Hell, how can I have a "problem" with you. I've never even met you.
You have obviously mistaken the intent of my post. Read back a few posts.
I also think Lawrence v. Texas had even wider ranging consequences than just homo"sexual" relationships. The controversy of the decision (by a conservative bench, no less) has convinced religious conservatives to push for a Constitutional amendment.
Okay, that one got me laughing hard enough to blow coffee.
Re:What a stupid question....
on
No Pictures, Thanks
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Why worry about cops first and not the (always) bad guys?
Because cops who abuse their authority are the bad guys (i.e., they are breaking the law).
The reason we need to keep an eye on the cops is due to their ability to use the legal system to cover up their crimes.
A cop-killer is more important to the a community because that individual has shown that no amount of legal authority will stop them from committing a crime. A cop "who is a killer" is more important to the public because they operate under the color of authority and can therefore act with impunity.
They *were* adaptive until they had control of the marketplace. Now they dictate the standards and have very little incentive to innovate.
Until people embrace another OS in both the corporate environment and in the home, we're stuck with 'em.
That is correct. But large organizations that reach maturity in their marketplace get lethargic and develop so much bureaucratic momentum that when the change comes, it is usually fatal for the corporation. Only those with a good management structure can survive to keep themselves in the game (ala IBM).
Back to the topic at hand, if pc venders such as HP or Dell would bulk it with their OS, and hide the Internet Explorer icon from the desktop, numbers might increase.
I agree, but what do you think the odds are for that happening?
I can see the average user wondering where the "internet" went, though...
I think people who have been using the internet for more than 10 years are already saying that. Those who enter the system 2 years from now probably won't miss a thing.
Sigh. I wish more people used it, but IE will just continue to dominate until Microsoft heads to that pasture where all mega-companies eventually end up in (ala AT&T).
Personally, I prefer buying food, medical care for my kids, going out to eat, going to Disney World, living in a decent house, driving a decent car, owning an iBook, etc. much more than I prefer spending all my time building things for free to give to people I don't know or think about.
So when asked "Am I My Brother's Keeper?", you answered with a resounding "Fuck NO!".
Congratulations.
If you for some reason think your neighbor has a God-given right to own an operating system yet think he can't afford $100 for XP Home,
Actually, I don't believe that my neighbor has any "God-given" rights because I don't believe in god. That point notwithstanding, the remaining crapflood in the rest of your post does not apply to the folks I was referring to: the world's poor.
The beauty of "selling" software (or anything else) is that it enables not just Bill Gates to have money, but also for tens of thousands of people who work for him to have jobs, salaries, health insurance, etc.
And the beauty of producing software for free distribution is that no matter what your income level, if you can get to a computer, you have the potential to increase your knowledge and productivity. That increases the wealth of your community and rasies the standard of living for all of your neighbors.
Purchasing software ships money out of your community and enriches individuals who actively seek to keep you from using freely distributed software.
Yes, there is a difference between Gates' generosity and his impact on globalized information.
No, but you can learn about your disease by using a free browser.
Writing open source software might be 'charity' work, if you look at it that way, but it only helps the richest 10% of the world who might have access to a computer at the most.
And when Bill and Co. produce software that enables the remaining 90% of the world to get internet access, then I will consider the playing field level.
Gates is really generous with your money, isn't he?
Where would you have spent the money you were gouged when you were forced to upgrade your PC after M$ dumped more bloatware on you?
No matter how you try to slice it, if it is defined as theft in the statute, it is theft.
Sorry, that is the law.
The dictionary tells us that you have to remove something in order to steal it.
Then trade secrets are not personal property either, since you can damage your competitor by taking a copy of the material out of their office without taking the original.
No loss, no theft.
Your case is weakening.
The laws in the USA defining copyright infringement don't mention theft.
If there are no laws against it, then why were these people convicted? The jury must consider the point of law in this case. If these folks did nothing criminally wrong, then how was the indictment written? What charges were they convicted of?
The RIAA _want_ you to have that data. They run adverts telling you to get that data. They pay to _give_ you that data by having it played on the radio.
Yes, they do. But they don't engage in these activities in order to give it all away for free. They expect to make money from the exchange.
The RIAA *does* indeed want you to have the data. They just want you to *pay* for the data.
The remaining portion of your argument is based on a faulty premise and is, therefore, irrelevant.
Can you explain to me the difference between pirating an MP3 and pirating a piece of software
I believe there is no difference. That was the point of my post.
...and how it applies to this discussion?
The woman's comment made me think about how ironic it is that someone would feel defenseless against the onslaught of groups who use the internet to steal personal information, while they are simultaneously using the internet to steal personal property.
Whether you agree with my thesis or not, I would think you would agree that the **AA probably had the same reaction as the one I quoted at the start of this thread. I was extending the argument to make the point that this woman is probably just becoming aware of the risks involved in using the internet. Many of her generation have taken an unrealistic attitude about how the personal property of the **AA and the artists they represent are treated, at least in the realm of file sharing.
I don't think this is an unfair characterization. The people who trade files illegally are also often the victims of phishing expeditions. I don't pity those people who download music and movies from P2P networks and then get burned by electronic thieves. Their willingness to share copyrighted material means that they are already willing to break the law to serve their own personal intersts. This is equivalent to people who deal drugs who subsequently get shot by competing drug dealers. The drug dealer should expect that getting shot is an occupational hazard for the lifestyle they have chosen.
And I do draw a distinction between the type of song trading that may go on between close friends and the exchange of personal mix CDs. These activities, I believe, are already covered under fair use doctrines. These fair use principles are being undermined, however, by large-scale file trading operations that have nothing to do with friends and colleagues trading movies and music.
An extended lifespan would present incredible problems for the justice system. Although you still plod though life at the same pace, serving out a 'life' sentence could be considered by some a cruel punishment.
Imagine a 900+ year sentence. These mind-boggling (and rediculous) sentences are handed out on a regular basis here in the US. But in de Grey's world a sentence of 100 years for each of three separate charges to be served consecutively would not be something the convict would consider a death sentence.
I had a similar feeling as I read mad_poster's missive.
This is akin to the Parent's Dilemma: Would you teach your child to NEVER lie, even if that meant that your child could disclose your hiding spot to a person who means you harm?
Q. Do you know where your mommy is? Don't lie! A. My mommy taught me to never lie. Yes, I know where she is.
Taking money from somebody's bank account isn't on the same level as downloading an MP3, and I say this as somebody who makes a living writing software.
Yes, but you are not the artist who lost the sale of a song.
My point is that if I make that choice, I will do so in such a way that I (and my family) don't need special treatment at work or anywhere else...
Good luck.
I'm not talking about treating a PhD "better" than someone with a 4-yr degree, either.
You "don't" believe that someone who has dedicated 3-6 more years of their life to their studies should be treated better than those who just study for four?
Why give any consideration to someone who graduated from college? Hell, they just have four years of additional training beyond a high school graduate.
If you believe that you should be given special treatment because you have children...
I don't. My wife receives medical coverage from work. She also receives medical coverage from my employer. My medical benefit is better (her dental is better), so she decides to drop her medical. She gets no additional compensation for dropping the duplicated coverage. I get no additional benefit from dropping medical.
These are issues that have NOTHING to do with my having children. These are compensation issues. If you are asking whether I think it is fair that individuals who have children get to spend time away from work due to family, then I would answer no.
But that isn't the employee's fault. That is an issue to take up with your employer.
I disagree, whether you negotiated something in advance with your employer or not.
Then I won't ask you to be my agent.
I believe giving some people special treatment because of a decision they made is not fair.
My boss makes more than me because he made a decision to work hard and get his PhD.
At what point in the article was there the slightest illusion to her being an illegal filesharer?
None. But you can bet that there are people sitting in their homes, complaining about being a victim of phishing, with thousands of dollars in music they didn't pay for.
Same difference
Contradiction.
And this immediately caused you to believe she was a file sharer and was therefore ignorant and morally devoid to make the comment quoted in the article?
Nope. I thought it strange that someone who had grown up in a culture that praises theft of personal property would be shocked at being a victim of personal property theft.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. Problem?
What, your being gay?
Hell, how can I have a "problem" with you. I've never even met you.
You have obviously mistaken the intent of my post. Read back a few posts.
I also think Lawrence v. Texas had even wider ranging consequences than just homo"sexual" relationships. The controversy of the decision (by a conservative bench, no less) has convinced religious conservatives to push for a Constitutional amendment.
Okay, that one got me laughing hard enough to blow coffee.
Why worry about cops first and not the (always) bad guys?
Because cops who abuse their authority are the bad guys (i.e., they are breaking the law).
The reason we need to keep an eye on the cops is due to their ability to use the legal system to cover up their crimes.
A cop-killer is more important to the a community because that individual has shown that no amount of legal authority will stop them from committing a crime. A cop "who is a killer" is more important to the public because they operate under the color of authority and can therefore act with impunity.
AT&T today is not the same as the mega-corp one in the past.
I guess that was my point.
So far they've been too adaptive for that.
They *were* adaptive until they had control of the marketplace. Now they dictate the standards and have very little incentive to innovate.
Until people embrace another OS in both the corporate environment and in the home, we're stuck with 'em.
That is correct. But large organizations that reach maturity in their marketplace get lethargic and develop so much bureaucratic momentum that when the change comes, it is usually fatal for the corporation. Only those with a good management structure can survive to keep themselves in the game (ala IBM).
Back to the topic at hand, if pc venders such as HP or Dell would bulk it with their OS, and hide the Internet Explorer icon from the desktop, numbers might increase.
I agree, but what do you think the odds are for that happening?
I can see the average user wondering where the "internet" went, though...
I think people who have been using the internet for more than 10 years are already saying that. Those who enter the system 2 years from now probably won't miss a thing.
Oh, yeah, Slashdot is for teh ghey by teh ghey!!!
U R here. R U ghey?
And by that, I mean the security holes creaping in.
That very well could be.
The difference between IE and Firefox will be in how well they respond to the bugs that are found.
Sigh. I wish more people used it, but IE will just continue to dominate until Microsoft heads to that pasture where all mega-companies eventually end up in (ala AT&T).
RTFP! (read the f*cking post!)
I'm sure others have better contributions than mine.
A group of people living in the same locality...
...and under the same government.
Are you living somewhere other than Earth?
Then why does the US refer to Mexico and Canada as neighbors?
We don't live under the same government.
Therefore, facts on poverty in Zaire would be quite irrelavant to your point.
You are incapable of drawing the conclusion that my point is irrelevant because you shown in all of your posts that you can't comprehend my point.
Everyone else, however, understands my point quite well.
Depends if you're talking about my real brother or not.
It is true that charity begins at home, but in your case it stops there as well.
As an example, I don't consider you my brother.
I give thanks to the IPU for that fact.
I've noticed that your reply is missing those entertaining Fox News factoids regarding the wealth of the poor *in the world*.
Personally, I prefer buying food, medical care for my kids, going out to eat, going to Disney World, living in a decent house, driving a decent car, owning an iBook, etc. much more than I prefer spending all my time building things for free to give to people I don't know or think about.
So when asked "Am I My Brother's Keeper?", you answered with a resounding "Fuck NO!".
Congratulations.
If you for some reason think your neighbor has a God-given right to own an operating system yet think he can't afford $100 for XP Home,
Actually, I don't believe that my neighbor has any "God-given" rights because I don't believe in god. That point notwithstanding, the remaining crapflood in the rest of your post does not apply to the folks I was referring to: the world's poor.
The beauty of "selling" software (or anything else) is that it enables not just Bill Gates to have money, but also for tens of thousands of people who work for him to have jobs, salaries, health insurance, etc.
And the beauty of producing software for free distribution is that no matter what your income level, if you can get to a computer, you have the potential to increase your knowledge and productivity. That increases the wealth of your community and rasies the standard of living for all of your neighbors.
Purchasing software ships money out of your community and enriches individuals who actively seek to keep you from using freely distributed software.
Yes, there is a difference between Gates' generosity and his impact on globalized information.
Web browsers don't prevent disease.
No, but you can learn about your disease by using a free browser.
Writing open source software might be 'charity' work, if you look at it that way, but it only helps the richest 10% of the world who might have access to a computer at the most.
And when Bill and Co. produce software that enables the remaining 90% of the world to get internet access, then I will consider the playing field level.
Gates is really generous with your money, isn't he?
Where would you have spent the money you were gouged when you were forced to upgrade your PC after M$ dumped more bloatware on you?
..copyright infringement is not theft
No matter how you try to slice it, if it is defined as theft in the statute, it is theft.
Sorry, that is the law.
The dictionary tells us that you have to remove something in order to steal it.
Then trade secrets are not personal property either, since you can damage your competitor by taking a copy of the material out of their office without taking the original.
No loss, no theft.
Your case is weakening.
The laws in the USA defining copyright infringement don't mention theft.
If there are no laws against it, then why were these people convicted? The jury must consider the point of law in this case. If these folks did nothing criminally wrong, then how was the indictment written? What charges were they convicted of?
The RIAA _want_ you to have that data. They run adverts telling you to get that data. They pay to _give_ you that data by having it played on the radio.
Yes, they do. But they don't engage in these activities in order to give it all away for free. They expect to make money from the exchange.
The RIAA *does* indeed want you to have the data. They just want you to *pay* for the data.
The remaining portion of your argument is based on a faulty premise and is, therefore, irrelevant.
Can you explain to me the difference between pirating an MP3 and pirating a piece of software
...and how it applies to this discussion?
I believe there is no difference. That was the point of my post.
The woman's comment made me think about how ironic it is that someone would feel defenseless against the onslaught of groups who use the internet to steal personal information, while they are simultaneously using the internet to steal personal property.
Whether you agree with my thesis or not, I would think you would agree that the **AA probably had the same reaction as the one I quoted at the start of this thread. I was extending the argument to make the point that this woman is probably just becoming aware of the risks involved in using the internet. Many of her generation have taken an unrealistic attitude about how the personal property of the **AA and the artists they represent are treated, at least in the realm of file sharing.
I don't think this is an unfair characterization. The people who trade files illegally are also often the victims of phishing expeditions. I don't pity those people who download music and movies from P2P networks and then get burned by electronic thieves. Their willingness to share copyrighted material means that they are already willing to break the law to serve their own personal intersts. This is equivalent to people who deal drugs who subsequently get shot by competing drug dealers. The drug dealer should expect that getting shot is an occupational hazard for the lifestyle they have chosen.
And I do draw a distinction between the type of song trading that may go on between close friends and the exchange of personal mix CDs. These activities, I believe, are already covered under fair use doctrines. These fair use principles are being undermined, however, by large-scale file trading operations that have nothing to do with friends and colleagues trading movies and music.
Parent's Dilemma? What a load of crap!
You don't have children, do you?
An extended lifespan would present incredible problems for the justice system. Although you still plod though life at the same pace, serving out a 'life' sentence could be considered by some a cruel punishment.
Imagine a 900+ year sentence. These mind-boggling (and rediculous) sentences are handed out on a regular basis here in the US. But in de Grey's world a sentence of 100 years for each of three separate charges to be served consecutively would not be something the convict would consider a death sentence.
Touche.
I had a similar feeling as I read mad_poster's missive.
This is akin to the Parent's Dilemma: Would you teach your child to NEVER lie, even if that meant that your child could disclose your hiding spot to a person who means you harm?
Q. Do you know where your mommy is? Don't lie!
A. My mommy taught me to never lie. Yes, I know where she is.
You get the point.
If you don't consider that to be equivalent, then I don't know what else to tell you...
I understand your position, but not *everyone* feels the same about this particular issue as you do.
Taking money from somebody's bank account isn't on the same level as downloading an MP3, and I say this as somebody who makes a living writing software.
Yes, but you are not the artist who lost the sale of a song.
My point is that if I make that choice, I will do so in such a way that I (and my family) don't need special treatment at work or anywhere else...
Good luck.
I'm not talking about treating a PhD "better" than someone with a 4-yr degree, either.
You "don't" believe that someone who has dedicated 3-6 more years of their life to their studies should be treated better than those who just study for four?
Why give any consideration to someone who graduated from college? Hell, they just have four years of additional training beyond a high school graduate.
If you believe that you should be given special treatment because you have children...
I don't. My wife receives medical coverage from work. She also receives medical coverage from my employer. My medical benefit is better (her dental is better), so she decides to drop her medical. She gets no additional compensation for dropping the duplicated coverage. I get no additional benefit from dropping medical.
These are issues that have NOTHING to do with my having children. These are compensation issues. If you are asking whether I think it is fair that individuals who have children get to spend time away from work due to family, then I would answer no.
But that isn't the employee's fault. That is an issue to take up with your employer.
I disagree, whether you negotiated something in advance with your employer or not.
Then I won't ask you to be my agent.
I believe giving some people special treatment because of a decision they made is not fair.
My boss makes more than me because he made a decision to work hard and get his PhD.
NOT FAIR!!
...half the time the fathers sort it and half the time the mothers sort it.
Sure they do. But what is being discussed here is the lack of dads taking time out of their work to care for their progeny.
The casual assumption that childrearing is "just woman's work" is pure, unadulterated, crapola.
What it really indicates is a lack of fathers stepping up and taking the responsibility for having created the life that now depends on them.
At what point in the article was there the slightest illusion to her being an illegal filesharer?
None. But you can bet that there are people sitting in their homes, complaining about being a victim of phishing, with thousands of dollars in music they didn't pay for.
Same difference
Contradiction.
And this immediately caused you to believe she was a file sharer and was therefore ignorant and morally devoid to make the comment quoted in the article?
Nope. I thought it strange that someone who had grown up in a culture that praises theft of personal property would be shocked at being a victim of personal property theft.
Get it?
Interesting.
It sure is boodaman.
It sure is.