True, but the network between you and the internet is private property that can be controlled as they see fit to protect themselves from either disrupted service or legal liability.
I agree! And so does our government, take for example the phone system. The phone is also a medium, or at least access to a medium. It would be perfectly fine to disconnect someone if their phone is screwing-with/damaging the system.
Its another matter to insist that phone users install specific software and the latest upgrades to their phones' faultdetector hardware and deny access to users speech on the Internet because of it. Especially when that software is made by third parties who may be corrupt or corrupted to modify/listen to or disconnect your conversations at their whim.
Fault detection should be the responsibility of the colleges, not the responsibility of the students computer and or owner. But if they detect a fault remotely, let them disconnect the computers as they are obviously a hinderance to speech being carried across the Internet.
Your job belongs to your employer, not you. Your employer exists to make money, not provide you with a job.
Ya, my job belongs to my employer.
But my employer is propped up and protected by the laws of my country. All those laws cost money earned from its citizens. My employer owes my country something in return. Before outsourcing, my company returned the favor by employing its citizens which in turn allowed its citizens to pay more taxes. Now my company wants all the laws/protections without giving anything back!
You say "you have no right to a job", if that is true I say "the employer has no right to a business". Its a you scratch mine, I'll scratch yours situation.
Outsourcing is NOT more efficient! It is more cheaper. Outsourcing is actually LESS efficient. We are not talking about more efficient technologies replacing outdated ones here. We are talking about our corporations becoming ever more greedy, sacrificing the quality of their product for more profit and they still want my government to protect them.
Why should my local government protect them if they have no local workers?
Oh yeah, thats right, because those corps are going to give kickbacks to the politicians. (sarcastic comment)
If you don't allow companies to at least establish cursory protection of their property...they won't produce it for you to steal. I'm not suggesting we allow them into our homes, but likewise, you shouldn't be able to go into their house and steal their product.
The way I read it was they werent paying for the cursory protection.
All this bill does is manufactures criminals.
If the MPAA is so damned concerned about this, they need to pay to have metal detectors put up and gaurds posted at all entrances and exits. Then no crime can be commited or criminal created in the first place. Yes of course people will still get through the "defenses" but then maybe they need to spend more money protecting their investment with better security.
Ya, its gunna suck to have to get frisked/metal-detected/interrogated to watch a movie.
Less people will go to the movies and they will have to balance their security spending against the publics opinion of the security.
This will also force them to get a clue about the actual statistics of how many people actually do this, how many do it for profit, and how much money they actually lose, which in my opinion is $0.00.
And most importantly, the taxpayers wont have to shell out their hard earned money to protect the business model of a few greedy entertainment CEO's to the detriment of free speech and everything this country stands for!
The problem here is not that so many people are doing this, but that it only takes one occurence to widely distribute the work. This new found technology the Internet has amplified the contradiction between speech and copyright. We can forget our beliefs of this country and keep the current copyright system or we can do a major overhaul to it or maybe even eliminate it all together.
Fact is we are not talking about blocking warez or porn or music sites, we are talking about blocking blocking child explotation sites.
Uhm, nope, the fact is we are talking about blocking sites that, as determined by the law contain child exploitation content. Another fact is, this also means we are talking about supression of speach. There are many reasons why this is wrong.
The goal of preventing child exploitation is to prevent a "child" from having sexual encounters until the child knows what sex is and is mature enough to make decisions that will effect his/her life. Many would consider a child/person that reaches this maturity level to be an adult. The law would consider this person to in fact be a child. And reality has a person that is a natural adult that is legally a child.
Usually the major factor in determining child exploitation is age. Children learn about sex at different ages. Children also mature mentally as a function of their biology and their surroundings, etc...
So now we wonder, should the law be based on natural maturity which can not be measured or a predetermined age? Well, since you cant measure maturity and exploitation can not be tolerated and most certainly would still exist and be exploited if the law were to be based on maturity, the obvious choice is age. We have been looking at the law on the childrens side, but child exploitation has to have a child and an adult involved. So lets look at it from the adults perspective a little...
No law in the world is going to be able to stop a natural-adult/legal-child from accidentaly flirting with someone that is a legal adult.
Also, where should the law stand when a legal child lies about their age to an adult? Many would think thats not the fault of the adult. But the law generally will not punish the child and the adult will go to jail. Should the law be allowed to basically enforce "no sexual/erotic encounters until positive identification is insured"?
Should the law allow suppression of speach as long as its for the children?
So when you ask yourself "do I think this is ok?" you must ask yourself if you think its ok for supression of speach to be merged with laws that are so grey even if it is for the children. If it is allowed then suprression of speach will be legally grey, even though most people would consider it to be black. This is obviously not a good scenario.
Since supression of speach for this reason will not eliminate the exploitation and has many chances of incriminating (what many would think to be) innocent people, I believe the law should find another way.
And I'll finish up with something other slashdoters and the Bush administration has made clear... Ya give an inch, they take a mile.
This is definately news, no talk of any real strategy here. What does this mean? Well considering the SCO FUD fizzling out, MS is most likely looking for a new battlefield. Be prepared for this, all innovations you create for Linux must be gaurded in any way possible so MS does not steal it. Kind of hard when the source is freely available, so that leaves us with doing everything posible to ensure that MS is not infringing the GPL. Dont talk about this publicly too much or MS will get wise and obfuscate GPL violations. Also some may notice a sharp increase in patent applications from MS, I believe this is part of the new battlefield. Be very careful of MS tainted protocols/patents and those which may be submarines. Notice MS talks of integration with Linux. Uhm, ever hear of 'embrace and extend'?
OMG! Let me start by saying "Almost all executables are created using a programming LANGUAGE" a.k.a. "code"!
Sure the compiler converts(translates) this into something understandable by a machine but that understanding in itself implies language. So if its still language that came from a human, whether translated or not and whether translation was made by a machine, it is still speech.
Let me finish by saying I wish people would understand that anything that degrades our rights in even the slightest amount no matter the purpose will result in a very bad future and restriction on fair use definately degrades our rights.
Slashdot Mirror
Man, I hope your running for president!
Very well said!
Someone give this man some points!!!
Ya, or maybe the company IS corrupt, and hes just goin a little overboard.
Actually, no. The internet is an interactive service in a sense that air is not, and thus the analogy is false.
No, the Internetis free for any person/government/country to connect to.
It is the access to the use of the hardware of my ISP to connect me to willing listeners of my digital speech that costs money.
True, but the network between you and the internet is private property that can be controlled as they see fit to protect themselves from either disrupted service or legal liability.
I agree! And so does our government, take for example the phone system. The phone is also a medium, or at least access to a medium. It would be perfectly fine to disconnect someone if their phone is screwing-with/damaging the system.
Its another matter to insist that phone users install specific software and the latest upgrades to their phones' faultdetector hardware and deny access to users speech on the Internet because of it. Especially when that software is made by third parties who may be corrupt or corrupted to modify/listen to or disconnect your conversations at their whim.
Fault detection should be the responsibility of the colleges, not the responsibility of the students computer and or owner. But if they detect a fault remotely, let them disconnect the computers as they are obviously a hinderance to speech being carried across the Internet.
Your job belongs to your employer, not you. Your employer exists to make money, not provide you with a job.
Ya, my job belongs to my employer.
But my employer is propped up and protected by the laws of my country. All those laws cost money earned from its citizens. My employer owes my country something in return. Before outsourcing, my company returned the favor by employing its citizens which in turn allowed its citizens to pay more taxes. Now my company wants all the laws/protections without giving anything back!
You say "you have no right to a job", if that is true I say "the employer has no right to a business". Its a you scratch mine, I'll scratch yours situation.
Outsourcing is NOT more efficient! It is more cheaper. Outsourcing is actually LESS efficient. We are not talking about more efficient technologies replacing outdated ones here. We are talking about our corporations becoming ever more greedy, sacrificing the quality of their product for more profit and they still want my government to protect them.
Why should my local government protect them if they have no local workers?
Oh yeah, thats right, because those corps are going to give kickbacks to the politicians. (sarcastic comment)
If you don't allow companies to at least establish cursory protection of their property...they won't produce it for you to steal. I'm not suggesting we allow them into our homes, but likewise, you shouldn't be able to go into their house and steal their product.
The way I read it was they werent paying for the cursory protection.
All this bill does is manufactures criminals.
If the MPAA is so damned concerned about this, they need to pay to have metal detectors put up and gaurds posted at all entrances and exits. Then no crime can be commited or criminal created in the first place. Yes of course people will still get through the "defenses" but then maybe they need to spend more money protecting their investment with better security.
Ya, its gunna suck to have to get frisked/metal-detected/interrogated to watch a movie.
Less people will go to the movies and they will have to balance their security spending against the publics opinion of the security.
This will also force them to get a clue about the actual statistics of how many people actually do this, how many do it for profit, and how much money they actually lose, which in my opinion is $0.00.
And most importantly, the taxpayers wont have to shell out their hard earned money to protect the business model of a few greedy entertainment CEO's to the detriment of free speech and everything this country stands for!
The problem here is not that so many people are doing this, but that it only takes one occurence to widely distribute the work. This new found technology the Internet has amplified the contradiction between speech and copyright. We can forget our beliefs of this country and keep the current copyright system or we can do a major overhaul to it or maybe even eliminate it all together.
Don't want your computer searched? Don't connect to the network.
Just because the college owns the air in the classrooms doesnt allow them to regulate speach.
I can use that air for whatever I want.
Air is a medium as is the internet.
For the very same reason its good to have an alternative operating system available.
Competitiveness.
However, it appears the US is playing the role of MS on this one and has corrupted the only competitor.
Fact is we are not talking about blocking warez or porn or music sites, we are talking about blocking blocking child explotation sites.
Uhm, nope, the fact is we are talking about blocking sites that, as determined by the law contain child exploitation content.
Another fact is, this also means we are talking about supression of speach.
There are many reasons why this is wrong.
The goal of preventing child exploitation is to prevent a "child" from having sexual encounters until the child knows what sex is and is mature enough to make decisions that will effect his/her life.
Many would consider a child/person that reaches this maturity level to be an adult.
The law would consider this person to in fact be a child. And reality has a person that is a natural adult that is legally a child.
Usually the major factor in determining child exploitation is age.
Children learn about sex at different ages. Children also mature mentally as a function of their biology and their surroundings, etc...
So now we wonder, should the law be based on natural maturity which can not be measured or a predetermined age? Well, since you cant measure maturity and exploitation can not be tolerated and most certainly would still exist and be exploited if the law were to be based on maturity, the obvious choice is age.
We have been looking at the law on the childrens side, but child exploitation has to have a child and an adult involved. So lets look at it from the adults perspective a little...
No law in the world is going to be able to stop a natural-adult/legal-child from accidentaly flirting with someone that is a legal adult.
Also, where should the law stand when a legal child lies about their age to an adult? Many would think thats not the fault of the adult. But the law generally will not punish the child and the adult will go to jail.
Should the law be allowed to basically enforce "no sexual/erotic encounters until positive identification is insured"?
Should the law allow suppression of speach as long as its for the children?
So when you ask yourself "do I think this is ok?" you must ask yourself if you think its ok for supression of speach to be merged with laws that are so grey even if it is for the children. If it is allowed then suprression of speach will be legally grey, even though most people would consider it to be black. This is obviously not a good scenario.
Since supression of speach for this reason will not eliminate the exploitation and has many chances of incriminating (what many would think to be) innocent people, I believe the law should find another way.
And I'll finish up with something other slashdoters and the Bush administration has made clear...
Ya give an inch, they take a mile.
This is definately news, no talk of any real strategy here. What does this mean? Well considering the SCO FUD fizzling out, MS is most likely looking for a new battlefield. Be prepared for this, all innovations you create for Linux must be gaurded in any way possible so MS does not steal it. Kind of hard when the source is freely available, so that leaves us with doing everything posible to ensure that MS is not infringing the GPL. Dont talk about this publicly too much or MS will get wise and obfuscate GPL violations. Also some may notice a sharp increase in patent applications from MS, I believe this is part of the new battlefield. Be very careful of MS tainted protocols/patents and those which may be submarines. Notice MS talks of integration with Linux. Uhm, ever hear of 'embrace and extend'?
OMG! Let me start by saying "Almost all executables are created using a programming LANGUAGE " a.k.a. "code"!
Sure the compiler converts(translates) this into something understandable by a machine but that understanding in itself implies language. So if its still language that came from a human, whether translated or not and whether translation was made by a machine, it is still speech.
Let me finish by saying I wish people would understand that anything that degrades our rights in even the slightest amount no matter the purpose will result in a very bad future and restriction on fair use definately degrades our rights.