Wouldn't you be worried if all someone had to do to incriminate you was to go into court and say "Johnny told me he was going to commit crime x" ? I know I would. This is why evidence is your friend.:D
This is not a realistic point of view. It's a politically correct point of view. A realistic point of view would say that we don't need female programmers any more than we need male programmers. We just need/programmers/.
I would say that illegal copying of movies and music proves the cost of these media to be, in fact, more than the market will bear. If the market would bear these prices then there wouldn't be (many) people trying to find ways to pay less. But because the current prices are so much higher than most are willing to pay for what they are receiving, they have found a way to get the content they want at a price they feel is reasonable (nothing). This seems to imply that something is wrong with the current business model of media providers. Instead of recognizing this fact, lawmakers have been duped into believing that media providers should be guaranteed a profitable business. The market seems to disagree with both.
zero tolerance approach in schools to pupils who used technology to abuse and undermine teachers, and called for more rigorous legislative control of internet sites which gave them license
Even more destructive is the tendency for pupils to use their god-given mouths to undermine their teachers! This needs to be corrected by legislation and luckily enough, Great Britain does not have that pesky First Ammendment to get in the way!
Again, I'll ask --the system works; why are you bitching?
You answered your own question:
corporations are the only real citizens
In the United States, individuals are supposed to be citizens as well. I'd like to remain one since I pay taxes into a bunch of services I'll never see a return from. The least my government can do is still consider me a citizen, even if only a second-class one.
The whole idea that Win98/ME users are going to flock over to Linux on the sole basis that support had ended is a red herring.
I don't think that word means what you think it means. A red herring is a topic brought up for the sole purpose of distracting someone from some other issue. Linux nerds are clearly the target in your theory, but what is the other issue? Remember, a red herring is just that - a stinky fish.
The students get planty out of the deal - they don't have to pay for water, electricity, maintenance, food, most cleaning, heat, and grounds maintenance (the sidewalks don't shovel themselves).
Are you insane? What the hell makes you think that students living in the dorms don't pay for water, electricity, maintenance, food, cleaning, heat and maintenance?! Just the fact that we don't get a monthly bill for it?
I'll let you in on a little secret: the cost to a student of living in a dorm has all these factors (other than food, which is payed for in a meal plan) factored in. There is no way that a business will eat the cost of so much expense - they pass it on to the consumer. So yes, students do have to pay for water, electricity, mainenance, cleaning, heat and maintenance - they're included in tuition and housing bills.
What way can you put arresting a citizen for taking a photograph of a police officer doing his job? If that officer is automatically assuming that photograph will be put to illegal use then what is it other than guilty until proven innocent.
Here is a transcript of the posts and replies that were involved: GP - "If I don't have anything to hide, why do they need to watch me?" P - "Because they don't know that?" Me - "Ahh, the old 'guilty until proven innocent' mantra"
So you see, I was identifying the post above me as "guilty until proven innocent" which is a Bad Thing.
I don't have a problem with police scanning lisencse plates either, but when they start tracking them it becomes something else altogether. It's nobody's business but mine where I go. No government agency needs to keep track of where I'm going as I'm not doing anything wrong. No corporation needs to track my travel patterns without my approval.
This sort of government tracking is what political dystopias are made of.
You should care because it treats literally every vehicle the camera passes as a suspected criminal. If you aren't doing anything wrong then you've got nothing to hide^w^w^w^w^w you should be outraged at being treaded like you are. This technology would be akin to searching every vehicle on the road simply because they're on the road and I, for one, like my Fourth Amendment very much, thank you.
I'm assuming the facebook servers are on private property and as such this would represent a search/siezure without either probable or just cause and without a search warrant regardless. The BFD is that this sort of thing is supposed to be protected against by law.
And I'm sure there will be some responses of "vigilance is the price of liberty" and "we must stand up against this" and all that jazz, but YOU aren't putting your life, reputation, livelihood, and (if applicable) supported family on the line. Whining that other people don't do so for you is just cowardly in the extreme.
This statement is just silly. You're saying I shouldn't ask other people to stand up for their rights since mine haven't been challeneged? Pure silly.
You're right DRM won't kill us. But that doesn't mean it's not an awful invention that's being used to control us. The ??AA is trying to dictate what we do with our property after we've already bought it. That's all fine and dandy if said product is something that can injure or kill other people (ie: automobiles, firearms, etc) but I think it's safe to say that the government need not regulate how I listen to my music.
The issue here is not "OMGZ all this DRM is going to killxxor me!!!111". The issue is thinly veiled corporate legislation to unnecissarily restrict the activities of (attempting-to-be) law-abiding citizens.
I agree it's possible to do good and run a successful business but as I stated before, making a smart PR move doesn't make them evil. In their line of work censoring information isn't a terribly good idea, but you have to work within the laws of the country you're working in.
Almost everything is shades of grey when it comes to working with China. Google could chose not to work with China because of their censorship and then no one wins. Google could say "Nuts to you, China! We're coming in and not censoring anything! Viva la revolucion!" and quickly be booted out of China - again, no one wins. Or Google could agree to a contract they might not be completely comfortable with (but really - who actually is comfortable doing business with China anymore?) and hopefully get some information to the masses. Why is it evil if they happen to be making a buck at the same time?
I don't understand when it became evil to be profitable.
And yet even if they pull out of China for purly business reasons they wouldn't be doing evil. (Unless you consider successfully running a business to be evil.) "Don't be evil" != "Be good"
Yeah, I suppose your argument holds water if we had all signed contracts with the RIAA agreeing to pay them for their labor. Fortunately for us, we have entered into no such agreement and are under no obligation to purchase their products. The simple fact that they produce a product should not garuntee their profit. However, I'll be more than happy to enter into such an agreement if I can later fire them for whatever goddamn reason I chose.
Simply doing a job never garuntees that you'll be paid. You have to do it well and it's fairly obvious to anyone who looks that the RIAA isn't doing their job terribly well.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't you be worried if all someone had to do to incriminate you was to go into court and say "Johnny told me he was going to commit crime x" ? I know I would. This is why evidence is your friend. :D
This is not a realistic point of view. It's a politically correct point of view. A realistic point of view would say that we don't need female programmers any more than we need male programmers. We just need /programmers/.
I would say that illegal copying of movies and music proves the cost of these media to be, in fact, more than the market will bear. If the market would bear these prices then there wouldn't be (many) people trying to find ways to pay less. But because the current prices are so much higher than most are willing to pay for what they are receiving, they have found a way to get the content they want at a price they feel is reasonable (nothing). This seems to imply that something is wrong with the current business model of media providers. Instead of recognizing this fact, lawmakers have been duped into believing that media providers should be guaranteed a profitable business. The market seems to disagree with both.
Even more destructive is the tendency for pupils to use their god-given mouths to undermine their teachers! This needs to be corrected by legislation and luckily enough, Great Britain does not have that pesky First Ammendment to get in the way!
I guess slashdot hid my tags around my whole post.
It's not immoral - it's realpolitik. I guess that makes it amoral.
I don't know what TFA is talking about - it works fine for me.
You answered your own question:
In the United States, individuals are supposed to be citizens as well. I'd like to remain one since I pay taxes into a bunch of services I'll never see a return from. The least my government can do is still consider me a citizen, even if only a second-class one.
I don't think that word means what you think it means. A red herring is a topic brought up for the sole purpose of distracting someone from some other issue. Linux nerds are clearly the target in your theory, but what is the other issue? Remember, a red herring is just that - a stinky fish.
Are you insane? What the hell makes you think that students living in the dorms don't pay for water, electricity, maintenance, food, cleaning, heat and maintenance?! Just the fact that we don't get a monthly bill for it?
I'll let you in on a little secret: the cost to a student of living in a dorm has all these factors (other than food, which is payed for in a meal plan) factored in. There is no way that a business will eat the cost of so much expense - they pass it on to the consumer. So yes, students do have to pay for water, electricity, mainenance, cleaning, heat and maintenance - they're included in tuition and housing bills.
Great. Now I get to be harrassed by townies on the Internet, too. Profile = private.
It's pretty cool to punish people for not commiting a crime.
I'm glad my government spends its time passing laws like this and threatening to sue it's states.
Yeah, because lynching a cop would really get civil rights protected further.
What way can you put arresting a citizen for taking a photograph of a police officer doing his job? If that officer is automatically assuming that photograph will be put to illegal use then what is it other than guilty until proven innocent.
Here is a transcript of the posts and replies that were involved:
GP - "If I don't have anything to hide, why do they need to watch me?"
P - "Because they don't know that?"
Me - "Ahh, the old 'guilty until proven innocent' mantra"
So you see, I was identifying the post above me as "guilty until proven innocent" which is a Bad Thing.
Ahh, the old "guilty until proven innocent" mantra.
I don't have a problem with police scanning lisencse plates either, but when they start tracking them it becomes something else altogether. It's nobody's business but mine where I go. No government agency needs to keep track of where I'm going as I'm not doing anything wrong. No corporation needs to track my travel patterns without my approval.
This sort of government tracking is what political dystopias are made of.
You should care because it treats literally every vehicle the camera passes as a suspected criminal. If you aren't doing anything wrong then you've got nothing to hide^w^w^w^w^w you should be outraged at being treaded like you are. This technology would be akin to searching every vehicle on the road simply because they're on the road and I, for one, like my Fourth Amendment very much, thank you.
SCO is bitching because information relevent to a charge that IBM doesn't know about was destroyed?
Then fucking make it and stop clogging up our justice system!
Right.
I'm assuming the facebook servers are on private property and as such this would represent a search/siezure without either probable or just cause and without a search warrant regardless. The BFD is that this sort of thing is supposed to be protected against by law.
This statement is just silly. You're saying I shouldn't ask other people to stand up for their rights since mine haven't been challeneged? Pure silly.
You're right DRM won't kill us. But that doesn't mean it's not an awful invention that's being used to control us. The ??AA is trying to dictate what we do with our property after we've already bought it. That's all fine and dandy if said product is something that can injure or kill other people (ie: automobiles, firearms, etc) but I think it's safe to say that the government need not regulate how I listen to my music.
The issue here is not "OMGZ all this DRM is going to killxxor me!!!111". The issue is thinly veiled corporate legislation to unnecissarily restrict the activities of (attempting-to-be) law-abiding citizens.
I agree it's possible to do good and run a successful business but as I stated before, making a smart PR move doesn't make them evil. In their line of work censoring information isn't a terribly good idea, but you have to work within the laws of the country you're working in.
Almost everything is shades of grey when it comes to working with China. Google could chose not to work with China because of their censorship and then no one wins. Google could say "Nuts to you, China! We're coming in and not censoring anything! Viva la revolucion!" and quickly be booted out of China - again, no one wins. Or Google could agree to a contract they might not be completely comfortable with (but really - who actually is comfortable doing business with China anymore?) and hopefully get some information to the masses. Why is it evil if they happen to be making a buck at the same time?
I don't understand when it became evil to be profitable.
And yet even if they pull out of China for purly business reasons they wouldn't be doing evil. (Unless you consider successfully running a business to be evil.) "Don't be evil" != "Be good"
Yeah, I suppose your argument holds water if we had all signed contracts with the RIAA agreeing to pay them for their labor. Fortunately for us, we have entered into no such agreement and are under no obligation to purchase their products. The simple fact that they produce a product should not garuntee their profit. However, I'll be more than happy to enter into such an agreement if I can later fire them for whatever goddamn reason I chose.
Simply doing a job never garuntees that you'll be paid. You have to do it well and it's fairly obvious to anyone who looks that the RIAA isn't doing their job terribly well.