"Oh, please. As if this site didn't already post enough anti software patent propaganda"
Not really. At least in my opinion. But that is higly subjective, since 'enough' is in the eye of the beholder. And so is 'propaganda'.
"(real actual arguments are scarce)"
Only if you refuse to acknowledge them as arguments.
", now you had to do it, too."
Indeed.
"Cut this copy-pasting out, okay?"
Nope. I don't even see why I should. It's my text, I wrote it, so I can copy/paste it as much as I like. And since I set it under the creative commons, so can anyone else.;-)
"Noone will never read these long comments anyway."
You are mistaken. I know of at least 6 people who already read it completely. And knowing slashdot, I'm sure there are myriads that do so without me knowing it. Of course, many may not, but that's not the point. If people think they can do better, I invite them to post their better, shorter versions. *I* have no problem with it.
"Or if you really have to do it, then at least have the decency to either name your source or slip a clever troll somewhere in the middle of the text."
Actually, I have appendix a and b, full with sources and references. They are several pages long, however, and not not suited for a slashdot-post (besides, you *already* complain it's too long, btw;-).
But feel free to email me, and I'll send you the appendixes.
"Is it a deal?"
I've just made the only deal I'm going to offer, frankly. Whatever you're gripes are, they're wasted on me if they go beyond that.
Manifesto on the directive of "computer implemented inventions"
Dear MEP,
As you are probably well aware, soon the EU parliament will have a 'second reading' of the directive for allowing patents on "computer implemented inventions", which, as I will show below, actually amount to allowing software patents (swpat), though this is heavily disputed and denied by the proponents of the directive, including the European Commission (EC).
The way in which this directive has gone through the EU Council of ministers is mind boggling and shows exactly how much the EU has a democratic deficit. Despite the fact there was no real majority for the draft any more (the change in vote-weight after the enlargement alone accomplished that, apart from a lot of change of minds of some other countries), despite the fact that stringent motions of national parliaments were passed to oblige the national ministers to redraw the proposal as an A-item so that it may be further discussed, despite the fact that the EU parliament and their JURY-commission asked for a new first (re)reading with almost unanimity, the EC chose to ignore and disregard all this, while giving no explanation, apart from "for institutional reasons as to not create a precedent". In other words, the "common position" had to be followed, even though there was no common position any more, because, apparently, the form is more important then the facts.
This is a stupefying prime example of absurd bureaucratic reasoning and mentality; to give more importance to formality, and to place appearances before the changing facts. Bureaucracy abhors changes, even to the detriment of real democratic values. But then again, maybe this shouldn't surprise us, as the EC is exactly that: bureaucrats, whom were never voted into the position they occupy, yet create laws that could potentially influence millions of EU citizens (to which they do not have to answer to). The EU constitution leaves this democratic deficit as it is, alas. And as seen by the handling of this directive, the deficit is pretty huge.[1]
I will not go further into the procedural mess and the apparent disrespect of the EC for the EU parliament, but rather concentrate on the different aspects of the directive itself (content). I will do this by stating, and then debunking, the rather dubious claims and arguments made by the pro-directive camp, which, alas, also include some misguided MEPs - though I haste myself to say the large majority of the EU parliament is well aware of the facts, as can be readily seen by the amendments made in the first reading.
The following statements for why it is necessary to have the (current) directive is as follows:
1)It is necessary for the stimulation and development of new software, so that IT-companies can be innovative to the fullest of their potential.
2)It is necessary for the stimulation of EU software business, so we can effectively compete on the world-market.
3)It is needed for the harmonisation of the internal market, and to retain the status quo. (Similar as the "we do not change the current practise" or the "it will avoid drifting towards US-style patentability" -argument).
I will now debunk all these arguments (sources mentioned at the end of the document) in a rational and clear way, instead of all the FUD currently being made by many of the softwarepatents (swpat) proponents.
1)It is necessary for the stimulation and development of new software, so that IT-companies can be innovative to the fullest of their potential.
First of all, we have to ask ourselves, what, exactly, a patent is. A lot of pro-swpat advocates use terms as Intellectual Property (IP) rights, while those encompass a lot of different concepts, such as copyright (which is already used for software). We can find the following definition:
A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a government to an inventor or applicant for a limited amount of time (normally 20 years from the filing date)... Per the word'
"If the company was an abortion clinic and the opinion expressed by the employee was anti-abortion, then there would be no uproar if they were fired."
Huh? If that was his personal opinion, yes, it *would* cause an uproar.
"all companies insist on a probabtion period of at least a month to see if your face fits, with instant dismissal if you don't."
O, I see, you are talking about the anglo-saxon system. That explains a lot of your reasonings.
Well, since it's in the UK: fair enough.
Note, however, that most of your arguments are completely unvalid if you place them against the employement-ethics and laws of most european countries on the mainland. So, there is nothing 'obvious' or 'natural' about it; it's just that the system is pretty fucked up in the neo-liberal free-market, anglo-saxon style. I would say caution is needed, and not blind acceptance of a mentality that deems it's OK to dismiss an employee because his personal opinion doesn't stroke with that of a company.
But, I know, in the UK and USA, it's the corporations that have the most sway, not the people.
"I'm not saying the Jedi stuff isn't silly, but is it really any sillier than any other faith?"
Exactly. The answer is: no, it isn't more silly then any other faith or belief, though this will be disputed by those that adher to other beliefs, ofcourse. As long as you can avoid anything that would be contradicted by proof (like all other religions and belief-systems do), then there is no valid argumentation possible that belief in the Force is any more or less 'valid' then belief in God or the Bible.
"The whole idea of religion is antithetical to a rational mind."
Yes, but then again Jedi = similar to a Jedi = always exhibits all traits of a Jedi isn't true neither.
Maybe, because he's an Earthling, he is flawed. just because he fails doesn't prove he's not a Jedi.
Most Jedi's aren't Luke skywalkers. But because you're not Luke Skywalker doesn't mean your not a Jedi.
Now, do you see the non-argument of your post? Everything you or other Xians have said (or used as excuses to explain why one can't prove anything in your religion) can be used in the EXACT SAME manner for this Jedi-belief. Please *disprove* the Jedi-belief, or even demonstrate why your belief is correct, why that of the Force isn't.
OK, thanks for the info. It is, at least in principle, not that far away of what is the law in my country, then.
Though it is the more puzzling why those people visiting (and most of the USA people I spoke with) are shocked or distrubed when they see/hear about this particular cultural difference.
Certainly, something more basic must be different? Because, purely based on the law, one wouldn't expect such reactions, then. Ok, I know there were some bible-belt types among them, but still... I have a distinct feeling that it is seen/experienced differently in the USA compared to the EU (or at least my country), on a pretty basic level.
But then again, it's even reflected in our laws too, to some degree. Here, you can buy alcohol from age 16.:-)
In fact, you can (albeit not legally, I guess) buy alcohol in almost every shop, from whatever age, and I don't think anyone would really make a point of it.
But, it doesn't happen. Certainly not compared with the binchdrinking and booze seeking of teens in the UK (and USA) for instance. Which is actually my point: it is really trivial for any kid to buy alcohol here...yet, we do not have the massive problems that other countries, which have much more restrictive drinking-laws (or up-tighter mentality) have.
There must be a reason for that, and I think it's the very same reason as why we don't make a fuzz about kids sipping from their parents, or giving kids a choice of light beer in schools, etc.: we just learn *how* to deal with it in a normal way, instead of making itthe forbidden fruit.
Well, thats my opinion. Other theories are welcome.:-)
"In the case of alcohol, our country just lowered the drinking age from 20 to 18. They are now regretting that decision as a whole host of 16-20 years olds cause the police and others all sorts of headaches that were not there before."
May I conclude you're from the UK? I seem to remember some news about it. What's more, my niece has a friend in the UK, and we have debated exatly the same things.
In essence, I think this just shows my point. Your country has decided to go from a represive environment, to a more liberal one. they did it rather sudden, without any try at changing the mentality which was already there (due to the represive attitude).
Now, if parents have always forbidden something - say, playing violent games - and then suddenly they say: ok, here you go, you can do what you want... well, *obviously* they will abuse it: they NEVER have learned to deal with it in a more 'normal' way.
Now, in my country, you can buy alcohol from age 16; parents let their kids sip from their beer even as tods; and, truth be told, you can buy alcohol in every shop in the country, and no-one would make any problem even if it were a twelve year old buying it.
Do that in your country, and massive problems (as it already has) would occur. Yet, here you see not more alcohol-addicts then anywhere else (compared to most other countries, less, even), you see no massive binch-drinking as in the UK, you don't see kids of 10-11 trying their best to get booze and become drunk, etc.
Now, why is that, seen the fact that it's, compared to the UK and many other countries, trivially easy to buy/aquire/drink alcohol?
Simply because we learn our kids to DEAL with it. We don't forbid it in the same represive way as in the USA (or many other countries), instead, we take a relaxed attitude, we let kids in contact with alcohol, at a young age, yes, but *guided*. We don't forbid it (which only makes them want it more), and we don't cultivate a mentality which gives drinking some special 'cool' status. It's regarded as a normal part of life, and thus, people, including kids, react normal to it.
n fact, it was in this very slashdot I read about a poster from the UK, who, as a young teen, came to my country and couldn't believe his eyes. In the schools, they let kids have table-beer, and the UK-boys flocked to it en masse, and everytime they could ordered beer. He said in his posts the other (native) kids looked at them a bit weird, and after a while, when the novelty was gone, they realised it wasn't all that great neither.
So, I can assure you; the problem lies not in the lowering of age at which people can drink, the problem lies in how you deal with it (or have dealt with it). It's not the AOC for drinking, it's the guidance/mentality given (or the lack thereof) that causes the problems you mention.
If you adapt a mentality as in my country (which is, basically, that drinking is embedded in a certain social context), the current problems will be gone in less then one generation.
"And then again it may not."
Well, let's not begin with the "you can't prove it, thus you are wrong". Their have been done studies on many of these subjects (and also on many not), but I have the distinct feeling you wouldn't just change your way of raising your kids if I could show you a study that indicated that movies and games are better suited for making 'first contact' with certain things (like violence) then real life examples.
Yet, I find any other claim a bit surprising.I mean, I can't really imagine that someone would claim it is *more* suited for kids to have their first experiences with *real violence, then it is through media that have an additional layer of distance (just because they are not real).
In fact, you seem to agree on this, when it comes to scary fairy tales. Certainly, the products are not the same; fairy tales and movies are not the same, but that wasn't the analogy. a scary fairy tale learns a kid to deal with fear in a safe way. A viol
"Do I need to tell them everything about a topic just because they ask? No."
Then we fundamentally disagree, at least on this point. Exept if you interpret 'everything' in a certain way. As I have said, it is not always possible to explain everything in detail (even as adults we don't always know the correct answer, after all). But, I have always found (and in this respect I think YOU are plain and simple wrong) that someone asking a question, even when it is a kid, deserves an honest answer. Maybe you have to simplify the answer so he can understand the basics, but he *deserves* a real answer. saying "you are not old enough" is just crap. You are not another person, not even your kid, thus, if your kid asks a question, you are arbitrarily deciding for him, and imposing your view of what he will understand or not, and what is 'due time' and not. There is a difference between guiding him in an open way, and imposing your will on him, IMHO.
"Do I think this will prevent him from playing that game at all times? I'm not naive; of course I don't. But it sure will limit his dosage, won't it?"
You are over simplifying the issue. It's not solely what the immediate effect will be when you forbid something. A kid is not a passive, docile object to manipulate; it has a will of his own. If you always forbid games he likes to play, at the end, he will not ask you anymore, but will try to play them elsewhere WITHOUT involving you. If you refuse to give answers, or just tell him he's not old enough, he will asks others about it, or will search for answers in ways that doesn't involve you anymore.
So, is that better then?
I would prefer that my kids always feel they will get answers/guidance, about ALL subjects they raise, instead of forbidding things for their 'protection'. Because, if one thing is sure; if they want to know/play/etc something, and they receive a brik wall with you, chances are they will search fior it in ways which will leave you much, much less oversight and guidance.
"The simple truth of it is this: the media and society will do their best to expose my son to the worst aspects of humanity."
That's a cynical view of humanity. Certainly, cruelty, pain, sorrow etc. are aspects of society (and individuals), but there are as much good things then their are bad thing, IMHO. A 'shelter' should be a position of safety; something like "if you ever feel unsafe, you can come here". A safe-house, as it were, so that they know that, what and where-ever they explore, they always can 'come back' to a safe environment. But when sheltering is used in a way which means 'shelter them from life' (or experiences), I sincerely think it's going the wrong way. and yes, life DOES mean being confronted with pain, and sadness, and death (as much as with all positive things too).
Ofcourse, as some other poster already indicated, it's a matter of balance. No-one should feel obliged to kill the pet of your kid, just to show him what death is, obviously. But then again, people that think they should shelter kids from everything THEY deem "not due", show little respect for their kids as individual beings, with their own right to search for answers, their own right to make mistakes, and their own right to explore, whatever another individual (including their parents) may think of it.
All too many awfull things have happend, because parents thought they can (and should) treat their kids as if they were an exponent of themselves, instead of individuals. It's almost instincyive to try to mold your kids in your own image, to make them to ones' own wishes, that they adapt your viewpoints , morals, etc.
Everyone wishes that. For the sipmly reason that people are convinced their way is a good way, and thus it's a good way for their kids too.
However, IMHO, a true, *great* parent realises this basic mistake, and let the kids decide for themselves, EVEN if it doesn't stroke with their own viewpoints. Live by example, do your best in giving guidance and answers, but realise they have the RIGHT to choose another way that you want them to go. So, yes, be sure they have a safe environment, but be also sure they can explore and try out things at their pace, not at yours.
Well, I'm with you on a lot of points, but I must say I read/interpreted the parent poster a bit differently. And, there are still some issues in your own post I don't totally agree with.
"How the **** is GTA or any other video game or movie even slightly representative of "real life"??"
It is not about how representative these are of real life. In fact, one may argue it's just because they AREN'T very represenative of real life, that they are exellent tools to start educating/exposing them, in regard what IS out there, in 'real life'.
It is like the age old activity of reading stories to kids, even when they involve witches and monsters, and are a bit scary. What do fantasy-stories have to do with real life? On itself, very little. But it is a medium that HELPS kids in exploring fears, anxiety, morals, etc. Exactly the same is true for movies and games; it's not about what they actually teach you about real life, it's about dealing with the issues that are raised in them, such as pain, fear, violence, love, sarcifice, heroism, etc.
The best thing to do, as a parent (or whatever) is to guide your kids, not to forbid them from exploring it. And in your example, I think it's preferable they first try to deal with keeping an eletronic pet alive, then a real goldfish, for instance. (Especially from the viewpoint of the goldfish:-)
"All this will occur at an age where I think they are mature enough to understand these things."
This is another problem I have with your post. This is the reason why currently, there are laws in the USA which forbids drinking before age 21. Because OTHER people DEEM it's not 'due time' yet. (see also a former post of mine in this regard). I refute the idea that it is only a matter for the parent to decide when someone is 'old enough' to understand something. First of all, kids understand more things then most people are even willing to imagine or concede. And secondly, it's fully arbitrary and one-sided: a parent can consider any age as his kids being not mature enough, with all the consequences that we have seen in the past (and even now, with tight-assed parents and other bible-belt nutcases). And they may even be convinced they are right in witholding of forbiding it - even though history shows tis rarely helps anything.
I'm of the opinion it's not just a matter of the parents, or grandparents, (or whomever) deciding it; it is foremost the kid itself that indicates when its 'due time'. For instance, if he himself asks questions about poverty, sex, violence, etc THEN it is already time. I think it sucks when parents use the 'I'll tell you in due time'-line: everyone, including a kid, has the right to an honest answer to his question, not a shove-off with a 'you're too young for it' platitude.
A personal example: A nephew of about six years old asked me someday what 'homo(sexual)' meant. I guess he probably heard it in school, or something. so I explained it. I could have said that he was 'not mature' enough to understand it, but I think that's crap: it's for you to explain it in terms that he CAN understand it, then, me thinks. My mother (who's obviously from an older generation, with less tolerance about some issues) thought it wasn't appropriate. I was rather suprised by that attitude, but then again, I don't think there is something inherently immoral about homosexuality neither. I doubt she would have expressed the same reservations if I had explained what an 'atom' was, or even 'heterosexual'.
I, on the other hand, was (and am) of the opinion that, since the kid asked what it was, he was also old enough to get an answer to his question. 'Due time' and 'maturity to understand' are implicitly present the moment the kid starts exploring and/or asking questions about it, and thus shouldn't be used as a way for adults to leave someone in the dark, or the forbid it outright. Even if a subject is to complex (the atom would be), it's your duty to give a truthful answer in a way he can understand, instead of
"Few of them were truly spoiled; I would have traded the fear of being shot or beat up any day of the week for what they had; being exposed to all that humanity and "real life" has only made me cynical and distrustful of others."
Certainly: we ALL want to be rich and comfortable, that's in our nature. But ask yourself this: if one of those 'rich' and 'enjoy life' dudes would become poor and end up in those same subburbs that you talked about, who would have the most chances of surviving it; him, or you?
Rich people ARE spoiled, point. I'm not saying they are not good people, or that they are all disgustingly spoiled or immoral or without ethics and what not..but, they ARE spoiled.
And I'm not saying this out of envy: I'm a 'member' of the higher middle-class myself, in a rich industrialised western country. But at least I *know* I'm spoiled. even compared to my the former generation (my parents), I'm pretty spolied. Let alone when I compare myself to those that really have to struggle to have any sort of life. Would I trade it for being poor and being more 'street-wise'? Heck no. Would those poor people rather be rich, spoiled and complacent, like me? I bet they do.
But that's not really the issue here. My greatest concern is if I should buy a AMD64 dual core, or the latest pentium or not. While THEY have to deal with real important life-or-death issues, and have to form the skills to do it (and survive).
So, yes, I'm spoiled. I'm not spoiled in the I-don't-care-about-anything-but-me sense, but I *AM* spoiled. Put me in a situation where 80% of the populace lives in, and I wouldn't last a week. I never learned anything that would keep me alive if I wasn't in the pampered, highly artificial situation I am in.
"Children do not need to be taught life's hard lessons as soon as they can walk; they will learn those things in due time."
Ah, yes, but what is 'due time'? The parent poster is at least right about that (though I wouldn't recommend letting your kids explore lightsockets; there is nothing wrong with warning them). But the fact is, parents (and others) DO shelter kids more and more, and thus, the 'due time' is ever more expanded further in time and experience. Which is, indeed, not a healthy situation when they get to be an adult, and haven't really experienced all that much, thanks to all the protection that the individual will get in 'due time'.
In my opinion, "due time", is when a kid actually explores it (whatever 'it' is). It is NOT a matter of "You can't have it both ways": this is a false dillema. If your kids want to play a violent game THEN it is already 'due time'; and the proper reaction is not to forbid it (which hardly ever helps anyway), but - indeed - to get involved in it, as parents. So, instead of flat-out forbidding violent games, make sure they understand it's only a game, and not something that is real, or should be emulated in real life; stay with them when they play it the first times, etc. THAT is the correct reaction, not sheltering them from anything you deem they aren't ready for it because of 'due time'. That is just an excuse, in most instances. If your kids are asking questions about the birds and the bees, are you going to say 'You'll learn that in due time."? Well, heck, when they ask it, it IS due time, and it's your responsibility to give honest answers to honest questions, NOT to shelter them from whatever your personal opinion is about it not being 'due time'.
One of the prime examples I always think is so amazing, is the attitude towards drinking alcohol. I know in the USA, they are totally fucked up about this, especially when kids are involved. I have talked with a lot of americans about this issue, and almost none could even imagine that other cultures see things in another way, on this issue. I had USA people come to my country (in europe), being totally shocked when they saw a parent letting his kid sip of his glass of beer.
In their view, this was 'inappropriate' and 'not in due time', no doubt. They couldn't imagine such a thing happening, it was 'save the children' and 'corruption of the youth' all over. They were so shocked, that they left the pub straight away, and they would have probably made a scene, or called the police, or sued someone, if it were in the USA.
Never did they understand that our culture is different, and we are more relaxed about these things. We DON'T think kids should be 'protected' from beer untill they are 21, that it's only 'due' then. In fact, beer is an aquired taste, and kids don't like it: once they sip from it, their curiosity has been satisfied, and they usually don't ask any sip anymore for a very long time.:-) The amount of drunks (even in comparison) we have in our society, where we let kids sip from our beer - is much lower then that of the USA, where people are so uptight about it, and would 'protect' them untill they are 21.
Following the same reasoning as you made clear above, 'due time' is not when kids want to sip from their parents' beer, but when the parents decide when it is 'due time': a reasoning that leads to the USA way about drinking (and according laws). Because, even if a parent WOULD want to let his kid sip in the USA because he thinks its due time, he couldn't anymore, because it's against the law. In an eurpean context, we rather see 'due time' as that time, at which kids start to explore it (in this case, drinking beer), and to guide them when they are exploring, not to forbid it.
"Would stopping someone like that from operating, saving countless lives as a result, and getting to watch those people have actual elections also rate below a "science project?""
If that would involve an illegal war, killing countless lives as a result, and getting to watch those people have an occupying foreign military force and continious chaos and violence: yes.
"I was referring, of course, to the French attitude about the "unilateral" US position on cheese tariffs."
What? The US wanted to form a coalition of the willing cheese-eaters too?;-)
This IS really a weak argument, the parent poster is right about that. You are fully aware (or at least ought to be), that modern unix based Osses, like Linux, are vastly superior to those that were first created decades ago.
Claiming anything else would be contentious. One could as well say, then: "I'm sorry, how does reproducing Windows, 20 year old technology, justify your claim that the software industry is innovative?"
Clearly, such a remark is nonsensical. the innovative aspects lies in the new capacities the program has, not in the name of the product, nor in your implied assertion that modern variants are "replica's" of years ago.
This isn't true for Windows, and it isn't true for Linux/Unix.
Manifesto on the directive of "computer implemented inventions"
Dear MEP,
As you are probably well aware, soon the EU parliament will have a 'second reading' of the directive for allowing patents on "computer implemented inventions", which, as I will show below, actually amount to allowing software patents (swpat), though this is heavily disputed and denied by the proponents of the directive, including the European Commission (EC).
The way in which this directive has gone through the EU Council of ministers is mind boggling and shows exactly how much the EU has a democratic deficit. Despite the fact there was no real majority for the draft any more (the change in vote-weight after the enlargement alone accomplished that, apart from a lot of change of minds of some other countries), despite the fact that stringent motions of national parliaments were passed to oblige the national ministers to redraw the proposal as an A-item so that it may be further discussed, despite the fact that the EU parliament and their JURY-commission asked for a new first (re)reading with almost unanimity, the EC chose to ignore and disregard all this, while giving no explanation, apart from "for institutional reasons as to not create a precedent". In other words, the "common position" had to be followed, even though there was no common position any more, because, apparently, the form is more important then the facts.
This is a stupefying prime example of absurd bureaucratic reasoning and mentality; to give more importance to formality, and to place appearances before the changing facts. Bureaucracy abhors changes, even to the detriment of real democratic values. But then again, maybe this shouldn't surprise us, as the EC is exactly that: bureaucrats, whom were never voted into the position they occupy, yet create laws that could potentially influence millions of EU citizens (to which they do not have to answer to). The EU constitution leaves this democratic deficit as it is, alas. And as seen by the handling of this directive, the deficit is pretty huge.[1]
I will not go further into the procedural mess and the apparent disrespect of the EC for the EU parliament, but rather concentrate on the different aspects of the directive itself (content). I will do this by stating, and then debunking, the rather dubious claims and arguments made by the pro-directive camp, which, alas, also include some misguided MEPs - though I haste myself to say the large majority of the EU parliament is well aware of the facts, as can be readily seen by the amendments made in the first reading.
The following statements for why it is necessary to have the (current) directive is as follows:
1)It is necessary for the stimulation and development of new software, so that IT-companies can be innovative to the fullest of their potential.
2)It is necessary for the stimulation of EU software business, so we can effectively compete on the world-market.
3)It is needed for the harmonisation of the internal market, and to retain the status quo. (Similar as the "we do not change the current practise" or the "it will avoid drifting towards US-style patentability" -argument).
I will now debunk all these arguments (sources mentioned at the end of the document) in a rational and clear way, instead of all the FUD currently being made by many of the softwarepatents (swpat) proponents.
1)It is necessary for the stimulation and development of new software, so that IT-companies can be innovative to the fullest of their potential.
First of all, we have to ask ourselves, what, exactly, a patent is. A lot of pro-swpat advocates use terms as Intellectual Property (IP) rights, while those encompass a lot of different concepts, such as copyright (which is already used for software). We can find the following definition:
A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a government to an inventor or applicant for a limited amount of time (normally 20 years from the filing date)... Per the word'
As I have recently said, this is the way it begins; not by huge and obvious destruction of citizens' rights, but by small, insidious steps, portrayed as the 'next logical step' for fighting whatever the state seems to think will manage to get little resistence.
I mean, what, you're not soft on childporn, are you? You don't want terrorist roaming around and using the internet without punity, do you?
If it's emotional and self-righteous enough, they know few will dare to oppose. Think of the children! Think of 9/11! Ok, and now agree to our huge privacy invasion, because, you want to stop those people doing it again, don't you? Or are you pro CP and terrorism?
With such demagogic tricks they can fool the public almost every time.
Is retaining the best way to go? Does it actually help at all? Is the very unlikely possibility of stopping a relatively few worth the privacy invasion and the further degradation of civic rights of millions? Nowhere is that question ever raised by those that propose these laws. Instead, they continue to use platitudes: "We need the way to stop terrorists!" But as I said before:
Ah, yes, but who are the 'terror suspects'? Everyone reading books the state deems dangerous? Everyone using the internet? No? Then why should their privacy be invaded? Why not adher to decades of legal provisions, where it used to be that you could only be 'tapped' when you were considered a suspect, and AFTER a court agreed to it. Nowadays , everyone is a suspect, and the courts don't come into play anymore when your communications are being tapped.
Eroding ones' privacy and other rights because one is merely 'suspected' is the right way to go, if you want to end up in a policestate.
But, we ALL know the state will ONLY use its powers for the purposes it is meant, without ever abusing it. History has shown this already numerous times in the past, no?
Besides, 'if you have nothing to hide, why care that your private life is being invaded', right?
As I have recently said, this is the way it begins; not by huge and obvious destruction of citizens' rights, but by small, insidious steps, portrayed as the 'next logical step' for fighting whatever the state seems to think will manage to get little resistence.
I mean, what, you're not soft on childporn, are you? You don't want terrorist roaming around and using the internet without punity, do you?
If it's emotional and self-righteous enough, they know few will dare to oppose. Think of the children! think of 9/11! Ok, and now agree to our huge privacy invasion, because, you want to stop those people doing it again, don't you? Or are you pro CP and terrorism?
With such demagogic tricks they can fool the public almost every time.
Is retaining the best way to go? Does it actually help at all? Is the very unlikely possibility of stopping a relatively few worth the privacy invasion and the further degradation of civic rights of millions? Nowhere is that question ever raised by those that propose these laws. Instead, they continue to use platitudes: "We need the way to stop terrorists!" But as I said before:
Ah, yes, but who are the 'terror suspects'? Everyone reading books the state deems dangerous? Everyone using the internet? No? Then why should their privacy be invaded? Why not adher to decades of legal provisions, where it used to be that you could only be 'tapped' when you were considered a suspect, and AFTER a court agreed to it. Nowadays , everyone is a suspect, and the courts don't come into play anymore when your communications are being tapped.
Eroding ones' privacy and other rights because one is merely 'suspected' is the right way to go, if you want to end up in a policestate.
But, we ALL know the state will ONLY use its powers for the purposes it is meant, without ever abusing it. History has shown this already numerous times in the past, no?
Besides, 'if you have nothing to hide, why care that your private life is being invaded', right?
"...to block the part of the anti-terrorism law that allows the government to investigate the reading habits of terror suspects."
Ah, yes, but who are the 'terror suspects'? Everyone reading books the state deems dangerous?
Eroding ones' privacy and other rights because one is merely 'suspected' is the right way to go, if you want to end up in a policestate.
But, we ALL know the state will ONLY use its powers for the purposes it is meant, without ever abusing it. History has shown this already numerous times in the past, no?
Besides, 'if you have nothing to hide, why care that your private life is being intruded', right?
While you make a sensible try at going a bit deeper into the matter, it is a pitty you feel the need to post as an AC. The post is good enough to post under your 'own' nick, as far as that goes, obviously.
Anyhow, some points of disagreement:
"It's not the perservation that's the issue. It's those who feel that being entertained is an entitlement, and will do everything in their power to see that that happens."
I would rather say it's a matter of what kind of 'entitlement' it is about. I think that few would argue that musicians performing live/on stage or cartoonist who make a cartoon for a paper do not deserve a payement *for their actual work*. Just like one pays almost anyone else for the what they actually DO - as in: workhours. What most oppose, however, is the notion that one could get virtual perpetual earnings for something you created once, and that goes beyond what you actually worked for in real sense.
If tommorow a mason would tell me you don't only have to pay his work on the walls, but thanks to 'mp' (Mason Property) laws, you now have to pay him for his creation untill his death + 50 years, then, yes, people would be right to be pissed about it, and think it is undeserved.
"As opposed to a world were artists refuse to produce anything in the face of a respectless audiance. Were whatever you produce is seen by the audiance as "theirs" not because they had any hand in it's creation, but just because "they can"."
This is a fallacy; namely a false dilemma. It is NOT a matter of: allowing it, and having no art being produced - and not allowing it, and having art being produced. The notion you try to make convincing flies in the face of the fact that IP laws are fairly recent things, considering the total history of human societies. They became common in the 19th century; hundreds, nay, thousands of years *before* that, we had artists and art being produced (of an astonishing quality, I may add), regardless of IP laws or not. And when IP laws will become nothing more then a bad memory, there STILL will be artists and art. Even today, at the hight of IP-emperorship, there are large amounts of artists that make art, and don't rely on IP.
So, the notion that "artists" will stop because the people don't pay for their IP rights seems demonstrately untrue, if not ludicrous.
"If it does, it's because people on BOTH SIDES either didn't do what they're suppose to, when they're suppose to. Or did do something they weren't suppose to. Actions have effects. Rights have responsabilities. That is an immutable rule, that humanity still refuses to come to terms with."
That's a fine piece of philosophy, but, alas, it dwindles out in platitudes without any concrete argumentation. The war on drugs is, in all respects exept the most cynical ones, a failure. That was, which the parent poster was alluding at. All the "if people did what they are told, we wouldn't have to put them in prison" doesn't change that. That's like arguing that if people were all nice to eachother, we wouldn't need jails.
Well, perhaps, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Laws that go contrary to human nature in such a way that it is and will be massively ignored even when legal and justicial repression is huge, should be abolished, period. Anything else will lead to huge amounts of effort, time and money being wasted on a futile attempt to win a war that can not be won, that could be used for far better purposes.
The similarities with IP vs. P2P downloads are obvious, which was why the parent poster made the comparison in the first place, I think.
"That's not what's being etrenched. The basic idea that a man can enter in reciprocal agreements with his fellow man for the purposes of earning a living is what's being entrenched."
Not really. If that were true, and it was only about that, they wouldn't try to sue and jail people who downloaded music where they never agreed to any 'voluntary agreement'. After all, it's only the first one copying from the original t
You are assuming people who don't believe as you do, are American hating Europeans. There are plenty of non-american-hating europeans who do not agree with you.
Well, ok, maybe you are half-right, because there are not *that* many europeans that do not hate America. But that's just because in Europe there are more sophisticated intellectuals.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
hear, hear ;-)
But, to be a bit more elaborate:
;-)
;-).
"Oh, please. As if this site didn't already post enough anti software patent propaganda"
Not really. At least in my opinion. But that is higly subjective, since 'enough' is in the eye of the beholder. And so is 'propaganda'.
"(real actual arguments are scarce)"
Only if you refuse to acknowledge them as arguments.
", now you had to do it, too."
Indeed.
"Cut this copy-pasting out, okay?"
Nope. I don't even see why I should. It's my text, I wrote it, so I can copy/paste it as much as I like. And since I set it under the creative commons, so can anyone else.
"Noone will never read these long comments anyway."
You are mistaken. I know of at least 6 people who already read it completely. And knowing slashdot, I'm sure there are myriads that do so without me knowing it. Of course, many may not, but that's not the point. If people think they can do better, I invite them to post their better, shorter versions. *I* have no problem with it.
"Or if you really have to do it, then at least have the decency to either name your source or slip a clever troll somewhere in the middle of the text."
Actually, I have appendix a and b, full with sources and references. They are several pages long, however, and not not suited for a slashdot-post (besides, you *already* complain it's too long, btw
But feel free to email me, and I'll send you the appendixes.
"Is it a deal?"
I've just made the only deal I'm going to offer, frankly. Whatever you're gripes are, they're wasted on me if they go beyond that.
Is it a deal?
Nope.
Manifesto on the directive of "computer implemented inventions"
Dear MEP,
As you are probably well aware, soon the EU parliament will have a 'second reading' of the directive for allowing patents on "computer implemented inventions", which, as I will show below, actually amount to allowing software patents (swpat), though this is heavily disputed and denied by the proponents of the directive, including the European Commission (EC).
The way in which this directive has gone through the EU Council of ministers is mind boggling and shows exactly how much the EU has a democratic deficit. Despite the fact there was no real majority for the draft any more (the change in vote-weight after the enlargement alone accomplished that, apart from a lot of change of minds of some other countries), despite the fact that stringent motions of national parliaments were passed to oblige the national ministers to redraw the proposal as an A-item so that it may be further discussed, despite the fact that the EU parliament and their JURY-commission asked for a new first (re)reading with almost unanimity, the EC chose to ignore and disregard all this, while giving no explanation, apart from "for institutional reasons as to not create a precedent". In other words, the "common position" had to be followed, even though there was no common position any more, because, apparently, the form is more important then the facts.
This is a stupefying prime example of absurd bureaucratic reasoning and mentality; to give more importance to formality, and to place appearances before the changing facts. Bureaucracy abhors changes, even to the detriment of real democratic values. But then again, maybe this shouldn't surprise us, as the EC is exactly that: bureaucrats, whom were never voted into the position they occupy, yet create laws that could potentially influence millions of EU citizens (to which they do not have to answer to). The EU constitution leaves this democratic deficit as it is, alas. And as seen by the handling of this directive, the deficit is pretty huge.[1]
I will not go further into the procedural mess and the apparent disrespect of the EC for the EU parliament, but rather concentrate on the different aspects of the directive itself (content). I will do this by stating, and then debunking, the rather dubious claims and arguments made by the pro-directive camp, which, alas, also include some misguided MEPs - though I haste myself to say the large majority of the EU parliament is well aware of the facts, as can be readily seen by the amendments made in the first reading.
The following statements for why it is necessary to have the (current) directive is as follows:
1)It is necessary for the stimulation and development of new software, so that IT-companies can be innovative to the fullest of their potential.
2)It is necessary for the stimulation of EU software business, so we can effectively compete on the world-market.
3)It is needed for the harmonisation of the internal market, and to retain the status quo. (Similar as the "we do not change the current practise" or the "it will avoid drifting towards US-style patentability" -argument).
I will now debunk all these arguments (sources mentioned at the end of the document) in a rational and clear way, instead of all the FUD currently being made by many of the softwarepatents (swpat) proponents.
1)It is necessary for the stimulation and development of new software, so that IT-companies can be innovative to the fullest of their potential.
First of all, we have to ask ourselves, what, exactly, a patent is. A lot of pro-swpat advocates use terms as Intellectual Property (IP) rights, while those encompass a lot of different concepts, such as copyright (which is already used for software). We can find the following definition:
A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a government to an inventor or applicant for a limited amount of time (normally 20 years from the filing date)... Per the word'
"If the company was an abortion clinic and the opinion expressed by the employee was anti-abortion, then there would be no uproar if they were fired."
Huh? If that was his personal opinion, yes, it *would* cause an uproar.
"all companies insist on a probabtion period of at least a month to see if your face fits, with instant dismissal if you don't."
O, I see, you are talking about the anglo-saxon system. That explains a lot of your reasonings.
Well, since it's in the UK: fair enough.
Note, however, that most of your arguments are completely unvalid if you place them against the employement-ethics and laws of most european countries on the mainland. So, there is nothing 'obvious' or 'natural' about it; it's just that the system is pretty fucked up in the neo-liberal free-market, anglo-saxon style. I would say caution is needed, and not blind acceptance of a mentality that deems it's OK to dismiss an employee because his personal opinion doesn't stroke with that of a company.
But, I know, in the UK and USA, it's the corporations that have the most sway, not the people.
"I'm not saying the Jedi stuff isn't silly, but is it really any sillier than any other faith?"
Exactly. The answer is: no, it isn't more silly then any other faith or belief, though this will be disputed by those that adher to other beliefs, ofcourse. As long as you can avoid anything that would be contradicted by proof (like all other religions and belief-systems do), then there is no valid argumentation possible that belief in the Force is any more or less 'valid' then belief in God or the Bible.
"The whole idea of religion is antithetical to a rational mind."
Hear, hear.
Yes, but then again Jedi = similar to a Jedi = always exhibits all traits of a Jedi isn't true neither.
Maybe, because he's an Earthling, he is flawed. just because he fails doesn't prove he's not a Jedi.
Most Jedi's aren't Luke skywalkers. But because you're not Luke Skywalker doesn't mean your not a Jedi.
Now, do you see the non-argument of your post? Everything you or other Xians have said (or used as excuses to explain why one can't prove anything in your religion) can be used in the EXACT SAME manner for this Jedi-belief. Please *disprove* the Jedi-belief, or even demonstrate why your belief is correct, why that of the Force isn't.
OK, thanks for the info. It is, at least in principle, not that far away of what is the law in my country, then.
:-)
Though it is the more puzzling why those people visiting (and most of the USA people I spoke with) are shocked or distrubed when they see/hear about this particular cultural difference.
Certainly, something more basic must be different? Because, purely based on the law, one wouldn't expect such reactions, then. Ok, I know there were some bible-belt types among them, but still... I have a distinct feeling that it is seen/experienced differently in the USA compared to the EU (or at least my country), on a pretty basic level.
But then again, it's even reflected in our laws too, to some degree. Here, you can buy alcohol from age 16.
In fact, you can (albeit not legally, I guess) buy alcohol in almost every shop, from whatever age, and I don't think anyone would really make a point of it.
But, it doesn't happen. Certainly not compared with the binchdrinking and booze seeking of teens in the UK (and USA) for instance. Which is actually my point: it is really trivial for any kid to buy alcohol here...yet, we do not have the massive problems that other countries, which have much more restrictive drinking-laws (or up-tighter mentality) have.
There must be a reason for that, and I think it's the very same reason as why we don't make a fuzz about kids sipping from their parents, or giving kids a choice of light beer in schools, etc.: we just learn *how* to deal with it in a normal way, instead of making itthe forbidden fruit.
Well, thats my opinion. Other theories are welcome.:-)
"In the case of alcohol, our country just lowered the drinking age from 20 to 18. They are now regretting that decision as a whole host of 16-20 years olds cause the police and others all sorts of headaches that were not there before."
May I conclude you're from the UK? I seem to remember some news about it. What's more, my niece has a friend in the UK, and we have debated exatly the same things.
In essence, I think this just shows my point. Your country has decided to go from a represive environment, to a more liberal one. they did it rather sudden, without any try at changing the mentality which was already there (due to the represive attitude).
Now, if parents have always forbidden something - say, playing violent games - and then suddenly they say: ok, here you go, you can do what you want... well, *obviously* they will abuse it: they NEVER have learned to deal with it in a more 'normal' way.
Now, in my country, you can buy alcohol from age 16; parents let their kids sip from their beer even as tods; and, truth be told, you can buy alcohol in every shop in the country, and no-one would make any problem even if it were a twelve year old buying it.
Do that in your country, and massive problems (as it already has) would occur. Yet, here you see not more alcohol-addicts then anywhere else (compared to most other countries, less, even), you see no massive binch-drinking as in the UK, you don't see kids of 10-11 trying their best to get booze and become drunk, etc.
Now, why is that, seen the fact that it's, compared to the UK and many other countries, trivially easy to buy/aquire/drink alcohol?
Simply because we learn our kids to DEAL with it. We don't forbid it in the same represive way as in the USA (or many other countries), instead, we take a relaxed attitude, we let kids in contact with alcohol, at a young age, yes, but *guided*. We don't forbid it (which only makes them want it more), and we don't cultivate a mentality which gives drinking some special 'cool' status. It's regarded as a normal part of life, and thus, people, including kids, react normal to it.
n fact, it was in this very slashdot I read about a poster from the UK, who, as a young teen, came to my country and couldn't believe his eyes. In the schools, they let kids have table-beer, and the UK-boys flocked to it en masse, and everytime they could ordered beer. He said in his posts the other (native) kids looked at them a bit weird, and after a while, when the novelty was gone, they realised it wasn't all that great neither.
So, I can assure you; the problem lies not in the lowering of age at which people can drink, the problem lies in how you deal with it (or have dealt with it). It's not the AOC for drinking, it's the guidance/mentality given (or the lack thereof) that causes the problems you mention.
If you adapt a mentality as in my country (which is, basically, that drinking is embedded in a certain social context), the current problems will be gone in less then one generation.
"And then again it may not."
Well, let's not begin with the "you can't prove it, thus you are wrong". Their have been done studies on many of these subjects (and also on many not), but I have the distinct feeling you wouldn't just change your way of raising your kids if I could show you a study that indicated that movies and games are better suited for making 'first contact' with certain things (like violence) then real life examples.
Yet, I find any other claim a bit surprising.I mean, I can't really imagine that someone would claim it is *more* suited for kids to have their first experiences with *real violence, then it is through media that have an additional layer of distance (just because they are not real).
In fact, you seem to agree on this, when it comes to scary fairy tales. Certainly, the products are not the same; fairy tales and movies are not the same, but that wasn't the analogy. a scary fairy tale learns a kid to deal with fear in a safe way. A viol
"Do I need to tell them everything about a topic just because they ask? No."
:-)
Then we fundamentally disagree, at least on this point. Exept if you interpret 'everything' in a certain way. As I have said, it is not always possible to explain everything in detail (even as adults we don't always know the correct answer, after all). But, I have always found (and in this respect I think YOU are plain and simple wrong) that someone asking a question, even when it is a kid, deserves an honest answer. Maybe you have to simplify the answer so he can understand the basics, but he *deserves* a real answer. saying "you are not old enough" is just crap. You are not another person, not even your kid, thus, if your kid asks a question, you are arbitrarily deciding for him, and imposing your view of what he will understand or not, and what is 'due time' and not. There is a difference between guiding him in an open way, and imposing your will on him, IMHO.
"Do I think this will prevent him from playing that game at all times? I'm not naive; of course I don't. But it sure will limit his dosage, won't it?"
You are over simplifying the issue. It's not solely what the immediate effect will be when you forbid something. A kid is not a passive, docile object to manipulate; it has a will of his own. If you always forbid games he likes to play, at the end, he will not ask you anymore, but will try to play them elsewhere WITHOUT involving you. If you refuse to give answers, or just tell him he's not old enough, he will asks others about it, or will search for answers in ways that doesn't involve you anymore.
So, is that better then?
I would prefer that my kids always feel they will get answers/guidance, about ALL subjects they raise, instead of forbidding things for their 'protection'. Because, if one thing is sure; if they want to know/play/etc something, and they receive a brik wall with you, chances are they will search fior it in ways which will leave you much, much less oversight and guidance.
"The simple truth of it is this: the media and society will do their best to expose my son to the worst aspects of humanity."
That's a cynical view of humanity. Certainly, cruelty, pain, sorrow etc. are aspects of society (and individuals), but there are as much good things then their are bad thing, IMHO. A 'shelter' should be a position of safety; something like "if you ever feel unsafe, you can come here". A safe-house, as it were, so that they know that, what and where-ever they explore, they always can 'come back' to a safe environment. But when sheltering is used in a way which means 'shelter them from life' (or experiences), I sincerely think it's going the wrong way. and yes, life DOES mean being confronted with pain, and sadness, and death (as much as with all positive things too).
Ofcourse, as some other poster already indicated, it's a matter of balance. No-one should feel obliged to kill the pet of your kid, just to show him what death is, obviously. But then again, people that think they should shelter kids from everything THEY deem "not due", show little respect for their kids as individual beings, with their own right to search for answers, their own right to make mistakes, and their own right to explore, whatever another individual (including their parents) may think of it.
All too many awfull things have happend, because parents thought they can (and should) treat their kids as if they were an exponent of themselves, instead of individuals. It's almost instincyive to try to mold your kids in your own image, to make them to ones' own wishes, that they adapt your viewpoints , morals, etc.
Everyone wishes that. For the sipmly reason that people are convinced their way is a good way, and thus it's a good way for their kids too.
However, IMHO, a true, *great* parent realises this basic mistake, and let the kids decide for themselves, EVEN if it doesn't stroke with their own viewpoints. Live by example, do your best in giving guidance and answers, but realise they have the RIGHT to choose another way that you want them to go. So, yes, be sure they have a safe environment, but be also sure they can explore and try out things at their pace, not at yours.
Ah well...maybe we just disagree?
Well, I'm with you on a lot of points, but I must say I read/interpreted the parent poster a bit differently. And, there are still some issues in your own post I don't totally agree with.
:-)
"How the **** is GTA or any other video game or movie even slightly representative of "real life"??"
It is not about how representative these are of real life. In fact, one may argue it's just because they AREN'T very represenative of real life, that they are exellent tools to start educating/exposing them, in regard what IS out there, in 'real life'.
It is like the age old activity of reading stories to kids, even when they involve witches and monsters, and are a bit scary. What do fantasy-stories have to do with real life? On itself, very little. But it is a medium that HELPS kids in exploring fears, anxiety, morals, etc. Exactly the same is true for movies and games; it's not about what they actually teach you about real life, it's about dealing with the issues that are raised in them, such as pain, fear, violence, love, sarcifice, heroism, etc.
The best thing to do, as a parent (or whatever) is to guide your kids, not to forbid them from exploring it. And in your example, I think it's preferable they first try to deal with keeping an eletronic pet alive, then a real goldfish, for instance. (Especially from the viewpoint of the goldfish
"All this will occur at an age where I think they are mature enough to understand these things."
This is another problem I have with your post. This is the reason why currently, there are laws in the USA which forbids drinking before age 21. Because OTHER people DEEM it's not 'due time' yet. (see also a former post of mine in this regard). I refute the idea that it is only a matter for the parent to decide when someone is 'old enough' to understand something. First of all, kids understand more things then most people are even willing to imagine or concede. And secondly, it's fully arbitrary and one-sided: a parent can consider any age as his kids being not mature enough, with all the consequences that we have seen in the past (and even now, with tight-assed parents and other bible-belt nutcases). And they may even be convinced they are right in witholding of forbiding it - even though history shows tis rarely helps anything.
I'm of the opinion it's not just a matter of the parents, or grandparents, (or whomever) deciding it; it is foremost the kid itself that indicates when its 'due time'. For instance, if he himself asks questions about poverty, sex, violence, etc THEN it is already time. I think it sucks when parents use the 'I'll tell you in due time'-line: everyone, including a kid, has the right to an honest answer to his question, not a shove-off with a 'you're too young for it' platitude.
A personal example: A nephew of about six years old asked me someday what 'homo(sexual)' meant. I guess he probably heard it in school, or something. so I explained it. I could have said that he was 'not mature' enough to understand it, but I think that's crap: it's for you to explain it in terms that he CAN understand it, then, me thinks. My mother (who's obviously from an older generation, with less tolerance about some issues) thought it wasn't appropriate. I was rather suprised by that attitude, but then again, I don't think there is something inherently immoral about homosexuality neither. I doubt she would have expressed the same reservations if I had explained what an 'atom' was, or even 'heterosexual'.
I, on the other hand, was (and am) of the opinion that, since the kid asked what it was, he was also old enough to get an answer to his question. 'Due time' and 'maturity to understand' are implicitly present the moment the kid starts exploring and/or asking questions about it, and thus shouldn't be used as a way for adults to leave someone in the dark, or the forbid it outright. Even if a subject is to complex (the atom would be), it's your duty to give a truthful answer in a way he can understand, instead of
"Few of them were truly spoiled; I would have traded the fear of being shot or beat up any day of the week for what they had; being exposed to all that humanity and "real life" has only made me cynical and distrustful of others."
Certainly: we ALL want to be rich and comfortable, that's in our nature. But ask yourself this: if one of those 'rich' and 'enjoy life' dudes would become poor and end up in those same subburbs that you talked about, who would have the most chances of surviving it; him, or you?
Rich people ARE spoiled, point. I'm not saying they are not good people, or that they are all disgustingly spoiled or immoral or without ethics and what not..but, they ARE spoiled.
And I'm not saying this out of envy: I'm a 'member' of the higher middle-class myself, in a rich industrialised western country. But at least I *know* I'm spoiled. even compared to my the former generation (my parents), I'm pretty spolied. Let alone when I compare myself to those that really have to struggle to have any sort of life. Would I trade it for being poor and being more 'street-wise'? Heck no. Would those poor people rather be rich, spoiled and complacent, like me? I bet they do.
But that's not really the issue here. My greatest concern is if I should buy a AMD64 dual core, or the latest pentium or not. While THEY have to deal with real important life-or-death issues, and have to form the skills to do it (and survive).
So, yes, I'm spoiled. I'm not spoiled in the I-don't-care-about-anything-but-me sense, but I *AM* spoiled. Put me in a situation where 80% of the populace lives in, and I wouldn't last a week. I never learned anything that would keep me alive if I wasn't in the pampered, highly artificial situation I am in.
"Children do not need to be taught life's hard lessons as soon as they can walk; they will learn those things in due time."
:-) The amount of drunks (even in comparison) we have in our society, where we let kids sip from our beer - is much lower then that of the USA, where people are so uptight about it, and would 'protect' them untill they are 21.
Ah, yes, but what is 'due time'? The parent poster is at least right about that (though I wouldn't recommend letting your kids explore lightsockets; there is nothing wrong with warning them). But the fact is, parents (and others) DO shelter kids more and more, and thus, the 'due time' is ever more expanded further in time and experience. Which is, indeed, not a healthy situation when they get to be an adult, and haven't really experienced all that much, thanks to all the protection that the individual will get in 'due time'.
In my opinion, "due time", is when a kid actually explores it (whatever 'it' is). It is NOT a matter of "You can't have it both ways": this is a false dillema. If your kids want to play a violent game THEN it is already 'due time'; and the proper reaction is not to forbid it (which hardly ever helps anyway), but - indeed - to get involved in it, as parents. So, instead of flat-out forbidding violent games, make sure they understand it's only a game, and not something that is real, or should be emulated in real life; stay with them when they play it the first times, etc. THAT is the correct reaction, not sheltering them from anything you deem they aren't ready for it because of 'due time'. That is just an excuse, in most instances. If your kids are asking questions about the birds and the bees, are you going to say 'You'll learn that in due time."? Well, heck, when they ask it, it IS due time, and it's your responsibility to give honest answers to honest questions, NOT to shelter them from whatever your personal opinion is about it not being 'due time'.
One of the prime examples I always think is so amazing, is the attitude towards drinking alcohol. I know in the USA, they are totally fucked up about this, especially when kids are involved. I have talked with a lot of americans about this issue, and almost none could even imagine that other cultures see things in another way, on this issue. I had USA people come to my country (in europe), being totally shocked when they saw a parent letting his kid sip of his glass of beer.
In their view, this was 'inappropriate' and 'not in due time', no doubt. They couldn't imagine such a thing happening, it was 'save the children' and 'corruption of the youth' all over. They were so shocked, that they left the pub straight away, and they would have probably made a scene, or called the police, or sued someone, if it were in the USA.
Never did they understand that our culture is different, and we are more relaxed about these things. We DON'T think kids should be 'protected' from beer untill they are 21, that it's only 'due' then. In fact, beer is an aquired taste, and kids don't like it: once they sip from it, their curiosity has been satisfied, and they usually don't ask any sip anymore for a very long time.
Following the same reasoning as you made clear above, 'due time' is not when kids want to sip from their parents' beer, but when the parents decide when it is 'due time': a reasoning that leads to the USA way about drinking (and according laws). Because, even if a parent WOULD want to let his kid sip in the USA because he thinks its due time, he couldn't anymore, because it's against the law. In an eurpean context, we rather see 'due time' as that time, at which kids start to explore it (in this case, drinking beer), and to guide them when they are exploring, not to forbid it.
Ermm...let me guess: you're an american, probably from the bible-belt states?
"You're suggesting that you don't really own your money; society does."
Well, in a certain sense, this is true.
"That would be an statement implying that, were MS poorer, it would deserve the financial support."
;-)
The tought! (The horror!)
No; no true slashdotter would ever say such a thing: it would amount to blasfemy.
"Would stopping someone like that from operating, saving countless lives as a result, and getting to watch those people have actual elections also rate below a "science project?""
;-)
If that would involve an illegal war, killing countless lives as a result, and getting to watch those people have an occupying foreign military force and continious chaos and violence: yes.
"I was referring, of course, to the French attitude about the "unilateral" US position on cheese tariffs."
What? The US wanted to form a coalition of the willing cheese-eaters too?
This IS really a weak argument, the parent poster is right about that. You are fully aware (or at least ought to be), that modern unix based Osses, like Linux, are vastly superior to those that were first created decades ago.
Claiming anything else would be contentious. One could as well say, then: "I'm sorry, how does reproducing Windows, 20 year old technology, justify your claim that the software industry is innovative?"
Clearly, such a remark is nonsensical. the innovative aspects lies in the new capacities the program has, not in the name of the product, nor in your implied assertion that modern variants are "replica's" of years ago.
This isn't true for Windows, and it isn't true for Linux/Unix.
Manifesto on the directive of "computer implemented inventions"
Dear MEP,
As you are probably well aware, soon the EU parliament will have a 'second reading' of the directive for allowing patents on "computer implemented inventions", which, as I will show below, actually amount to allowing software patents (swpat), though this is heavily disputed and denied by the proponents of the directive, including the European Commission (EC).
The way in which this directive has gone through the EU Council of ministers is mind boggling and shows exactly how much the EU has a democratic deficit. Despite the fact there was no real majority for the draft any more (the change in vote-weight after the enlargement alone accomplished that, apart from a lot of change of minds of some other countries), despite the fact that stringent motions of national parliaments were passed to oblige the national ministers to redraw the proposal as an A-item so that it may be further discussed, despite the fact that the EU parliament and their JURY-commission asked for a new first (re)reading with almost unanimity, the EC chose to ignore and disregard all this, while giving no explanation, apart from "for institutional reasons as to not create a precedent". In other words, the "common position" had to be followed, even though there was no common position any more, because, apparently, the form is more important then the facts.
This is a stupefying prime example of absurd bureaucratic reasoning and mentality; to give more importance to formality, and to place appearances before the changing facts. Bureaucracy abhors changes, even to the detriment of real democratic values. But then again, maybe this shouldn't surprise us, as the EC is exactly that: bureaucrats, whom were never voted into the position they occupy, yet create laws that could potentially influence millions of EU citizens (to which they do not have to answer to). The EU constitution leaves this democratic deficit as it is, alas. And as seen by the handling of this directive, the deficit is pretty huge.[1]
I will not go further into the procedural mess and the apparent disrespect of the EC for the EU parliament, but rather concentrate on the different aspects of the directive itself (content). I will do this by stating, and then debunking, the rather dubious claims and arguments made by the pro-directive camp, which, alas, also include some misguided MEPs - though I haste myself to say the large majority of the EU parliament is well aware of the facts, as can be readily seen by the amendments made in the first reading.
The following statements for why it is necessary to have the (current) directive is as follows:
1)It is necessary for the stimulation and development of new software, so that IT-companies can be innovative to the fullest of their potential.
2)It is necessary for the stimulation of EU software business, so we can effectively compete on the world-market.
3)It is needed for the harmonisation of the internal market, and to retain the status quo. (Similar as the "we do not change the current practise" or the "it will avoid drifting towards US-style patentability" -argument).
I will now debunk all these arguments (sources mentioned at the end of the document) in a rational and clear way, instead of all the FUD currently being made by many of the softwarepatents (swpat) proponents.
1)It is necessary for the stimulation and development of new software, so that IT-companies can be innovative to the fullest of their potential.
First of all, we have to ask ourselves, what, exactly, a patent is. A lot of pro-swpat advocates use terms as Intellectual Property (IP) rights, while those encompass a lot of different concepts, such as copyright (which is already used for software). We can find the following definition:
A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a government to an inventor or applicant for a limited amount of time (normally 20 years from the filing date)... Per the word'
As I have recently said, this is the way it begins; not by huge and obvious destruction of citizens' rights, but by small, insidious steps, portrayed as the 'next logical step' for fighting whatever the state seems to think will manage to get little resistence.
I mean, what, you're not soft on childporn, are you? You don't want terrorist roaming around and using the internet without punity, do you?
If it's emotional and self-righteous enough, they know few will dare to oppose. Think of the children! Think of 9/11! Ok, and now agree to our huge privacy invasion, because, you want to stop those people doing it again, don't you? Or are you pro CP and terrorism?
With such demagogic tricks they can fool the public almost every time.
Is retaining the best way to go? Does it actually help at all? Is the very unlikely possibility of stopping a relatively few worth the privacy invasion and the further degradation of civic rights of millions? Nowhere is that question ever raised by those that propose these laws. Instead, they continue to use platitudes: "We need the way to stop terrorists!" But as I said before:
Ah, yes, but who are the 'terror suspects'? Everyone reading books the state deems dangerous? Everyone using the internet? No? Then why should their privacy be invaded? Why not adher to decades of legal provisions, where it used to be that you could only be 'tapped' when you were considered a suspect, and AFTER a court agreed to it. Nowadays , everyone is a suspect, and the courts don't come into play anymore when your communications are being tapped.
Eroding ones' privacy and other rights because one is merely 'suspected' is the right way to go, if you want to end up in a policestate.
But, we ALL know the state will ONLY use its powers for the purposes it is meant, without ever abusing it. History has shown this already numerous times in the past, no?
Besides, 'if you have nothing to hide, why care that your private life is being invaded', right?
darn, wrong thread/article!
:-)
How did this happen?
The post above was meant for 'DOJ Wants ISPs to Retain All Customer Records'. sorry!
As I have recently said, this is the way it begins; not by huge and obvious destruction of citizens' rights, but by small, insidious steps, portrayed as the 'next logical step' for fighting whatever the state seems to think will manage to get little resistence.
I mean, what, you're not soft on childporn, are you? You don't want terrorist roaming around and using the internet without punity, do you?
If it's emotional and self-righteous enough, they know few will dare to oppose. Think of the children! think of 9/11! Ok, and now agree to our huge privacy invasion, because, you want to stop those people doing it again, don't you? Or are you pro CP and terrorism?
With such demagogic tricks they can fool the public almost every time.
Is retaining the best way to go? Does it actually help at all? Is the very unlikely possibility of stopping a relatively few worth the privacy invasion and the further degradation of civic rights of millions? Nowhere is that question ever raised by those that propose these laws. Instead, they continue to use platitudes: "We need the way to stop terrorists!" But as I said before:
Ah, yes, but who are the 'terror suspects'? Everyone reading books the state deems dangerous? Everyone using the internet? No? Then why should their privacy be invaded? Why not adher to decades of legal provisions, where it used to be that you could only be 'tapped' when you were considered a suspect, and AFTER a court agreed to it. Nowadays , everyone is a suspect, and the courts don't come into play anymore when your communications are being tapped.
Eroding ones' privacy and other rights because one is merely 'suspected' is the right way to go, if you want to end up in a policestate.
But, we ALL know the state will ONLY use its powers for the purposes it is meant, without ever abusing it. History has shown this already numerous times in the past, no?
Besides, 'if you have nothing to hide, why care that your private life is being invaded', right?
"...to block the part of the anti-terrorism law that allows the government to investigate the reading habits of terror suspects."
Ah, yes, but who are the 'terror suspects'? Everyone reading books the state deems dangerous?
Eroding ones' privacy and other rights because one is merely 'suspected' is the right way to go, if you want to end up in a policestate.
But, we ALL know the state will ONLY use its powers for the purposes it is meant, without ever abusing it. History has shown this already numerous times in the past, no?
Besides, 'if you have nothing to hide, why care that your private life is being intruded', right?
While you make a sensible try at going a bit deeper into the matter, it is a pitty you feel the need to post as an AC. The post is good enough to post under your 'own' nick, as far as that goes, obviously.
Anyhow, some points of disagreement:
"It's not the perservation that's the issue. It's those who feel that being entertained is an entitlement, and will do everything in their power to see that that happens."
I would rather say it's a matter of what kind of 'entitlement' it is about. I think that few would argue that musicians performing live/on stage or cartoonist who make a cartoon for a paper do not deserve a payement *for their actual work*. Just like one pays almost anyone else for the what they actually DO - as in: workhours. What most oppose, however, is the notion that one could get virtual perpetual earnings for something you created once, and that goes beyond what you actually worked for in real sense.
If tommorow a mason would tell me you don't only have to pay his work on the walls, but thanks to 'mp' (Mason Property) laws, you now have to pay him for his creation untill his death + 50 years, then, yes, people would be right to be pissed about it, and think it is undeserved.
"As opposed to a world were artists refuse to produce anything in the face of a respectless audiance. Were whatever you produce is seen by the audiance as "theirs" not because they had any hand in it's creation, but just because "they can"."
This is a fallacy; namely a false dilemma. It is NOT a matter of: allowing it, and having no art being produced - and not allowing it, and having art being produced. The notion you try to make convincing flies in the face of the fact that IP laws are fairly recent things, considering the total history of human societies. They became common in the 19th century; hundreds, nay, thousands of years *before* that, we had artists and art being produced (of an astonishing quality, I may add), regardless of IP laws or not. And when IP laws will become nothing more then a bad memory, there STILL will be artists and art. Even today, at the hight of IP-emperorship, there are large amounts of artists that make art, and don't rely on IP.
So, the notion that "artists" will stop because the people don't pay for their IP rights seems demonstrately untrue, if not ludicrous.
"If it does, it's because people on BOTH SIDES either didn't do what they're suppose to, when they're suppose to. Or did do something they weren't suppose to. Actions have effects. Rights have responsabilities. That is an immutable rule, that humanity still refuses to come to terms with."
That's a fine piece of philosophy, but, alas, it dwindles out in platitudes without any concrete argumentation. The war on drugs is, in all respects exept the most cynical ones, a failure. That was, which the parent poster was alluding at. All the "if people did what they are told, we wouldn't have to put them in prison" doesn't change that. That's like arguing that if people were all nice to eachother, we wouldn't need jails.
Well, perhaps, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Laws that go contrary to human nature in such a way that it is and will be massively ignored even when legal and justicial repression is huge, should be abolished, period. Anything else will lead to huge amounts of effort, time and money being wasted on a futile attempt to win a war that can not be won, that could be used for far better purposes.
The similarities with IP vs. P2P downloads are obvious, which was why the parent poster made the comparison in the first place, I think.
"That's not what's being etrenched. The basic idea that a man can enter in reciprocal agreements with his fellow man for the purposes of earning a living is what's being entrenched."
Not really. If that were true, and it was only about that, they wouldn't try to sue and jail people who downloaded music where they never agreed to any 'voluntary agreement'. After all, it's only the first one copying from the original t
"Hello, my American hating Euro-peon friend!"
;-)
You are assuming people who don't believe as you do, are American hating Europeans. There are plenty of non-american-hating europeans who do not agree with you.
Well, ok, maybe you are half-right, because there are not *that* many europeans that do not hate America. But that's just because in Europe there are more sophisticated intellectuals.