, yet it isn't.
I do not agree with your underlaying premise (that punishment is too low), but I do agree that it would be more consistent if the relative severity of it was in accordance with even more tough laws for more severe crimes. (As it would be (also) consistent if it lowered the spam-punishment and the rest stayed the same).
However, the argument was about the inconsistency, and thus you do not hate it, but rather you agree with me that it doesn't make any sense. (Though we might be proponents of solving that inconsistency in deifferent ways).
We've been over this fowards and backwards and I'm quite sure we could be debating it for months and still not come to an agreement. I think we both have made our points clear by now, it's just we don't share them.
For now, I think this thread has outlived its use. Hopefully, in our next debate, we will come to a more fruitful conclusion.
Slashdot Mirror
I've read a few posts of you before responding, and you seem reasonable enough. :-)
Ok...I'll be honest. I saw most of the footage on youtube, and here's what I think: the guy was pretty wacko, most of his questions were largely irrelevant (though the skull and bones IS actually true), and yes, he made a big scene when the cops got at him: he was clearly an attention-seeker.
But still, I can't really agree with some of your (and others') arguments.
An annoying idiot or not, and on private property or not, ultimately, he didn't resort to violence: the only thing he did was asking questions and being annoying about it. You say: "I agree that people should get their voices out, but they should accept the consequences of their actions." Well, ok, but the consequences of asking annoying questions and going above your alloted time *should not be* getting arrested and tazed. Certainly not seen the fact that the one he asked those questions to (Kerry himself, thus) said: "That's ok, I'll answer that" when he saw the cops move in towards the guy. I mean, if *he* said that to them, shouldn't the cops have shown a bit more patience?
Also, to be honest, I find the argument used by many 'he got what he deserved' slahdotcrowd a bit unfair; the "he was distrubing and going above his allotted time"....well...meh. One can see for oneself on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaiWCS10C5s : frankly, I've seen a lot more 'disturbing' in a lot of meetings and debates I went too. He actually starts with thanking Kerry, he recommends a book, and he asks two questions, and says he should have 2 minutes if Kerry had 2 hours... it's hardly anything that really qualifies as creating havoc or even a disturbance of any importance. and for the 'allowed time'...from the point where he starts talking till the moment he gets arrested he used exactly...1 minute 31 seconds. Heh. Looking at some of the posts who says he deserved it, one would think he was taking up precious hours in which no-one else could use their right of free speech. For f- sake! It was less then 2 minutes; hardly a huge deprivation or denial of others to use their right on free speech.
My point is: he didn't really do anything exessive. He didn't 'take' the word (as some claim), he was given the word by Kerry himself; so one hardly call that disruptive. The cops didn't really 'ask him gently to leave'; the first time they speak up, the police woman said he needs to ask a question, after he talked 40 seconds or so. Well... is that for her to decide? Kerry doesn't mind. And then, he DOES ask his questions, and the mic gets cut off. I mean, it's hard to imagine it really deserved all this - I rather get the impression the 'disturbance of peace' is rather a convenient excuse as oposed to this 'inconvenient truth'; they just didn't like what he said and how he said it. There was very little actual 'disturbance' noticable, unless you call his rather bold remark to that policewoman a disturbance on itself.
And even if they did feel the irresistable need to decide his free speech rights were revoked...shouldn't they have handled it differently? I mean, the question was already asked by then, and Kerry was already answering it. What exactly, WAS the problem at that time? I even thought cutting off his mic was uncalled for, let alone arrest him and taze him.
All in all, even though I don't doubt the guy is seldom constructive (at least his questions weren't all that constructive), it looks to me more of a case where the police didn't like his brazen attitude and his response about the "I think I'm allowed two minutes after his two hours" to the policewoman, than anything else. I mean, c'mon; he wasn't REALLY a disturbance. Kerry didn't think so neither. To get smacked down by 6 cops and getting tazed is just...way overboard. If he had taken the word himself, talked for a long time without letting anyone else speak, was violent or agressive towards Kerry or other people...I wou
"No, you do *not* have unlimited rights to say what you want, where and when you want, as loudly as you want."
That's a non-argument.
The police does *not* have unlimited rights to arrest someone, where and when they want, as violently as they want, neither.
Such statements are completely nonsensical and unhelpful. The question is, what free speech was used? And the fact is, he was asking questions, not shouting 'fire' (to use the much abused counterclaim). Annoying questions? Perhaps. Above his alloted time for asking them? Perhaps.
But was it still free speech according to the constitution? Yes. Does asking annoying questions warrant an arrest? No.
Being 'disruptive' (note, btw, that Kerry DID want to answer his questions) is no reason to revoke the right of free speech, let alone arrest someone for it. I'm sure a lot of republican politicians find the protests against the war in Iraq disruptive too...so, should we follow your reasoning consistently, then?
There are limitations to free speech indeed (as with yelling 'fire' in a theatre), but those are restricted and pretty narrowly defined. I'm quite sure the supreme court didn't rule that asking questions on a public forum that disturbs some of the other spectators is sufficient cause to loose your rights of free speech.
So your counterargumentation really doesn't amount to much in this case.
"Freedom of speech is not a freedom to be heard and/or given an audience"
Ok, so, when he chinese police arrest some dissident and say to him he's free to say whatever he wants in his cel, they are respecting his free speech too?
"He can say whatever he wants to whoever wants to listen."
In a public forum, he can actually say it to who doesn't want to listen. Forbidding anything else would be ludicrous. I mean, do I want to listen to some pro-iraq-war people who are marching in front of my house? No. Could I then, following your reasoning, forbid it? Should the moslim community be allowed to forbid the making of cartoons, because they don't want to see them?
If you don't want to listen, then don't listen. In a public place, you can't deprive someone of his free speech because you don't want to listen to it; that would amount to NO free speech. In the case of this Kerry-debate I'm not sure how far the public analogy goes; maybe it was on university grounds or the organisation was in the hands of Kerry&co. In that case, it for THEM to draw the line (and one with no exesive violence, at that). Note, however, that Kerry was *willing* to answer the question. He actually said to the cops when they started moving "it's allright, I will answer that". But the cops didn't listen. So, what? THEY decide when the alloted time for a question is passed? They decide such a thing warrants arrest?
People can be annoyed and I'm sure a lot of those people there didn't want to listen to his questions - but does that give anyone the right to arrest him? According to your reasoning, it does. Needles to say this is impossible to maintain, since you will ALWAYS have those that don't want to listen to someone else. Heck, then republicans could arrest every democrat that opens his mouth. As a general rule, the "free speech is only ok to people who wants to hear you" is completely absurd when applied consistently.
"He doesn't have the right to hijack someone else's venue and force his views down other's throats."
You can't force a view by asking questions. The only thing that does that efficiently is propagnda. The USA media are quite good at that, actually, so maybe one should arrest the guys from FOX-news? You're using a lot of emo-laden hyperbole (hijacking, forcing,...), but the fact is, he was asking questions, and that's free speech, and that's protected by the constitution. Nowhere is it mentionned you can only have free speech to people who like your viewpoint. The importance of free speech is the most apparent if you can also use it when people DO NOT want to hear it. Otherwise, minorities would NEVER be able to protest against anything the majority doesn't want to hear.
"You split the company up or write fines. Which leaves you not with the desired competitive atmosphere but a wounded monopoly, still a monopoly nevertheless."
Does AT&T ring a bell, mayhaps?
The company got split up, exactly as you say, and it's monopoly was over, and competition and innovation were abound.
While it may be true that a company strives to become a monopoly, it's equally true the state should strive to *not* let a company become a monopoly (or at least, deal with their abusive because of the monopoly-position). Quod licit Jovis non licit bovis; a surprising outcome has nothing to do with it.
While some may portray it as being an EU versus USA thing, it's actually much broader then that. To be sure; that sentiment *IS* there, and it certainly has played a role, especially concerning the popular support (the general EU IT-populace). It's doubtful however that the judges let themselves be swept away by any anti-americanism, however.
I think it's as much a 'global corporation which tries to screw you over'-sentiment than anything else, and that's why a lot of open source people (also in the USA) are rejoicing. But... that sentiment played little to no role in the ruling neither.
Basically, it's quite simple: they went against EU law and were dragging their feet to comply. No judge likes THAT.
Personally, I think they deserve a much higher penalty. The EU commision is way to soft on them - actually softer then on big EU corporations they tried to deal with in the past. And also, the 'provide an XP without the mediaplayer'-thing was outright stupid. *Everyone* with half a brain could see this would have no effect. First of all, it's too limited in scope: what about win-OSses other than XP, what about all those other applications other then the media player? Is the EU going to fight a 10 year struggle over every OS and application that comes along and has the same issues as was now decided on?
And apart from that: it's just suilly. Nobody is going to buy XP without mediaplayer if, for the same price, one can get one *with* it. By now, this obvious deduction has been proven right. No, what they should do is making it obliged that *every* OS MS makes gives the oportunity to install (or not) any application that comes with it (browser, media player, virusscanner, etc.). That way, you let consumers decide, and you give the opportunity to choose other applications instead of the windows-included-ones.
Such a ruling would have made better sense, coppled with opening up their code for compatibility and an even huger fine would make it clear to MS that no corporation is above the law, not even a giant USA one with lots of money and lawyers.
"(*resists urge to lash out against people who comment on this submission without actually reading through the linked materials, only to notice that parenthetical note yields to urge*)"
;-)
Your self-restraint is appreciated!
"The basic idea is that you can't slap your own copyright notice on something you don't own; you have to do some meaningful amount work before you can claim that you've got a derivative work."
Certainly that's the basic idea; but if you allow others to copy/distribute/etc. it (under various rules) then that basic point becomes moot, and it depends on the rules that the licence sets forth. It is always claimed that the BSD was even far more permissive then the GPL.
And this is what I find a bit confusing. The author seems to focus on the general law to say it's not allowed, but really it depends what is said in the licence itself. I mean, if I make something and I licence it with the condition that everyone is free to do with it what he wants (not saying the BSD is like that, just giving this as an example), then it really doesn't matter what the 'general idea' is. So doesn't it boil down to (the interpretation of) the BSD licence? And isn't that a bit of the problem in this case, since it's not always evident which author did what under what (exact) licence. For instance, in one of the links, one can read: "Most newer OpenBSD code uses ISC license which is even more permissive." This indicates differtent (variations of) licences are being used. I'm sure that won't help anything.
But soit, I'm not an expert in legalese, it just stroke me as a bit weird that BSD people would make such a fuss about it when it concerns the GPL, when (for instance) years ago they had code taken from them by MS, and nobody really knows how 'substantial' their modifications were, since it's closed source. Let's be realistic here: some properietary applications may have lots of BSD-licenced code in them, but nobody from the BSD-crowd really made much fuss about it. On the contrary, it was always portrayed as an advantage and being 'more free' than GPL.
It seems a bit silly to now suddenly make a big deal of it.
What law? In the USA, in south-africa,...? And where, exactly, is the clause that says it has to be 'substantial modifications', before you can use BSD code and place that under another licence? I'm not saying what you claim is untrue, but I can't find anything that actually says that. the closest I found on wikipedia was this:
"The BSD License allows proprietary commercial use, and for the software released under the license to be incorporated into proprietary commercial products. Works based on the material may even be released under a proprietary license (but still must maintain the license requirements). Some notable examples of this are the use of BSD networking code in Microsoft products, and the use of numerous FreeBSD components in Mac OS X.
It is possible for something to be distributed with the BSD License and some other license to apply as well. This was in fact the case with very early versions of BSD itself, which included proprietary material from AT&T."
Note that they only said; "works based on the material". Technically, a work that has even one character of code added is still 'based on the material'. What I mean is, if he's going to say it's illegal to do so, it's not derived *inherently* from the licence, but from the law of the country (in determining what 'based on' means). And that, of course, is dependent on the country.
It may well be that it might be totally legit in some countries, thus.
Of course, I'm not that of an expert on BSD-licenses, so I might have overlooked the 'substantial modification'-clause. I would be greatfull if you could give a link to that, since in that case, it would be inherent to the license itself.
"the theory that BSD code can simply be relicensed to the GPL without making significant changes to the code is false"
...you know, the '15-minutes of fame'. There is no way that a person, even slightly knowledgable about the licenses, would come up with such crap - unless for the reasons I just mentionned.
This is complete bullocks. The whole point of the BSD vs. GPL (eternal) debate is just that the former always claim it's more free (to use/distribute). In fact, with the BSD, it's completely possible (and legal) to take it and make a proprietary program/application of it. And now one would claim it can't be turned into GPL 'without changes to the code'? Where does that guy get that crap?
One has the distinct feeling TFA is one (in a row) of articles meant to be controversial and nothing else, for the sake of being in the spotlight
"It would depend on scale of the thread's strength to the variability of the factors affecting it."
Quite right. If storms and all other variables can only amount to a 2% increase in tension, it would still leave 36% as extra safety. You just need to know what strength it HAS to have to be able to use it safe during normal operations - which may be a bit tricky, but not impossible.
Variations of the orbit, storms, etc. can all be calculated. Maybe some unforseen things are still going to break it (like a meteorite striking it) but one can't take such extra-ordinaire variables into consideration. (Otherwise, every project would have to be halted).
But then again, you're talking to a staunch skeptic, IMHO, so you'll never convince him. I'm skeptical they are ever going to be able to build such a thing in the next 30 years, but I do believe, since we've covered all the basic principles, it's just a matter of time and further development/engineering. Sooner or later, as long as it will be economical beneficial, the thing *will* be build.
In all honesty, I doubt that this is always true. I mean, it might be, and probably is to some degree - which may culturally vary; in the USA I suspect it will be higher than in the EU, for instance... but I don't think it's so one-sided as parents deciding/buying boring kids' games, and the kids having no influence on it.
/, not so long ago about penalising selling 'violent' games to kids. Meh. Ridiculous. It's all based on the false 'the columbine-kids did those things because they played Doom3'-argument. The problem is not the 'violence in games' (which is not the same as real violence anyway), nor the selling. It's up for parents to take interest in what thier kids do, and to decide if it's ok as entertainment vs. suitability.
;-)
In many cases, kids have peers (and peer-pressure) and see dad play all this 'other cool stuff'; and they will nag your head of to get a similar game, even if it's not really suited for them. and many parents cave in to that too.
You can see that as a positive or a negative thing, but the fact remains the same: many kids play games which aren't 'officially' meant for their age. GTA will have a 'mature' rating, but how many kids don't play it? an awful lot, I presume, even though parents are well aware it may not be 'suitable' they let the kids play. (Maybe rightfully so, because as long as you make the difference very clear between the game and reality, I don't think there is a real problem).
There was an FA on
As long as that doesn't happen, it won't make a difference. Kids will still want those games, and they'll get them, whether they can be sold to minors or not. Just as with alcohol (at least in the USA), one can easily find someone older who can get the game *for* them.
Anyway, to come back to my original point; I think that, in reality, there is a mix of usage of 'kids'games and 'non-kids' games being played by kids already. (Of course, I leave the question alone if 'non-kids' games are always that fun either...
"Sure, a game for kids can be spared the dramas and plots within plots some adults are suckers for, but it doesn't mean it has to be dumbed down into oblivion."
;-p
What'ya mean? Oblivion was a *great* game, and not dumbed down at all!
Well, I did say you need a treshold, of course.
But honestly, even if they are all rational (greedy) bastards who calculate the benefits versus the cost, wouldn't a 5 year imprisonment and a fine of millions not be enough? I mean, I can't imagine them saying: "ok, my spamming is worth 5 years and millions in fines" (which you would have if you only gave a week and a fine of 100 bucks, obviously).
What I'm saying is, at some point it really doesn't matter anymore. One can differ at what level that would be, 5 years, 10... but I think one must relise that, say, if they're not deterred with 50 years, they won't be deterred by 65. I think we can agree on the priniple, thus. And according to me, purely looking at the benefits versus costs, 5 years and a fine of millions should be enough to deter them, at least in a pure 'calculated' economical sense.
With one parameter to be yet determined: the chance of getting cought.
And really, if you want such practises to be stopped, I think that variable is far more important than going from 5 years to 65. It just doesn't work that way, IMHO. A 65 year sentence if the chance they get you remains , say, 5%, is a pretty worthless deterent - the extra years just don't make much difference anymore. A 5 year sentence will be more than enough, however, if the chance is 50%.
So, instead of making laws higher and higher as a deterent, they should rather focus on nailing them down.
"My point is simply that I would have no problem with the sentence for spamming exceeding the sentence for murder if that was proven to be an effective deterrent and, that sentencing guidelines should not be thought up solely based on the heinousness of a crime for the sake of "consistency.""
I rather value consistency. Mostly, when laws are not consistent (or consistently applied) it breeds arbitrary judgement and unfairness - or simply doesn't make sense. But anyway, there have been comparisons between countries with high penalties for theft, and those with low penalties..but also with theft, no correlation could be found. This indicates the 'thougher' stance is not only flwaed for crimes of passion (unless you coinsider theft to be that). I don't quite see why spam would suddenly react well to such a mechanism, when it fails with other crimes. (Mind you, they did warn it was difficult to make ferm conclusions, because there were many variables; such as economical and cultural differences, etc. But I still think a strong link would have shown some correlation by now).
So, I *really* doubt the deterrent-factor is going to work, solely based on getting higher punishments. Of course, even being consistent, it DOES depend on the premise you start with, in regard to the purpose of jails. Is it punishment in 'an eye for an eye' fashion? Is the goal rehabilitation into society as a model citizen? Is it to saveguard society?
Most will chose the second and third reason. And in that case, one might wonder if even those nasty spammers do not deserve a second chance, after 5 years in prison and their belongings being confiscated? So, I can agree with you to a certain point, where you argue crimes of passion should be less severly punished then, say, calculated murder (and certainly serial killings), because their chance of recidivism is lower than those others...but I still think the 'henious' factor is still an element nevertheless. This is, because I truelly believe a life taken remains far worse then time wasted on spam, EVEN if you put that time all together. It just seems such an artificial, silly thing to calculate it that way. It would be as if you wouild put a man in prison for as long as for murder, because he broke bones in 3 people, and if you put all the broken bones together, a person could die from them.
With the difference you don't die from spam. I understand the sentiment that says: and now it is enough, spam must stop! and the notion of hitting them hard....but when you look at it a bit more rationally (adn with empathy) you realise it sho
"Speaking as a British eurofederalist, it's painful to admit it, but de Gaulle was right. We should never have been allowed in, and for that very reason."
We're in full agreement, then.
I don't mind the UK becomming part of the EU on itself, but you guys have got to decide: you're either part of Europe, or an unofficial state of the USA. (Or even, just remain an independend island without outspoken allegiances one way or another). But fuck, I hate the current mentality of eating from both hands, and at the same time biting both hands (though biting mostly EU-hands, because we're such wussies and you guys know it). I have the feeling that the biggest obstacle holding the EU back is, in fact, the UK.
Frankly, we should just kick you out, and wait untill you really made up your mind what way you want to go. I still remember the ones protesting the loudest against an EU-army, was the EU. The concept of an EU with two speeds (thus, countries that wanted to go further with the integration of the EU) was stopped by the UK. I mean; why? If YOU don't want to go any further, fine! But why make a ruckus if others DO want to go further?
And then to form a fist towards the USA...well, difficult to do, if you have a snake at ones' heart that willfully weakens any internal resolve. I mean, if you like the USA so much and agree to their every whim (as especially Blair does), THEN QUIT the EU and join the US.
hmm...sorry for the rant, I got carried away.
"Sometimes I think we should be kicked out post-haste, especially when we act up. "
Hm, I see we are in agreement on that too, thus. Well, you're the proof not all hope is lost. You guys should just get your act together and finally decide where you belong to; the US, the EU, or none. In all honesty, I don't think we *should* let you guys in...it's just that ALL anglo-saxon countries seem to be heading the same way lately. And that's the USA's way.
"Ah, rational discourse."
;-)
;-)
Always!
"The subthread is saved!"
joy!
"2) If you continuously spam all people, you are left with a society that wastes ALL time. Therefore, society as a whole cannot survive; it suffocates."
I do see a logical fallacy there; that would only be true if *all* time is always 100% spend on spam. But this can not be (at least not inherently). For instance, if your mail (or other post) would consist 100% out of spam, you would lose LESS time, because you didn't need to shift through the mail to look for non-spam mail. (Or, alternatively, you could just stop using that manner of communication altogether). Also, the proportion of ones' life that can possibly come in contact with spam, is limited, and never 100%, thus, the time a person has, can never be wasted 100% on that spam.
So, there is a way for society to deal with getting 100% spam *without* wasting 100% time. There is no way for society to deal with 100% deaths and continue in *any* way.
So, murder is still worse than spam. Only if one would argue that 100% spam is inherently linked to 100% waste of *all* time they have (time necessary for the society to exist), would your argument be true.
Ofcourse, you partly skip this problem by saying spam is not unsollicited bulk email but 'the wasting of time of many people'. I think this definition is too broad to be useful, and actually a bit misleading.
Let's be honest here: the guy will not get 65 years for 'wasting time', but for sending spam (among other things). The issue here (certainly the legal issue) is about sending the spam, and spam IS defined as unsollicited bulk email, *not* as 'wasting time'.
In fact, if 'wasting time' *on itself* would be deemed punishable with 65 years, then it might be those that read the spam that may be put in jail. I mean, *who* exactly is wasting his time? Not the spammer, but the guy reading or shifting through it.
Granted, you were smart enough to add 'many people'....but even then, I know some managers in companies who have two meetings a day and waste the time of everyone else at the meeting, so maybe they should get 30 years in prison as well?
As one can see, the definition 'wasting time for many people' may be a bit TOO broad, if one would actually apply it.
"That's why black-and-white morality is an inadequate framework for real life. Sometimes you need to compare apples and oranges."
The problem is, when comparing oranges and apples, WHAT kind of measurement (to compare) does one take? With equal or similar goods, you can compare the same traits. With completely different objects, all comparison is arbitrary. I can find wasting time, even huge amounts of it, less important then a murder. But I mean, all that is subjective. Just the same with trying to determine what 'wasted time' means. How can you prove that somebody wouldn't have wasted his time on something else then spam, if he didn't had gotten spam, for instance? If you're at work and a few babes come along, and all the male populace looks at them, instead of working, didn't those women just waste their time? The men themselves may think; no. The other women may think: yes. Maybe also the employer.
I mean, if you and your colleges get distracted by some students outside the schools every day, who play loud music even if you already told them it is disturbing, shouldn't they get 65 years for it? Is playing that music also worse then killing someone? If the union strikes, and hundreds, nay, thousands of automobilists have to waste their time for hours and hours while waiting for the roads to clear up, are the courts going to sentence the union-members to 65 years? Nope. So...why do it for a spammer, but not the rest, if wasting time is the determining factor?
I think we can agree that, with that definition of 'spam', soon everybody could get 65 years.
You yourself said that murder is boolean...maybe you should take the boolean factor as a me
Heh... I knew it would go on like this. ;-)
:-)
I'm really not going to keep continuing the thread, it's long enough as it is, but maybe one or two more for the sake of it.
"However, there are other ways in which someone can use a house:
c) look at it
d) re-arrange some subatomic particles that the owner could not detect and would not care if he chose to detect.
Why are a) and b) costs, while c) and d) are not? The answer: the homeowner cares about the distinction in some but not others."
I'm sorry, but that's your own interpretation for it. I'll give you another answer: if "looking at a house" is considered a good (as you seem to do) then *that* good is non-scarce. Thus, if a legal constuct would exist which forbids looking at a house, I would deem that unvalid too. I still remain fully consistent.
As for d): damage that can not be detected is the same as no damage at all. Doing no damage, as far as it is considered a good, is non-scarce. If a legal construct would exist which sanctions undetectable damage, I would deem it unvalid too. Again, I remain consistent.
"You can just as easily say that, to someone who produced a song X, "song X which no one has heard" is better than "song X which many have already heard" and therefore, for a third party to convert the former to the latter is not costless to the artist!"
I really think you're grasping at strows now. HOW in gods' name would a song differ whether it is heard before or not? It's EXACTLY the same. If that person could really hear a difference if the song was already heard or not, do a double blind test where the subject doesn't know when it is heard and when not. I assure you, he will fail to hear any difference. If you can demonstrate anyone can statistically find the 'better' sounding music (above the statistical chance) in that case, I'll think about such a silly notion, but for now I think the argument is complete bullocks.
"That is, *any* time person A wants the state of the universe to be Z, while B wants not Z, there must be a rule determining who wins, i.e., who may get his way, or who may do what in bringing or preventing Z."
This is not true; I've just explained in the above post that for non-scarce goods, you do not *need* a rule determining who gets what, because an infinite amount of people can get it without depriving it for others. Of course, a person can *WANT* a non-scarce good to follow the same rules as for a scarce good, but it's just *that* which I deem unvalid, because it is not necessary, and the necessity for a construct is (for me) an important element to decide whether a construct or not is valid. That's why, if A wants a scarce good to be Z, and a legal construct is made for it, I may find it valid, because it *needs* a mechanism to decide who gets what. And that's why, if A wants a non-scarce good to be Z, and a legal construct is made to decide who gets what, I find it unvalid, because there is no need for such a mechanism.
Remember that I said I found the legal construct valid because it is necessary to regulate an infinite number of people trying to use a finite good to prevent a far worse mechanism to take place, namely 'the strongest takes all'. If it's an infinite good, an infinite number of people can use it, so a legal construct is not necessary. THAT is the reason I find some legal constructs valid, and some not. It is NOT because somebody 'wants' a legal construct that it has any validity in my eyes. Because, I'm well aware your point is, that A needs a legal construct, but the reason he needs it, has nothing to do with having to regulate a scarce, limited resource. And if it's not for that inherently necessary reason, I find it unvalid.
That's why I used the example of the air so many times. If tomorrow someone would gain all rights to the use of air, *he* needs a legal construct, granted, but *I* would not accept that legal construct, because it pertains to a non-scarce good. For me, it's not enough to have a conflict of interest to find all legal constructs valid.
Ok, I said I was going to stop, but after a day, and reading your last post again, I feel sort of compelled to answer (again ;).
"- I claim that's irrelevant under your principle - while it cannot be infinitely used without cost, it can be finitely used without cost. Specifically, to let someone use it when the owner's not there would be costless."
Ok, I have 3 objections to that:
1)There is always a direct cost to the owner: when people live in a house, they wear it out, thereby lessening the value or changing things which makes the good not the same anymore...as well for the owner or other future occupants, and thus, THEY can not use the *same* good anymore: the others use a good that is slightly different. Thus, by the simple fact that people have lived in a house (the good), the use of that exact same good is being deprived to others.
With digital information, a copy *is* the same as the original, even if others have copied it before you.
2)The owner loses indirectly: if other people already live in there, HE can't live there anymore. Or he can't put other people in there anymore who would want to hire it. Even if one would argue that the people living in it would have to leave when he wants to live there, in reality people just can't disappear in an instant, leaving the house in an identical state as it was before. Therefor, even *then* there will ALWAYS be a cost of time (and money) involved when others want to use the same good.
3)Since it is finite, you can't put infinite people in there. Since more people can apply to live there than the good is able to sustain, one HAS to have a mechanism to decide who does and who doesn't get to live in it. That's inherent for scarce goods, but NOT for non-scarce goods. There, infinite people *can* use it, so a mechanism to control who gets what is unnecessary. I mean; if you do not have such a mechanism, then people will continue to come even if it's impossible for the scare good to be of any use anymore. In practise, this will lead to a natural mechanism: the strongest will get the most. That's why in that case, a legal construct is made, to provide a better mechanism. That mechanism is: the owner decides.
Such a mechanism is NOT necessary for a non-scarce product, hence, a legal construct that deals with a scarce good may be valid, but a legal construct pertaining to a non-scarce good could be argued to be not valid. This does not mean one is inconsistently applying the validity of legal constructs.
It should also be tagged 'thinkofthechildren'!
While I laugh at the silly (part of the) USA where this sort of crap is passed, the sad thing is, I have a feeling that it will blow over to europe sooner or later too.
The influence of the USA is just too insidious to stop it, certainly with the open backdoor they have in the EU with their fellow-anglo-saxon-mentality country; the UK.
I even fear the day, EU-countries will begin to mandate ID has to be learned at school too.
It's actually one of the reasons I support (moderate) anti-americanism (not defined in the classical broad way). I think we're far too much influenced by how the US wants to see the world and we're *obliging* it far too many times. I don't understand that from our top-politicians; even when they do not agree with what the US says or does, they still buckle in the end. They cave in every god damn time...well, how is a bully ever going to learn his lesson, if he always gets his way?
I truelly wished we weren't so damn weak. you can't say what a strong europe we have (as out politicians do) and then show you cave in to every demand. If we don't make ourself stronger (in international affairs), in 20 years, we will cave in to china too.
I think it's mainly a problem from the EU political-structure; it just sucks. We should get rid of that commision of unelected bureacrats, and just vote directly for a president. As it is now, it pains me to acknowledge that the EU, seen on a worldscale, is a wussy.
Well, since it IS slashdot, and it IS a bad analogy, you know what comes next, don't you? ;-)
"Society is like a house. Murder is akin to a window being broken: It's a highly visible problem that needs to be fixed, but a window broken on the first floor doesn't affect the second. Spam is like termites; you can't even see it, but it's slowly eating away the structure."
I'll take what the analogy stands for and view it in an ethical way according to Kants' categorical imperatif.
1)If you murder all people, you are left with no society anymore, therefor, society as a whole can not survive
2)If you spam all people, you are left with a society that wastes more time (or can't use email anymore), therefor, society as a whole can survive
If the premise is, that society is more important than the individual (debatable on itself), it's clear 'no society' is far worse than a 'society without email'. Thus, the impact, even on society, would be worse in the former case, hence, the act of murdering should be considered worse too.
Now, while I find Kants' reasoning a very good tool in evaluating ethical topics, one could also consider other means to decide the ethics of something.
Say, you claim *one* murder is as worse as 10000000 spams that waste peoples' time....
Ok...if you really believe that, it would mean that, if you *had* to choose between someone being killed, and 11000000 spams being send, you would rather opt for the former. Somehow, I don't see that as the most moral choice. Ofcourse, one could be an egotistical bastard, and say: go ahead! But then I would ask: would you really say the same if YOU were the person to be killed?
This question is not without importance, because one CAN make an ethical case where the death of one man is deemed less important than, say, the deaths of 11000000. And I would agree with that...*even* if I was the person to be killed.
Now, why is there this difference? Because, frankly, spam and murder are simply not comparable, nomatter how much spam it is. They are on a completely different level. And that's why there will be very few people who *really* think their lives are worth less than 11000000 spam-messages in their mailbox. If people don't think it is as important, neither should society. And thus, it shouldn't act as if it is neither.
May In refer you to this post from an AC who said it better than me:
o ld=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=19346145
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=236785&thresh
The problem I have with the 'he wasted so and so many seconds per person, and add them all up and you come to the same'...is that it's not really the same, because it's on a totally different level.
If that (your reasoning) would really be true, it would mean that, for instance, if you *had* to choose between a person being killed and millions of people having to waste a minute of their time, one would choose the latter, because if one would add it all up, it would be more than the equivalent of a lifetime. Would you really, *really* make such a decision? Somehow, it seems absurd.
At least for me. My moral compass would indicate that I'd prefer to not have a person killed than to save millions (or even billions) a few minutes of their time from being wasted. In my ethical view, wasting time of the many *does not* equal the death of even one. And frankly, I have difficulty understanding how one could conclude the opposite.
Very well put. To say I almost missed your post because you're an AC and I usually don't read that (they are below my /. viewpoints-treshold)
"Don't compare spam to murder... compare it to genocide."
Ermmm...right. My I ask for a second opinion on that, say, from the Jews?
"To balance the equation and make spamming no longer such an attractive deal you have to be very harsh and, personally I have no problem putting putting spammers in prison twice as long as murderers if that's what it takes to make people respect the risk they would be taking to start a spamming business."
/. with someone who even wanted all beggers to be put in jail for long times).
That argument would be more convincing if it would be demonstrated to be true. I mean, that's one of the exact same arguments proponents of the deathpenalty use to justify it; "others will not do it if they know they'll get capital punishment for it".
However, again and again, scientific research has demonstrated there is NO correlation between the two. This means, the "how tougher we make it, how less crime we'll get" is just bullocks. Just as you have in economics a diminuishing return, so do you have with punishments. Sure, if you would only give a one-day sentence to a spammer making millions out of it, there would not be any incentive to stop, not would it be a deterent at all. But, I assure you, if people are not detered by a sentence of 5 year inmprisonment and a fine of millions, they won't be by 50 neither.
I do not believe that, in actuality, it gives any more benefit in that regard to push it up to 65 years. One could still argue that it would be a good thing to saveguard society from recedivists, perhaps, but to the detriment of being humane. (Of course, that is a subjective stance, the worth of being humane to prisoners is relative, as I've noted by another debate I had on
I just want to point out that the "the tougher, the less crime" is not a valid argument above a certain treshold.
"They affected millions of people. OK, maybe it's difficult to quantify the damage, but if you think how much time, money and effort has been spent on fighting people like him (all those spam filter programs written and bought). There's also all the extra bandwidth used which has probably increased the costs of internet access for everyone to compensate. Never mind all the resources (electricity, time, Internet fees) that he stole from the people unwittingly on his botnets. Then there's the fraudulent nature of much of the spam as well."
First of all, you can't put all the costs combatting all spammers on this spammer alone. That would be equal to claiming all costs of anti-breaking&entering tools and other theft-prevention and security systems shops and buildings employ are considered the integral cost of thief catched. In that case, a thief should get hundreds of years and billions of damages.
No, a thief is only sentenced for what he did, and so should a spammer. Therefor, it is irrelevant how much costs ISPs have done to combat spammers; the spammer himself should be sentenced for the actual damages HE did.
Furthermore, even if one would argue the damage he did was worse then killing people, there is still something fishy with the inconsistency. Fraudulent CEO's have often caused millions of damages, and caused hardship for thousands...I can't remember anyone of those getting 65 years... If the reason for the though law would be what you claim it is, it should be valid for others too, yet it isn't.
I do not agree with your underlaying premise (that punishment is too low), but I do agree that it would be more consistent if the relative severity of it was in accordance with even more tough laws for more severe crimes. (As it would be (also) consistent if it lowered the spam-punishment and the rest stayed the same).
However, the argument was about the inconsistency, and thus you do not hate it, but rather you agree with me that it doesn't make any sense. (Though we might be proponents of solving that inconsistency in deifferent ways).
Ermmm...let's agree to disagree. ;-)
We've been over this fowards and backwards and I'm quite sure we could be debating it for months and still not come to an agreement. I think we both have made our points clear by now, it's just we don't share them.
For now, I think this thread has outlived its use. Hopefully, in our next debate, we will come to a more fruitful conclusion.
friendly regards,
newsbyte