Then, GP's idea really does have merit. Have a panel of technical experts in the field read the patent, and if a certain percentage of them can't make heads or tails of it, reject it. It'll put a quick end to attempts to patent the wheel by describing it with 2 million words.
If you were not already at 5, I would be using one of my mod points here for certain. I generally do not leave messages just to explain why I added someone to my friends list, but this one will be an exception. Thank you for saying what so many of us have wanted very badly to.
I think it's about time some of these things were said. Those of us who see what's going on have done our very best to maintain a civil tone to the debate, and that is still important.
However, that being said, we should not confuse civility with political correctness. Those who support the administration's policy of Constitutional violations, those who would dare to call dissent unpatriotic and un-American (when indeed it is the foundation of patriotism in America), those who would give authority breathtakingly beyond the bounds of a free nation to a man who has repeatedly shown himself to be unworthy of what he already has-those are not "freedom-loving" people, they are not patriotic, and they do not support the REAL American way-freedom for everyone.
That is not to say that these people do not have the right to speak their minds or advocate their beliefs. The moment we take a step to forcibly shut them up, we have ourselves abandoned the ideals of freedom and are no better then our opposition. Yet, that does NOT take away our right to call them-loudly, clearly, and unambiguously-on what they are and what they are suggesting. The best defense against bad free speech is good free speech.
Just FYI, the reason I didn't bother to refute the other guy is that he making the laughable assertion that private entities and the government are both under the same constutional obligations.
And just for your information: My assertion that they should be under the same restrictions, is not the same as an assertion that they -are- currently under such restrictions. If the situation I wanted already existed, why do you think I would advocate that it "should be" that way?
Also, please note that I make a distinction between private and public entities, but put the government and corporations both squarely under the "public" category. The government is granted a charter to serve the public interest at the will and sufferance of the public. Corporations are granted a corporate charter under government authority, and should be expected to serve the public interest as well as their own.
Now, to be clear again, I realize this is not the way things are, and advocate that this is the way it should be.
I certainly must say I can tell that you've thought about this issue quite a bit as well, and while I certainly continue to disagree with you, I appreciate that you've thought through your position rather than adopting it as a knee-jerk.
As I don't believe either of us is going to convince the other, can we just agree to disagree, saying in closing that I certainly hope you're absolutely right--but I still fear that I am?
Actually, they want support for their plan to triple-dip. Each packet that gets transmitted across the Internet has already been paid for twice-once by the guy who paid for the upload bandwidth, once by the guy who paid for the download.
Of course, it could turn out to be even more then triple. How many "intermediate" providers are there? If I run a website, will I have to slip all of them a bribe to make sure they don't "accidentally" lose my traffic?
The part about "using the network for free" is utter bullshit. In fact, we could eliminate paying for upload or download bandwidth tomorrow (take your pick of either) and every packet transmitted would STILL have a dollar sign behind it. As it stands, each is paid for TWICE. For a utility built largely with public money and other public benefits (such as easements and right-of-ways), that's QUITE enough.
Can't handle the bandwidth YOU promised, and YOU chose to oversell? I've got a suggestion. Start running fiber! You know, like you promised to do years ago, got paid to do years ago, and haven't done yet?
Terrorists are not "imagined" and we are not "hysterical". They are dangerous people, and acts of terrorism can be prevented.
I 100% agree with you, and that is 100% irrelevant to my point, which was that going too far in terms of "prevention" can be as bad or worse then not enough. Tighter customs inspections and improved airport security are reasonable responses of reasonable scale and scope. Large-scale wiretapping and imprisonment without charge are not.
Horrible comparison, you are shielded from lightning in your car. I'm pretty sure you can't go out and play golf in a thunderstorm. Is it because people are hysterical and paranoid? No, it's because a practical effort of safety goes a long way in saving lives.
My point exactly! There are some responses to a risk which are reasonable (not standing with a lightning rod during a thunderstorm), and some which are hysterical or overkill--EVEN in response to very real risks. (You also didn't note that I mentioned car accidents, which are a heightened risk during inclement weather-and at some point, most people do get out of the car.)
I would simply argue that being complacent to the risks of terrorism makes another attack inevitable. After digging out rubble at the World Trade Center with my bare hands to try to uncover survivors, I'd rather see the government taking action to prevent attacks, than trying to recover from another attack, especially one that doesn't kill me, but instead devastates the city where I live and work.
I would argue that bombing out a country which was already a decently ripe recruiting ground for terrorists only strengthens their recruiting propaganda in that region. But that's another debate for another time.
As to your personal participation in helping out in the disaster zone, I certainly can say nothing bad for you on that note, and I can certainly understand where the source of your emotional investment in this matter stems from. Still, it is good to take a step back, and make sure that we're not just reacting with "SOMEONE has to do SOMETHING!" without thinking carefully about just how far "something" should go. There does come a point when we HAVE done enough.
Why bother building levees in New Orleans?
Again, reasonable response to a reasonable risk (and the failure to do it properly caused more death and damage then "terrorism" did!)
There is no absolute right to anonymously carry a duffle bag into the superbowl at a time when suicide bombing are a real threat.
Again, I can see why you think so, but I still must disagree. In the end, it's far too easily extensible.
"There is absolutely no right to anonymously carry a duffle bag into a (shopping mall|restaurant|park) when suicide bombings are a very real threat."
How many suicide bombing attempts did those random searches stop? And what's to stop the bomber, if such were to exist, from pushing the button the minute he sees the metal detector-and presumably while standing in a sizable crowd? Just how do you stop a guy that's willing to die in an effort to take out a few people with him?
There is a reasonable right to privacy, and the Supreme Court has always ruled that the need for privacy is vastly outweighed by the need for security in a time of war. It's no wonder President Roosevelt had every telex sent to the government for inspection.
What is this "time of war"? This is a "time of war" about as much as the "war on drugs" was. We're currently "at war" with a tinpot Third-World country whose military we destroyed in approximately five seconds, and with what amounts to an organized crime syndicate. World War II was a fight against -two- (not one, two) actively hostile superpowers who easily possessed the resources and will to invade the US and win. To say they're not in the same ballpark would be a gross understatement-they're not even in the same league.
This tradition of intercepting communications is as old
Why fret over privacy loss if you aren't doing anything illegal/covert?
Very well, let's see if you'll answer that. Presumably you're not doing anything illegal or covert?
Alright. Please post right here: Your real name, your age, your home address, your work or school address, your home phone number, your cell phone number, your work phone number, a description and the license plate numbers of any vehicles you own, and a link to a recent photo of yourself.
If you're not comfortable with that information being in the hands of strangers...then you're concerned about privacy.
I don't feel like debating this; I made my point, and it stands on its own.
Translation: I believe this, my mind is closed, and I will persist in believing that anyone who disagrees is wrong despite my lack of ability to assert it.
Private events such as concerts, sporting events, etc, can insist on strip searches if they want.
And you state my assertion is incorrect? Right to privacy is a guarantee that applies in all circumstances. Let a private party insist on strip searches if they like. They will shortly be getting hit with a massive lawsuit.
Note the same point can be made about the first amendment when fools scream about censorship by a private entity.
While this situation is trickier, the courts have indeed limited the power of "private entities" to restrict or attempt to restrict free speech. When we have corporations which in many ways rival the government in power and influence, should we not restrict their abilities to infringe upon those things we have established as fundamental rights?
Also, your distinction between "public" and "private" falls a bit flat--most such searches are conducted or assisted by law enforcement, and therefore should fall under every bit the same restrictions.
Finally, the Constitution establishes RIGHTS, as do several treaties which the US has signed and ratified. These are meaningless if only the "government" is prohibited from taking them away-would you be happy if the government was forbidden to kill you, but anyone else who wished to was free to do so?
I'm not scared of dying from a terrorist attack per se, I'm afraid of the effect on civilization.
So, GP was right-let's not worry too much about it, and all the "effects" you listed on civilization go away. They're results of our own fear and hysteria. Statistically, you've got less chance of dying in a terrorist attack then from a lightning strike OR a car accident-and yet, I bet if you need to, you're very willing to go out and drive your car during a thunderstorm. Me too. Why? Because I refuse to live in fear of every remote possibility.
People are afraid to build tall buildings because they might be a target.
Which is their right...
We have bag searches at all major public events.
Which is no one's right, see Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. This should be stopped at once.
Government intrusions into privacy is just a symptom of a larger attack on civilization by the terrorists
Absolutely wrong. This is a symptom of:
The tendency of government to increase its power given the opportunity. Terrorism only provided the OPPORTUNITY to pass measures like the "PATRIOT" Act--it did NOT provide the will to do so.
The arrogant belief of the current administration and Congress that they are above the law and Constitution, and the reluctance of anyone (including in some cases the Supreme Court!) to rein them in, sharply if necessary.
The refusal of the population in general to accept that sometimes random events will be human-caused, and that sometimes we should simply accept them as random. Sometimes, a school getting shot up or a plane getting crashed does NOT necessitate "someone" doing "something"-you must first determine if the cure is worse then the disease.
When these people are exterminated, there will no longer be a reason for these problems, and things can go back to the way it used to be when we didn't have to be paranoid and cautious.
I see. So they're really looking out for us, and they'll quit breaking the law just as soon as those other nasty people go away?
In short, don't blame politicians for being overly cautious -- that's their job.
Actually, HERE. for example, is the President's job:
"Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1 (President's Oath of Office). (emphasis added).
The job of politicians is to solve problems using a CERTAIN set of tools, provided by the US Constitution. It is not their job to "manufacture" tools outside of that framework-unless they want to undertake the arduous task of amending the Constitution. It is possible to do so! It was made very difficult, and for GOOD reason. However, until lawmakers -do- undertake and succeed at that process, they should not be able to step outside the Constitutional framework.
They can't just sit back and do nothing, their job is to solve problems, even if you don't like the solutions.
Actually, as I recall, their job IS to find solutions people like-that's why we have elections. Their job is also to find solutions which are legal and Constitutional to implement-that's why we have judicial review. Their job is NOT "whatever I feel like today", it's to work -within- an existing framework.
When the problem goes away, so will these privacy issues.
There has always been terrorism, and there always will be. It's like the disingenuous "But when we win the War on Drugs we'll give back all the privacy we took away in its name!" while knowing damn well that their "war" is unwinnable. The "War on Terror" is the same way--it's ALWAYS going to be possible to inspire terror
The problem with the argument is not that it's not relavent for a small section of the population, but that it's not relavent beyond that small section. To gain the advantage of OSS over a closed source system the user has to:
Ah, but you are still incorrect. To gain the advantage of OSS over proprietary, -one- user, -anywhere-, must do the things you list. At that point, the fixed version can easily and legally be made available. With proprietary software, even if you can find the problem and -know- how to fix it, you run the risk of getting sued for it! The other 90% of users, who never could have done it themselves, need only get the fixed version.
Now, on the proprietary side, any good capitalist/libertarian will happily tell you that an unhappy customer is a bad thing and there is commercial pressure on the system developer to *not* place their customers in a position where they are forced into looking for alternatives.
So, these non-technical users, who can't even identify a problem program, are supposed to know to go and look for an alternative? That makes no sense. Most of them will simply assume that "this damn machine is acting up again" and figure that as par for the course. It'll never occur to them that flawed software is to blame and that they need to go -look- for alternatives. On the other hand, a "repository" system can easily place the fixed version as the next upgrade-the user just clicks the "get upgrades" button, gets the fixed copy, and all of a sudden the problem's gone.
This "invisible hand" effectively also places the developers at the mercy of the customers, while the customers are in turn at the mercy of those developers.
Unless the developers are an unregulated monopoly or the users don't know enough or are too locked in to switch. Did you -finish- that book, or are you just picking the parts that support your arguments?
So, while the OSS side definitely improves the opportunity for users to identify and fix troublesome code the proprietary side trades this for the incentive for the company to provide code that does not annoy the customer, right down to the point of offering the customers source code if that's what it takes to make the sale.
Great! I'll take one copy of Windows, then, source code included. I'll just email Microsoft today, I'm sure they'll be happy to accommodate.
I wonder why this email I just got back starts with a question as to what I've been smoking?
And what about "trading" it for an incentive not to annoy the user? How many proprietary programs contain adware, spyware, and other unwanted "features"? How many FOSS programs do? For having the incentive not to annoy the hell out of users, they sure do it frequently enough! Do you think Sony's going to release their next rootkit open-source? The next DRM scheme?
As for the second quote of mine, you need to look back at the parent post who was stating that *all* commodity software would become open source. In light of that context, your response is senseless as I happily point out that the overwhelming majority (well over 99%) of all commodity software is proprietary and is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
The way you worded your initial statement seemed to indicate your view that -no- commodity software would be open source. As to your statement that most is proprietary, I would agree, though I likely would not say 99% (if the metric is usage rather then simple number of programs). Desktop usage of Linux is at last estimate around 3-4%, and far higher on servers. Not to mention the widespread use of programs such as Firefox, Openoffice, MySQL, and Apache on various platforms.
By using *any* software, OSS or proprietary, you're putting yourself at the mercy of whatever development resources are working on that software, especially if you're not a developer yourself.
I must take exception to this especially. While neither I nor anyone else could possibly go over every line of code in every open-source program in an entire lifetime, that's not necessary either.
If I notice some unusual behavior from the kernel or a given application (for example, a program sending packets somewhere I didn't tell it to, a program accessing the Internet which should have no need to do so, etc.), I can go look at the -relevant portion- of the code. So can anyone else in the world-you are not at the "mercy of the developers" by any means with open-source. Even if you personally cannot read the code, you can call someone's attention to it who can, and that person can then alert the community if something untoward is occurring. This can also help prevent "false alarms"-it is entirely possible that the unusual behavior is perfectly harmless, and a look at the code will reveal this as well.
Finally, if it -is- discovered that the software is doing something it shouldn't be, it's then possible for anyone to fix the code. If a FOSS program were to begin installing spyware or malware, anyone who wishes can strip the malicious code out and offer the program without it. Any other developer can check to make sure they did the job properly, and fix it if they didn't.
Contrast that with closed-source software. Say I install a closed-source media player on my system. I have not asked it to play anything off the Internet, yet it is accessing (or attempting to access) it, and send encrypted information. Why? Is it trying to download ads or malware? Is it sending statistics about how I'm using it to someone? Is it checking a repository to see if a better version is available? I don't know-and I can't look. Or in other words, I'm at the mercy of the developers.
I find it exceptionally unlikely that commodity software will ever be open source. That's zealot speak.
Tell that to Red Hat, Novell, IBM, or any number of other companies who make pretty good money off commodity OSS. I'm sure those zealots will laugh at you all the way to the bank.
The American doctrine of Fair Use allows the use of excerpts of copyrighted materials for comment, criticism, education, and parody. In fact, in many cases (such as a teacher copying an entire newspaper article to pass out and discuss in class) is fair use even if the -entire work- is reproduced. Similarly, "parody" songs, books, or movies are not infringements, as they are intended to criticize or poke fun at the original.
This would easily seem to fit the definition of Fair Use, as the law states it should be considered:
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
While somethingawful is a commercial site, this was posted not by an owner or someone who stood to profit, but by a member who simply wanted to comment on that particular part of the service manual by relating his own experience. Use of an excerpt to comment or criticize heavily weighs toward fair use.
the nature of the copyrighted work;
While "informational" materials like manuals can be copyrighted, they generally receive far less stringent protection then "artistic" works. This again weighs heavily toward fair use. The fact that the manuals are not generally available for public consumption would probably go in Apple's favor, so this one's effectively a wash.
amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;
The intent of a service manual is to give the person who possesses it enough information to know how to repair all parts of the device it covers. As the excerpt is both a very small percentage of what is in the published work, and is not a "substantial" part of its function, this again weighs toward Fair Use.
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
THIS ONLY MEANS THE MANUAL. It does NOT mean "Will Apple sell fewer computers because people may believe they're not assembling them well?" The ONLY question the courts will ask for this prong is "Will Apple sell fewer service manuals because this person copied this picture and text into their post?"
The annswer, of course, is a clear no. Only Apple repair shops are even able to purchase these manuals, and they will certainly continue to purchase the same number of them despite a single image and a few words being posted. Weighs heavily toward fair use.
Overall: If Apple goes to court, they're going to lose, and they're going to lose badly. This is clearly a fair use.
Now, on the other hand, if Apple finds out someone under an NDA leaked the stuff, they're going to sue that person into next year. But they don't have a prayer against somethingawful.
Actually, no one is "forced" to do so. If someone asks you for your thoughts on "Intellectual Property Rights", you are free to respond "I don't believe that "intellect" can ever be "property", or that it should ever be considered so. Would you like to hear my views on copyrights, patents, trademarks, or anything else often confused under that term?" I've engaged several people that way, and found many of them very willing to hear what I had to say.
You're welcome to your own opinions (which are silly enough to refute themselves that I am not going to bother). However, you are NOT entitled to your own facts.
If we pay for it, we should be able to throw it away.
Whether or not I agree with your statement, we're not paying for it. You are aware of how long it's been since the US paid its UN dues?
The lawsuits that shut down Suprnova weren't too many miles away from there, if I do recall correctly. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the reach of multinational corporations with obscene amounts of money, even if I do dislike them just as much as anyone. This is exactly what this is-they want to try and shut down Bittorrent and other such trackers in Albania, or Sweden, or Slovakia, or what-have-you.
Absolutely agreed that this entire issue is about control. It's pretty difficult to maintain artificial scarcity in the face of natural infinite availability, so it's hardly surprising that the **AA's are resulting to very draconian (and seemingly irrational) measures-what they're trying to do is totally and inevitably doomed to failure, so anything but accepting that and changing radically is irrational. Bit like standing with your hand out in front of a freight train-you really have two choices, keep putting yourself in a "better position" to try and stop it-or get the hell off the tracks, figure the train's getting through no matter what, and find something better to do.
I'm as strong a believer in the First Amendment as you'll ever hope to meet, but maybe you can explain something to me? Because so far sure in the hell no one's been able to.
If I slip a few bucks to a cop, a customs official, a safety inspector, a judge, a member of a jury, a prosecutor, an IRS auditor, or pretty much any other public official I can conceive of, in order to "convince them to see my point of view", I am not "exercising my First Amendment rights"-I am passing a bribe, an action which should be and rightfully is illegal.
What's different about doing it when a Congressman is on the receiving end? What is it about that that moves it from "bribe" to "free speech with zeroes at the end"?
Thank you for the link which proves my point! (By the way, need you get this upset over being corrected?)
"Arrested" means you have been taken into custody
custody (kus-teh-dee) 3. The state of being detained or held under guard, especially by the police:
So is that the part which does not fit the above-described situation?
and can't leave.
Or are you asserting that she would have been able to leave?
As you did raise my curiosity, I asked a police officer about this who's a friend of mine. He did state that there is a distinction between arrest and detention, that, however, "detention" is not what's described here. When you are detained, while you are not free to go, you are also not generally in the custody of the officer (for example, if you're pulled over for a traffic violation, but allowed to remain in/next to your car while you're written a ticket, you're being detained but not arrested). The moment you're cuffed, they have to treat it as a custodial arrest, even if you're let go before the car even leaves! That was in effect my understanding as well. An arrest does not -have- to involve being taken to an actual police station or jail, being booked, mug shot, or fingerprinted, or any of these things (though of course it almost always does). Actually, it need not even have to involve being read your Miranda rights-though if they intend to question you at all, they should read you your Mirandas, else they will likely find anything you say inadmissible. I would strongly suspect that this woman was in fact read her Miranda rights, as it's very likely they diid question her.
This is not at all some type of silly semantic wordplay. There is a significant difference between detention ("do you know why I pulled you over this afternoon?") and arrest ("Alright, get your hands behind your back, let's pat you down, get into the car.") An arrest not only is recorded with the police department (and made public record), but is far more stressful, difficult, and humiliating for the individual involved. (Next time you get pulled over on a busy highway for a burnt-out taillight, imagine the officer dragging you out of your car in handcuffs!) It is, then, critical that we ensure this power of the police is used only in a legitimate manner.
And unfortunately you've got quite the error in your own post, though your geography is good...
It was a good read, but you should have paid attention to the part where THEY GAVE HER A TICKET. She wasn't arrested.
(From cited article):
When she refused to show her ID, she said, officers with the Federal Protective Service removed her from the bus, handcuffed her, put her in the back of a patrol car and took her to a federal police station within the Federal Center, where she waited while officers conferred. She was subsequently given two tickets and released.
While she wasn't held long, she most certainly was taken into custody, or, arrested.
Unfortunately, sometimes it isn't that simple. Sometimes it must simply be said "We have gone as far as we can. We can never stop all of a bad activity, be that murder, child porn, or any other type of evil act. Yet under our current system, we stop as much of it as we can without reverting to being evildoers ourselves."
The burden should be on those who want to -make a change- to show it's beneficial. If that change would erode civil liberties, it generally should not be made at all. Sometimes, the "choice" is simple-accept reality, you can try to stop bad things, and you can stop a lot of them through very reasonable measures, but you -cannot- stop them all without doing worse things yourself. Sometimes, you do have to say "It's working pretty well, quit picking at it."
Actually, I wasn't paid to have this debate by Slashdot, I jumped in all on my own!
You've turned what was an anti-child porn initiative into a conspiracy-preaching, Bash-bushing session.
Actually, the assertion that this is a poor law, as it will do very little against child porn while being a massive invasion of privacy. Care to debate that assertion on its merits, or just try to play devil's advocate, or whatever it is you're doing? By the way, we have the right to disagree with proposed laws in America. That's generally known as "freedom".
I knew when the phrase "Bush administration" was used in the summary that it would be another Bush-bashing session with conspiracy theories flying wildly.
Actually, the concerns here are with the proposed forced data retention. This would pave the way for significant invasions of privacy, and I believe we have not only the right, but the responsibility, to strongly question whether that should be done. Again, would you like to argue for this policy on its -merits-, or just be insulting?
"Police state?" Oh, please. I put as much stock into that phrase when liberals use it as when they use "fascist dictator" and "regime."
Firstly, "liberals" are far from the only party to frequently use the term "fascist dictator" or "police state"-and tell me, what party was the guy in who advocated "regime change"? (You've also been corrected on regime-it is an entirely proper usage, as it simply means "system". Your doctor could place you on a "regime" of medication if you got sick, and we can have a "regime" of government systems.) Republicans have been every bit as likely to use "scary words"-tell me, who liked to talk about the "commies"? Who likes to constantly bring up the "terrorists"?
Secondly, the concern is valid. A major goal of police states is to be able to monitor the legitimate actions of its citizens at any time, without having to target monitoring toward those they have good cause to believe have committed a crime. Normally, the way they get this done is to target a "bogeyman"-be that "terrorism", "child porn", or all of the above. "Yes, we're going to snoop on everyone, but we really aren't looking at anyone but the terrorists and the child pornographers!"
Finally, is someone going to stand up and say this? CHILD PORN LAWS HAVE GONE TOO FAR! There should be laws against porn produced using real children, whether producing or consuming. But it should stop there. To ban "cartoon" type porn is the very definition of Orwell's "thought crime", and the Supremes should've slapped that down a LOT harder the last time it came up. And regardless of how bad it is to think of child porn, we should never, ever, give up even a bit of our civil liberties. It's the job of law enforcement to do their job within the framework of those liberties, not to demand we give them up so they have it a little easier.
Such people have neither lived in an actual regime nor under a fascist dictator in a police state.
I hear this silly fallacy all the time. I've never had pure sulfuric acid poured on me, but I can tell you pretty authoritatively it would hurt. I've never won the lottery, but I can tell you with pretty good conviction I'd like to. Should we wait until we do have a police state before we object to the encroachments on our rights?
Ask a Holocaust survivor sometime what a fascist dictator really is.
I have a better idea. Let's ask a Holocaust survivor for his advice to those in the future!
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I did not speak out because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemoller
Looks like at least that particular Holocaust survivor advises "Stop it at the first sign".
While this might be hyperbolic (for now!) it is not by any means a troll, and is actually an excellent way of summing up the situation. Never have my points when I need them, someone correct this?
There were some typos in your post, just thought I'd point them out.
First, "obscene amount of cash" should be used in place of "decent living". I've done that too, keys are right next to each other. On the same note, there are rumors that "high quality movies" are still around out there, and there are even a few sighting reports within the last few years-but scientists largely agree they're extinct, and any further reports regarding them are a myth, akin to Bigfoot. Just like Bigfoot, though, I think the "believers" will always be out there, figuring anyday now something decent will be sighted at their local megaplex.
I share your sentiments that pirating media is similar to stealing.
Making and helping others make more of a nonrival good is subject to forcibly removing from their possession a rival good because...?
If I take your computer without permission, it's theft. You only had one computer. Now it's wrongfully in my possession and not in yours. Theft.
On the other hand, if I carefully look over the specifications of your computer and make one of my own out of my own components that's exactly like it, you still have your computer, and now I have one like it too. Not theft. Not even if the fact I built my own costs Dell or HP money, not even if that denies them profits, and not even if it puts them out of business. Not theft.
Now, to extend...I burn my CD-R, with my data, downloaded through my internet connection, that was stored on my hard drive. Not theft. Nothing was taken away from anyone. "Taking away potential profits" is a red herring-I take away potential profits from Exxon when I buy a more fuel-efficient car, I take away profits from the computer manufacturers when I build my own, I take profits away from all sorts of people when I repair my stuff instead of replacing it. None of that is "theft"-I don't exist to provide the maximum profit for every corporation I run across.
The thing that is difficult to get around in this debate is that there is something broken that is preventing the development of a dynamic price sensitive marketplace for media. Prices seem to be fixed by monopolists and consortiums.
The granting of a legal monopoly over periods longer then a human lifespan, results in monopoly practices? I mean, who would've possibly guessed?
Even worse, there is not an open marketplace where we can go to find all of the old media that we might want to access.
Oh yes there is. It's the exact one you call "piracy" and "theft" and object to. But that's what's breaking the monopoly. What else is there? They can simply refuse to license to anyone who'll undersell them, look at the price bullying occurring with iTunes. There -is- no legal way to break the monopoly, except of course to change the law itself. (Don't try to tell me that's genuinely possible.)
Oh, and you can find all kinds of stuff there, old and new! (So I've heard.)
In the absense of a working marketplace, Warner Brothers is now responding to price pressures from piracy. This is quite interesting
Actually, there's a market there that seems to be working just fine. It might not be a market WB likes, and it might even be technically illegal in China, but laws that stay unenforced with a wink and a smile really aren't laws. WB is competing with it, not stepping into the absence of one.
The fact that media monopolies have started responding to price pressures from piracy is interesting. Personally, I think it would be better to have a dynamic marketplace.
You mean, without artificial limits on who may distribute? With price-based competition rather then price-fixing? Hey, looks like the Chinese are getting just what you want!
I am angry that P2P-piracy destroyed early attempts to establish such markets based simply on trust.
What "early attempts based on trust"? The media cartels have never "trusted" their customers, just how old is Macrovision again? P2P -was- the market based on trust-and it worked. If too many people leeched without ever being willing to share back, it would've collapsed. Apparently, enough people -were- willing to share that it instead grew exponentially. But when I share with you, I have no idea if you'll ever share back anything. That's trust-based.
The P2P-piracy advocates will never realize the damage that they did by undermining trust. Having destroyed the most fundamental element of an open marketplace (trust) I am not sure how or even if we can develop the open marketplace for media.
And I suppose if you had a tumor, you wouldn't want steps taken from the outside to remove it? Racism is a cancer on society every bit as dangerous as a tumor in one's body-and like such tumors, the body is more often then not unable to correct it. Part of the proper role of governments is safeguarding the reasonable rights of minorities from a "tyranny of the majority".
You mentioned million dollar lawsuits... Non-peaceful means coercive. If you compel me to do something against my will by threatening me with jail time or fines that is non-peaceful.
You are correct on this point. It is also coercive when a police officer tells a robber to drop his weapons and put his hands up at gunpoint. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
There are also differing degrees of force, which are appropriate to differing situations. It is not appropriate, for example, for parents to discipline their children using physical violence. On the other hand, if someone takes a punch at you, it is perfectly appropriate for you to hit back. Both parental discipline and self-defense are coercive, forceful measures, but in differing degrees.
Businesses are subject to differing government regulations then individuals because they are -not- individuals. They are not government entities, but they are by their nature public ones. We have regulations to prevent businesses from excessively polluting the air or water. Why? Because that negatively affects the public at large, not just the person who owns the company. Similarly, we have laws to prevent businesses from polluting society-and don't kid yourself, institutional racism has every bit the negative and even lethal effects of any environmental pollutant.
I don't really know if there were or not. I'm no 1950s expert. I believe many were probably doing agricultural work at that time, but I don't really know. It's not really important though. Perhaps it's more imporant (sic) to ask "Why didn't they?".
You just stated you knew very little on the subject about which you are speaking, yet you feel qualified to dismiss it as unimportant? I think, if you went and studied that "unimportant" part of history, it would every bit provide the answer to your "Why didn't they?" question. Here's a hint: Beatings, lynchings, and firebombings are "coercive measures" too.
On a personal level, if you are the business owner that does not what his propety infringed upon you might feel resentment. It creates a government bueauracracy that requires funding, thus more taxes. That's bad because it's money out of everyone's pocket.
If you're a black, shut out of almost every opportunity there is because you were born with darker skin then the next guy, that's not going to create any resentment? I suggest you go back and study that "unimportant" history.
As to taxes, yes, they're money out of everyone's pocket. And in large part, it goes back into everyone's pocket. Do you think government employees work for free? Contractors? Suppliers? Do you think those employees don't go buy TV's or couches or dinners at local stores/restaurants like everyone else? While it is true that there are many things which the private sector can handle very well, there are also things which are handled better via a central authority. And if you'd like to see what totally unregulated business looks like-run a Google search for "gilded age". I believe you'll find that particular bit of history important as well.
What if I said you that were required to compare Sony, JVC and Sanyo stereos before buying one? It's totally the smart thing to do, but do I have any right to make you do so?
No, though that's an inaccurate comparison, as I am an individual, not a business. That particular regulation, of course, would be excessive and unreasonable even if placed upon a business. Nondiscrimination laws are not.
Slashdot Mirror
Then, GP's idea really does have merit. Have a panel of technical experts in the field read the patent, and if a certain percentage of them can't make heads or tails of it, reject it. It'll put a quick end to attempts to patent the wheel by describing it with 2 million words.
>If you were not already at 5, I would be using one of my mod points here for certain. I generally do not leave messages just to explain why I added someone to my friends list, but this one will be an exception. Thank you for saying what so many of us have wanted very badly to.
I think it's about time some of these things were said. Those of us who see what's going on have done our very best to maintain a civil tone to the debate, and that is still important.
However, that being said, we should not confuse civility with political correctness. Those who support the administration's policy of Constitutional violations, those who would dare to call dissent unpatriotic and un-American (when indeed it is the foundation of patriotism in America), those who would give authority breathtakingly beyond the bounds of a free nation to a man who has repeatedly shown himself to be unworthy of what he already has-those are not "freedom-loving" people, they are not patriotic, and they do not support the REAL American way-freedom for everyone.
That is not to say that these people do not have the right to speak their minds or advocate their beliefs. The moment we take a step to forcibly shut them up, we have ourselves abandoned the ideals of freedom and are no better then our opposition. Yet, that does NOT take away our right to call them-loudly, clearly, and unambiguously-on what they are and what they are suggesting. The best defense against bad free speech is good free speech.
You've done that here. Thank you.
Just FYI, the reason I didn't bother to refute the other guy is that he making the laughable assertion that private entities and the government are both under the same constutional obligations.
And just for your information: My assertion that they should be under the same restrictions, is not the same as an assertion that they -are- currently under such restrictions. If the situation I wanted already existed, why do you think I would advocate that it "should be" that way?
Also, please note that I make a distinction between private and public entities, but put the government and corporations both squarely under the "public" category. The government is granted a charter to serve the public interest at the will and sufferance of the public. Corporations are granted a corporate charter under government authority, and should be expected to serve the public interest as well as their own.
Now, to be clear again, I realize this is not the way things are, and advocate that this is the way it should be.
Now, would you care to refute those assertions?
I certainly must say I can tell that you've thought about this issue quite a bit as well, and while I certainly continue to disagree with you, I appreciate that you've thought through your position rather than adopting it as a knee-jerk.
As I don't believe either of us is going to convince the other, can we just agree to disagree, saying in closing that I certainly hope you're absolutely right--but I still fear that I am?
Actually, they want support for their plan to triple-dip. Each packet that gets transmitted across the Internet has already been paid for twice-once by the guy who paid for the upload bandwidth, once by the guy who paid for the download.
Of course, it could turn out to be even more then triple. How many "intermediate" providers are there? If I run a website, will I have to slip all of them a bribe to make sure they don't "accidentally" lose my traffic?
The part about "using the network for free" is utter bullshit. In fact, we could eliminate paying for upload or download bandwidth tomorrow (take your pick of either) and every packet transmitted would STILL have a dollar sign behind it. As it stands, each is paid for TWICE. For a utility built largely with public money and other public benefits (such as easements and right-of-ways), that's QUITE enough.
Can't handle the bandwidth YOU promised, and YOU chose to oversell? I've got a suggestion. Start running fiber! You know, like you promised to do years ago, got paid to do years ago, and haven't done yet?
Terrorists are not "imagined" and we are not "hysterical". They are dangerous people, and acts of terrorism can be prevented.
I 100% agree with you, and that is 100% irrelevant to my point, which was that going too far in terms of "prevention" can be as bad or worse then not enough. Tighter customs inspections and improved airport security are reasonable responses of reasonable scale and scope. Large-scale wiretapping and imprisonment without charge are not.
Horrible comparison, you are shielded from lightning in your car. I'm pretty sure you can't go out and play golf in a thunderstorm. Is it because people are hysterical and paranoid? No, it's because a practical effort of safety goes a long way in saving lives.
My point exactly! There are some responses to a risk which are reasonable (not standing with a lightning rod during a thunderstorm), and some which are hysterical or overkill--EVEN in response to very real risks. (You also didn't note that I mentioned car accidents, which are a heightened risk during inclement weather-and at some point, most people do get out of the car.)
I would simply argue that being complacent to the risks of terrorism makes another attack inevitable. After digging out rubble at the World Trade Center with my bare hands to try to uncover survivors, I'd rather see the government taking action to prevent attacks, than trying to recover from another attack, especially one that doesn't kill me, but instead devastates the city where I live and work.
I would argue that bombing out a country which was already a decently ripe recruiting ground for terrorists only strengthens their recruiting propaganda in that region. But that's another debate for another time.
As to your personal participation in helping out in the disaster zone, I certainly can say nothing bad for you on that note, and I can certainly understand where the source of your emotional investment in this matter stems from. Still, it is good to take a step back, and make sure that we're not just reacting with "SOMEONE has to do SOMETHING!" without thinking carefully about just how far "something" should go. There does come a point when we HAVE done enough.
Why bother building levees in New Orleans?
Again, reasonable response to a reasonable risk (and the failure to do it properly caused more death and damage then "terrorism" did!)
There is no absolute right to anonymously carry a duffle bag into the superbowl at a time when suicide bombing are a real threat.
Again, I can see why you think so, but I still must disagree. In the end, it's far too easily extensible.
"There is absolutely no right to anonymously carry a duffle bag into a (shopping mall|restaurant|park) when suicide bombings are a very real threat."
How many suicide bombing attempts did those random searches stop? And what's to stop the bomber, if such were to exist, from pushing the button the minute he sees the metal detector-and presumably while standing in a sizable crowd? Just how do you stop a guy that's willing to die in an effort to take out a few people with him?
There is a reasonable right to privacy, and the Supreme Court has always ruled that the need for privacy is vastly outweighed by the need for security in a time of war. It's no wonder President Roosevelt had every telex sent to the government for inspection.
What is this "time of war"? This is a "time of war" about as much as the "war on drugs" was. We're currently "at war" with a tinpot Third-World country whose military we destroyed in approximately five seconds, and with what amounts to an organized crime syndicate. World War II was a fight against -two- (not one, two) actively hostile superpowers who easily possessed the resources and will to invade the US and win. To say they're not in the same ballpark would be a gross understatement-they're not even in the same league.
This tradition of intercepting communications is as old
Why fret over privacy loss if you aren't doing anything illegal/covert?
Very well, let's see if you'll answer that. Presumably you're not doing anything illegal or covert?
Alright. Please post right here: Your real name, your age, your home address, your work or school address, your home phone number, your cell phone number, your work phone number, a description and the license plate numbers of any vehicles you own, and a link to a recent photo of yourself.
If you're not comfortable with that information being in the hands of strangers...then you're concerned about privacy.
I don't feel like debating this; I made my point, and it stands on its own.
Translation: I believe this, my mind is closed, and I will persist in believing that anyone who disagrees is wrong despite my lack of ability to assert it.
Private events such as concerts, sporting events, etc, can insist on strip searches if they want.
And you state my assertion is incorrect? Right to privacy is a guarantee that applies in all circumstances. Let a private party insist on strip searches if they like. They will shortly be getting hit with a massive lawsuit.
Note the same point can be made about the first amendment when fools scream about censorship by a private entity.
While this situation is trickier, the courts have indeed limited the power of "private entities" to restrict or attempt to restrict free speech. When we have corporations which in many ways rival the government in power and influence, should we not restrict their abilities to infringe upon those things we have established as fundamental rights?
Also, your distinction between "public" and "private" falls a bit flat--most such searches are conducted or assisted by law enforcement, and therefore should fall under every bit the same restrictions.
Finally, the Constitution establishes RIGHTS, as do several treaties which the US has signed and ratified. These are meaningless if only the "government" is prohibited from taking them away-would you be happy if the government was forbidden to kill you, but anyone else who wished to was free to do so?
I'm not scared of dying from a terrorist attack per se, I'm afraid of the effect on civilization.
So, GP was right-let's not worry too much about it, and all the "effects" you listed on civilization go away. They're results of our own fear and hysteria. Statistically, you've got less chance of dying in a terrorist attack then from a lightning strike OR a car accident-and yet, I bet if you need to, you're very willing to go out and drive your car during a thunderstorm. Me too. Why? Because I refuse to live in fear of every remote possibility.
People are afraid to build tall buildings because they might be a target.
Which is their right...
We have bag searches at all major public events.
Which is no one's right, see Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. This should be stopped at once.
Government intrusions into privacy is just a symptom of a larger attack on civilization by the terrorists
Absolutely wrong. This is a symptom of:
When these people are exterminated, there will no longer be a reason for these problems, and things can go back to the way it used to be when we didn't have to be paranoid and cautious.
I see. So they're really looking out for us, and they'll quit breaking the law just as soon as those other nasty people go away?
In short, don't blame politicians for being overly cautious -- that's their job.
Actually, HERE. for example, is the President's job:
"Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1 (President's Oath of Office). (emphasis added).
The job of politicians is to solve problems using a CERTAIN set of tools, provided by the US Constitution. It is not their job to "manufacture" tools outside of that framework-unless they want to undertake the arduous task of amending the Constitution. It is possible to do so! It was made very difficult, and for GOOD reason. However, until lawmakers -do- undertake and succeed at that process, they should not be able to step outside the Constitutional framework.
They can't just sit back and do nothing, their job is to solve problems, even if you don't like the solutions.
Actually, as I recall, their job IS to find solutions people like-that's why we have elections. Their job is also to find solutions which are legal and Constitutional to implement-that's why we have judicial review. Their job is NOT "whatever I feel like today", it's to work -within- an existing framework.
When the problem goes away, so will these privacy issues.
There has always been terrorism, and there always will be. It's like the disingenuous "But when we win the War on Drugs we'll give back all the privacy we took away in its name!" while knowing damn well that their "war" is unwinnable. The "War on Terror" is the same way--it's ALWAYS going to be possible to inspire terror
Please feel free-just email me at the address I have listed, I'll give you my real one. Prefer not to use it here for obvious reasons. :)
The problem with the argument is not that it's not relavent for a small section of the population, but that it's not relavent beyond that small section. To gain the advantage of OSS over a closed source system the user has to:
Ah, but you are still incorrect. To gain the advantage of OSS over proprietary, -one- user, -anywhere-, must do the things you list. At that point, the fixed version can easily and legally be made available. With proprietary software, even if you can find the problem and -know- how to fix it, you run the risk of getting sued for it! The other 90% of users, who never could have done it themselves, need only get the fixed version.
Now, on the proprietary side, any good capitalist/libertarian will happily tell you that an unhappy customer is a bad thing and there is commercial pressure on the system developer to *not* place their customers in a position where they are forced into looking for alternatives.
So, these non-technical users, who can't even identify a problem program, are supposed to know to go and look for an alternative? That makes no sense. Most of them will simply assume that "this damn machine is acting up again" and figure that as par for the course. It'll never occur to them that flawed software is to blame and that they need to go -look- for alternatives. On the other hand, a "repository" system can easily place the fixed version as the next upgrade-the user just clicks the "get upgrades" button, gets the fixed copy, and all of a sudden the problem's gone.
This "invisible hand" effectively also places the developers at the mercy of the customers, while the customers are in turn at the mercy of those developers.
Unless the developers are an unregulated monopoly or the users don't know enough or are too locked in to switch. Did you -finish- that book, or are you just picking the parts that support your arguments?
So, while the OSS side definitely improves the opportunity for users to identify and fix troublesome code the proprietary side trades this for the incentive for the company to provide code that does not annoy the customer, right down to the point of offering the customers source code if that's what it takes to make the sale.
Great! I'll take one copy of Windows, then, source code included. I'll just email Microsoft today, I'm sure they'll be happy to accommodate.
I wonder why this email I just got back starts with a question as to what I've been smoking?
And what about "trading" it for an incentive not to annoy the user? How many proprietary programs contain adware, spyware, and other unwanted "features"? How many FOSS programs do? For having the incentive not to annoy the hell out of users, they sure do it frequently enough! Do you think Sony's going to release their next rootkit open-source? The next DRM scheme?
As for the second quote of mine, you need to look back at the parent post who was stating that *all* commodity software would become open source. In light of that context, your response is senseless as I happily point out that the overwhelming majority (well over 99%) of all commodity software is proprietary and is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
The way you worded your initial statement seemed to indicate your view that -no- commodity software would be open source. As to your statement that most is proprietary, I would agree, though I likely would not say 99% (if the metric is usage rather then simple number of programs). Desktop usage of Linux is at last estimate around 3-4%, and far higher on servers. Not to mention the widespread use of programs such as Firefox, Openoffice, MySQL, and Apache on various platforms.
By using *any* software, OSS or proprietary, you're putting yourself at the mercy of whatever development resources are working on that software, especially if you're not a developer yourself.
I must take exception to this especially. While neither I nor anyone else could possibly go over every line of code in every open-source program in an entire lifetime, that's not necessary either.
If I notice some unusual behavior from the kernel or a given application (for example, a program sending packets somewhere I didn't tell it to, a program accessing the Internet which should have no need to do so, etc.), I can go look at the -relevant portion- of the code. So can anyone else in the world-you are not at the "mercy of the developers" by any means with open-source. Even if you personally cannot read the code, you can call someone's attention to it who can, and that person can then alert the community if something untoward is occurring. This can also help prevent "false alarms"-it is entirely possible that the unusual behavior is perfectly harmless, and a look at the code will reveal this as well.
Finally, if it -is- discovered that the software is doing something it shouldn't be, it's then possible for anyone to fix the code. If a FOSS program were to begin installing spyware or malware, anyone who wishes can strip the malicious code out and offer the program without it. Any other developer can check to make sure they did the job properly, and fix it if they didn't.
Contrast that with closed-source software. Say I install a closed-source media player on my system. I have not asked it to play anything off the Internet, yet it is accessing (or attempting to access) it, and send encrypted information. Why? Is it trying to download ads or malware? Is it sending statistics about how I'm using it to someone? Is it checking a repository to see if a better version is available? I don't know-and I can't look. Or in other words, I'm at the mercy of the developers.
I find it exceptionally unlikely that commodity software will ever be open source. That's zealot speak.
Tell that to Red Hat, Novell, IBM, or any number of other companies who make pretty good money off commodity OSS. I'm sure those zealots will laugh at you all the way to the bank.
The American doctrine of Fair Use allows the use of excerpts of copyrighted materials for comment, criticism, education, and parody. In fact, in many cases (such as a teacher copying an entire newspaper article to pass out and discuss in class) is fair use even if the -entire work- is reproduced. Similarly, "parody" songs, books, or movies are not infringements, as they are intended to criticize or poke fun at the original.
This would easily seem to fit the definition of Fair Use, as the law states it should be considered:
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
While somethingawful is a commercial site, this was posted not by an owner or someone who stood to profit, but by a member who simply wanted to comment on that particular part of the service manual by relating his own experience. Use of an excerpt to comment or criticize heavily weighs toward fair use.
the nature of the copyrighted work;
While "informational" materials like manuals can be copyrighted, they generally receive far less stringent protection then "artistic" works. This again weighs heavily toward fair use. The fact that the manuals are not generally available for public consumption would probably go in Apple's favor, so this one's effectively a wash.
amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;
The intent of a service manual is to give the person who possesses it enough information to know how to repair all parts of the device it covers. As the excerpt is both a very small percentage of what is in the published work, and is not a "substantial" part of its function, this again weighs toward Fair Use.
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
THIS ONLY MEANS THE MANUAL. It does NOT mean "Will Apple sell fewer computers because people may believe they're not assembling them well?" The ONLY question the courts will ask for this prong is "Will Apple sell fewer service manuals because this person copied this picture and text into their post?"
The annswer, of course, is a clear no. Only Apple repair shops are even able to purchase these manuals, and they will certainly continue to purchase the same number of them despite a single image and a few words being posted. Weighs heavily toward fair use.
Overall: If Apple goes to court, they're going to lose, and they're going to lose badly. This is clearly a fair use.
Now, on the other hand, if Apple finds out someone under an NDA leaked the stuff, they're going to sue that person into next year. But they don't have a prayer against somethingawful.
Actually, no one is "forced" to do so. If someone asks you for your thoughts on "Intellectual Property Rights", you are free to respond "I don't believe that "intellect" can ever be "property", or that it should ever be considered so. Would you like to hear my views on copyrights, patents, trademarks, or anything else often confused under that term?" I've engaged several people that way, and found many of them very willing to hear what I had to say.
You're welcome to your own opinions (which are silly enough to refute themselves that I am not going to bother). However, you are NOT entitled to your own facts.
If we pay for it, we should be able to throw it away.
Whether or not I agree with your statement, we're not paying for it. You are aware of how long it's been since the US paid its UN dues?
The lawsuits that shut down Suprnova weren't too many miles away from there, if I do recall correctly. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the reach of multinational corporations with obscene amounts of money, even if I do dislike them just as much as anyone. This is exactly what this is-they want to try and shut down Bittorrent and other such trackers in Albania, or Sweden, or Slovakia, or what-have-you.
Absolutely agreed that this entire issue is about control. It's pretty difficult to maintain artificial scarcity in the face of natural infinite availability, so it's hardly surprising that the **AA's are resulting to very draconian (and seemingly irrational) measures-what they're trying to do is totally and inevitably doomed to failure, so anything but accepting that and changing radically is irrational. Bit like standing with your hand out in front of a freight train-you really have two choices, keep putting yourself in a "better position" to try and stop it-or get the hell off the tracks, figure the train's getting through no matter what, and find something better to do.
No, that would violate the First Amendment.
I'm as strong a believer in the First Amendment as you'll ever hope to meet, but maybe you can explain something to me? Because so far sure in the hell no one's been able to.
If I slip a few bucks to a cop, a customs official, a safety inspector, a judge, a member of a jury, a prosecutor, an IRS auditor, or pretty much any other public official I can conceive of, in order to "convince them to see my point of view", I am not "exercising my First Amendment rights"-I am passing a bribe, an action which should be and rightfully is illegal.
What's different about doing it when a Congressman is on the receiving end? What is it about that that moves it from "bribe" to "free speech with zeroes at the end"?
Thank you for the link which proves my point! (By the way, need you get this upset over being corrected?)
"Arrested" means you have been taken into custody
custody (kus-teh-dee) 3. The state of being detained or held under guard, especially by the police:
So is that the part which does not fit the above-described situation?
and can't leave.
Or are you asserting that she would have been able to leave?
As you did raise my curiosity, I asked a police officer about this who's a friend of mine. He did state that there is a distinction between arrest and detention, that, however, "detention" is not what's described here. When you are detained, while you are not free to go, you are also not generally in the custody of the officer (for example, if you're pulled over for a traffic violation, but allowed to remain in/next to your car while you're written a ticket, you're being detained but not arrested). The moment you're cuffed, they have to treat it as a custodial arrest, even if you're let go before the car even leaves! That was in effect my understanding as well. An arrest does not -have- to involve being taken to an actual police station or jail, being booked, mug shot, or fingerprinted, or any of these things (though of course it almost always does). Actually, it need not even have to involve being read your Miranda rights-though if they intend to question you at all, they should read you your Mirandas, else they will likely find anything you say inadmissible. I would strongly suspect that this woman was in fact read her Miranda rights, as it's very likely they diid question her.
This is not at all some type of silly semantic wordplay. There is a significant difference between detention ("do you know why I pulled you over this afternoon?") and arrest ("Alright, get your hands behind your back, let's pat you down, get into the car.") An arrest not only is recorded with the police department (and made public record), but is far more stressful, difficult, and humiliating for the individual involved. (Next time you get pulled over on a busy highway for a burnt-out taillight, imagine the officer dragging you out of your car in handcuffs!) It is, then, critical that we ensure this power of the police is used only in a legitimate manner.
And unfortunately you've got quite the error in your own post, though your geography is good...
It was a good read, but you should have paid attention to the part where THEY GAVE HER A TICKET. She wasn't arrested.
(From cited article):
When she refused to show her ID, she said, officers with the Federal Protective Service removed her from the bus, handcuffed her, put her in the back of a patrol car and took her to a federal police station within the Federal Center, where she waited while officers conferred. She was subsequently given two tickets and released.
While she wasn't held long, she most certainly was taken into custody, or, arrested.
Unfortunately, sometimes it isn't that simple. Sometimes it must simply be said "We have gone as far as we can. We can never stop all of a bad activity, be that murder, child porn, or any other type of evil act. Yet under our current system, we stop as much of it as we can without reverting to being evildoers ourselves."
The burden should be on those who want to -make a change- to show it's beneficial. If that change would erode civil liberties, it generally should not be made at all. Sometimes, the "choice" is simple-accept reality, you can try to stop bad things, and you can stop a lot of them through very reasonable measures, but you -cannot- stop them all without doing worse things yourself. Sometimes, you do have to say "It's working pretty well, quit picking at it."
Congratulations, Slashdot.
Actually, I wasn't paid to have this debate by Slashdot, I jumped in all on my own!
You've turned what was an anti-child porn initiative into a conspiracy-preaching, Bash-bushing session.
Actually, the assertion that this is a poor law, as it will do very little against child porn while being a massive invasion of privacy. Care to debate that assertion on its merits, or just try to play devil's advocate, or whatever it is you're doing? By the way, we have the right to disagree with proposed laws in America. That's generally known as "freedom".
I knew when the phrase "Bush administration" was used in the summary that it would be another Bush-bashing session with conspiracy theories flying wildly.
Actually, the concerns here are with the proposed forced data retention. This would pave the way for significant invasions of privacy, and I believe we have not only the right, but the responsibility, to strongly question whether that should be done. Again, would you like to argue for this policy on its -merits-, or just be insulting?
"Police state?" Oh, please. I put as much stock into that phrase when liberals use it as when they use "fascist dictator" and "regime."
Firstly, "liberals" are far from the only party to frequently use the term "fascist dictator" or "police state"-and tell me, what party was the guy in who advocated "regime change"? (You've also been corrected on regime-it is an entirely proper usage, as it simply means "system". Your doctor could place you on a "regime" of medication if you got sick, and we can have a "regime" of government systems.) Republicans have been every bit as likely to use "scary words"-tell me, who liked to talk about the "commies"? Who likes to constantly bring up the "terrorists"?
Secondly, the concern is valid. A major goal of police states is to be able to monitor the legitimate actions of its citizens at any time, without having to target monitoring toward those they have good cause to believe have committed a crime. Normally, the way they get this done is to target a "bogeyman"-be that "terrorism", "child porn", or all of the above. "Yes, we're going to snoop on everyone, but we really aren't looking at anyone but the terrorists and the child pornographers!"
Finally, is someone going to stand up and say this? CHILD PORN LAWS HAVE GONE TOO FAR! There should be laws against porn produced using real children, whether producing or consuming. But it should stop there. To ban "cartoon" type porn is the very definition of Orwell's "thought crime", and the Supremes should've slapped that down a LOT harder the last time it came up. And regardless of how bad it is to think of child porn, we should never, ever, give up even a bit of our civil liberties. It's the job of law enforcement to do their job within the framework of those liberties, not to demand we give them up so they have it a little easier.
Such people have neither lived in an actual regime nor under a fascist dictator in a police state.
I hear this silly fallacy all the time. I've never had pure sulfuric acid poured on me, but I can tell you pretty authoritatively it would hurt. I've never won the lottery, but I can tell you with pretty good conviction I'd like to. Should we wait until we do have a police state before we object to the encroachments on our rights?
Ask a Holocaust survivor sometime what a fascist dictator really is.
I have a better idea. Let's ask a Holocaust survivor for his advice to those in the future!
Pastor Martin Niemoller
Looks like at least that particular Holocaust survivor advises "Stop it at the first sign".
While this might be hyperbolic (for now!) it is not by any means a troll, and is actually an excellent way of summing up the situation. Never have my points when I need them, someone correct this?
There were some typos in your post, just thought I'd point them out.
First, "obscene amount of cash" should be used in place of "decent living". I've done that too, keys are right next to each other. On the same note, there are rumors that "high quality movies" are still around out there, and there are even a few sighting reports within the last few years-but scientists largely agree they're extinct, and any further reports regarding them are a myth, akin to Bigfoot. Just like Bigfoot, though, I think the "believers" will always be out there, figuring anyday now something decent will be sighted at their local megaplex.
Hope that was helpful!
I share your sentiments that pirating media is similar to stealing.
Making and helping others make more of a nonrival good is subject to forcibly removing from their possession a rival good because...?
If I take your computer without permission, it's theft. You only had one computer. Now it's wrongfully in my possession and not in yours. Theft.
On the other hand, if I carefully look over the specifications of your computer and make one of my own out of my own components that's exactly like it, you still have your computer, and now I have one like it too. Not theft. Not even if the fact I built my own costs Dell or HP money, not even if that denies them profits, and not even if it puts them out of business. Not theft.
Now, to extend...I burn my CD-R, with my data, downloaded through my internet connection, that was stored on my hard drive. Not theft. Nothing was taken away from anyone. "Taking away potential profits" is a red herring-I take away potential profits from Exxon when I buy a more fuel-efficient car, I take away profits from the computer manufacturers when I build my own, I take profits away from all sorts of people when I repair my stuff instead of replacing it. None of that is "theft"-I don't exist to provide the maximum profit for every corporation I run across.
The thing that is difficult to get around in this debate is that there is something broken that is preventing the development of a dynamic price sensitive marketplace for media. Prices seem to be fixed by monopolists and consortiums.
The granting of a legal monopoly over periods longer then a human lifespan, results in monopoly practices? I mean, who would've possibly guessed?
Even worse, there is not an open marketplace where we can go to find all of the old media that we might want to access.
Oh yes there is. It's the exact one you call "piracy" and "theft" and object to. But that's what's breaking the monopoly. What else is there? They can simply refuse to license to anyone who'll undersell them, look at the price bullying occurring with iTunes. There -is- no legal way to break the monopoly, except of course to change the law itself. (Don't try to tell me that's genuinely possible.)
Oh, and you can find all kinds of stuff there, old and new! (So I've heard.)
In the absense of a working marketplace, Warner Brothers is now responding to price pressures from piracy. This is quite interesting
Actually, there's a market there that seems to be working just fine. It might not be a market WB likes, and it might even be technically illegal in China, but laws that stay unenforced with a wink and a smile really aren't laws. WB is competing with it, not stepping into the absence of one.
The fact that media monopolies have started responding to price pressures from piracy is interesting. Personally, I think it would be better to have a dynamic marketplace.
You mean, without artificial limits on who may distribute? With price-based competition rather then price-fixing? Hey, looks like the Chinese are getting just what you want!
I am angry that P2P-piracy destroyed early attempts to establish such markets based simply on trust.
What "early attempts based on trust"? The media cartels have never "trusted" their customers, just how old is Macrovision again? P2P -was- the market based on trust-and it worked. If too many people leeched without ever being willing to share back, it would've collapsed. Apparently, enough people -were- willing to share that it instead grew exponentially. But when I share with you, I have no idea if you'll ever share back anything. That's trust-based.
The P2P-piracy advocates will never realize the damage that they did by undermining trust. Having destroyed the most fundamental element of an open marketplace (trust) I am not sure how or even if we can develop the open marketplace for media.
You mean the media cartels trusting their custome
Yes. Yes we should.
And I suppose if you had a tumor, you wouldn't want steps taken from the outside to remove it? Racism is a cancer on society every bit as dangerous as a tumor in one's body-and like such tumors, the body is more often then not unable to correct it. Part of the proper role of governments is safeguarding the reasonable rights of minorities from a "tyranny of the majority".
You mentioned million dollar lawsuits... Non-peaceful means coercive. If you compel me to do something against my will by threatening me with jail time or fines that is non-peaceful.
You are correct on this point. It is also coercive when a police officer tells a robber to drop his weapons and put his hands up at gunpoint. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
There are also differing degrees of force, which are appropriate to differing situations. It is not appropriate, for example, for parents to discipline their children using physical violence. On the other hand, if someone takes a punch at you, it is perfectly appropriate for you to hit back. Both parental discipline and self-defense are coercive, forceful measures, but in differing degrees.
Businesses are subject to differing government regulations then individuals because they are -not- individuals. They are not government entities, but they are by their nature public ones. We have regulations to prevent businesses from excessively polluting the air or water. Why? Because that negatively affects the public at large, not just the person who owns the company. Similarly, we have laws to prevent businesses from polluting society-and don't kid yourself, institutional racism has every bit the negative and even lethal effects of any environmental pollutant.
I don't really know if there were or not. I'm no 1950s expert. I believe many were probably doing agricultural work at that time, but I don't really know. It's not really important though. Perhaps it's more imporant (sic) to ask "Why didn't they?".
You just stated you knew very little on the subject about which you are speaking, yet you feel qualified to dismiss it as unimportant? I think, if you went and studied that "unimportant" part of history, it would every bit provide the answer to your "Why didn't they?" question. Here's a hint: Beatings, lynchings, and firebombings are "coercive measures" too.
On a personal level, if you are the business owner that does not what his propety infringed upon you might feel resentment. It creates a government bueauracracy that requires funding, thus more taxes. That's bad because it's money out of everyone's pocket.
If you're a black, shut out of almost every opportunity there is because you were born with darker skin then the next guy, that's not going to create any resentment? I suggest you go back and study that "unimportant" history.
As to taxes, yes, they're money out of everyone's pocket. And in large part, it goes back into everyone's pocket. Do you think government employees work for free? Contractors? Suppliers? Do you think those employees don't go buy TV's or couches or dinners at local stores/restaurants like everyone else? While it is true that there are many things which the private sector can handle very well, there are also things which are handled better via a central authority. And if you'd like to see what totally unregulated business looks like-run a Google search for "gilded age". I believe you'll find that particular bit of history important as well.
What if I said you that were required to compare Sony, JVC and Sanyo stereos before buying one? It's totally the smart thing to do, but do I have any right to make you do so?
No, though that's an inaccurate comparison, as I am an individual, not a business. That particular regulation, of course, would be excessive and unreasonable even if placed upon a business. Nondiscrimination laws are not.