"Yes. Society may collectively decide that as a whole they agree with your morality in this instance and legislate it, but for you to impose your wishes upon others simply because they are yours is exactly what the parent post was referring to."
So, a German in WWII that tried to help Jews avoid their completely "legal" extermination (their society collectively agreed on it!) would be wrong for trying to impose his don't-kill-Jews morality on other Germans?
I, for one, don't worship "democracy". If the government decides that something wrong is right, or that something right is wrong, and I can't fix it through the democratic process, I'm more than willing to "impose my views" on the majority. I'd probably go through a reasoning process to determine my method of imposing those views and how much I'm willing to risk over the issue (eg, I'm not going to die so that someone can smoke weed, but I'd risk my life to prevent something like the Holocaust).
It's not any better in other countries; they'll just screw you over in different ways. Pick your poison.
Canada and France restrict "free speech" to what they consider to be politically correct.
The UK puts cameras everywhere they can get away with, and makes sure that all of the real arms in the country are either in the hands of their police or people who are already criminals so that they'll always be in control.
And Australia does it all as soon as another country gives them the idea.
Don't know about Ireland, but I'm sure they've got some sort of civil rights problem as well.
Except that that didn't happen to any of the people who are boycotting. Why?
Because everyone involved has been dead for decades.
The AmerInds have a legal right to boycott, of course, since their money's their own, but I don't think they're making anyone regard them well by doing it.
I downloaded both the Live and Install versions of it a few months back and I'm making.iso's of them at the moment. According to the readme.txt file in it, it's the March 2004 release, so it's probably not the newest, but I figure I'll start a torrent of it in the next 24 hours if no one's offering a newer one. Sorry, I don't have the source code.
Printing presses, the Internet, and the posting feature on Slashdot can be misused in order to libel someone too. That doesn't mean they should be kept under lock and key.
What does the fact that things can be misquoted and then used against someone have to do with whether or not it's right to collect quotes from them? If the man in the article hasn't misused the quotes and doesn't have a history of doing so, your post has nothing to do with it.
I can't find anything wrong with the parent post. If someone doesn't want something quoted, they can refrain from spouting it off in front of hundreds of people.The same goes for the "claim of copyright" bull, unless everyone's going to start paying royalties for yelling "it's a trap!"
Not that that'll stop someone from hitting all the unmoderated quotes they disagree with with "-1, overrated".
"or does god to "snapshots" of people just before they die, so he can "recover" them at the end of days...?"
A series of save states that people get to pick from when they're restored would make more sense (if you believe in literal physical resurrection). Otherwise, he'd end up with billions of aged people barely able to walk.
"If you do not make it to Heaven, you end up in Purgatory until your sins are cleansed and then make it to Heaven, or if your sins are too much you end up in Hell. Anything else goes against Christian Dogma, as far as I know."
That (especially the Purgatory bit) was invented during the Middle Ages in order to augment donations to the Catholic Church, and is in direct contradiction to "Christian Dogma":
For God so loved the world
That He gave His only begotten Son,
That whosoever believeth in Him
Should not perish,
But have everlasting life.
The Internet contains one hell of a lot more than the average Playboy. And I'm not talking about the number of pictures. I wouldn't be alarmed to find out my kids viewed porn, but I'd get a bit worried if I found out they were regularly watching things involving beastiality, scat, severe sadomasochism (ie, knife and fire), et cetera. I'm sure some of the things I've seen online could screw with a kid's head pretty badly.
I will, however, say that 1. it's the responsibility of the parents to guide their child and 2. for the most part, the government needs to not mind the business of the individual.
What would they consider to be "winning the war", anyway? Complete elimination of the Pirates Of The Internet (won't happen)? 80% decrease in piracy rates (possibly, not likely)? Their sales going up to the point they want them?
I have a feeling that they'll declare victory no matter what happens in order to keep up morale and put up a good front. The same way both political parties in the US try to claim victory every two years. Anything else would make them look weak.
Nah. It's just that they weren't expecting people to catch on and get riled up, so the *AA has to try to convince people that they've "misunderstood" and that DRM is a "good thing". And for the most part, they were probably right...I meet few people outside of the Outer Geek Circle who know what it is. Still, look forward to seeing Billy the Jolly DRM Chipmunk on TV.
Though I want less strict copyright laws myself, I would be VERY cautious about wanting democracy in its purest form - the "people" taking by force whatever they want. The "people" don't tend to think things through, and having a republic slows things down enough so that an actual thought process can happen.
People complain about things they don't like, especially ones that they can't really avoid running into, such as MS Office Suite apps... and posts on Slashdot complaining about things someone doesn't like.
I know architects for a metal building company that use spreadsheets on a regular basis. Not Excel, though...Last I checked, they didn't want to move from Lotus.
Actually, thanks to the F/OSS community, it has a large amount of free (as in both speech and beer) software as well. Surely you've hooked up a few people who didn't want to switch to Linux with Firefox, OpenOffice,(or whatever F/OSS apps you like) et cetera?
"The director of IT at the college (where I'm glad to say I no longer go but I know people who still do and it hasn't changed) tells students who ask to use Firefox that it, I quote, "is a hacking [sic] tool like `Kuhzuh' [sic]" and makes it clear that running it off a USB dongle will get your account removed."
By "college", you mean "technical school", right? I can't see anyone holding any significant job in IT who believes that, even at a small college. I've seen a few people who balked at it because it didn't come out of Redmond, but "a hacking tool"?
Slashdot Mirror
"Yes. Society may collectively decide that as a whole they agree with your morality in this instance and legislate it, but for you to impose your wishes upon others simply because they are yours is exactly what the parent post was referring to."
So, a German in WWII that tried to help Jews avoid their completely "legal" extermination (their society collectively agreed on it!) would be wrong for trying to impose his don't-kill-Jews morality on other Germans?
I, for one, don't worship "democracy". If the government decides that something wrong is right, or that something right is wrong, and I can't fix it through the democratic process, I'm more than willing to "impose my views" on the majority. I'd probably go through a reasoning process to determine my method of imposing those views and how much I'm willing to risk over the issue (eg, I'm not going to die so that someone can smoke weed, but I'd risk my life to prevent something like the Holocaust).
It's not any better in other countries; they'll just screw you over in different ways. Pick your poison.
Canada and France restrict "free speech" to what they consider to be politically correct.
The UK puts cameras everywhere they can get away with, and makes sure that all of the real arms in the country are either in the hands of their police or people who are already criminals so that they'll always be in control.
And Australia does it all as soon as another country gives them the idea.
Don't know about Ireland, but I'm sure they've got some sort of civil rights problem as well.
Except that that didn't happen to any of the people who are boycotting. Why?
Because everyone involved has been dead for decades.
The AmerInds have a legal right to boycott, of course, since their money's their own, but I don't think they're making anyone regard them well by doing it.
...And Orcs, Undead, and the followers of Rakinishu boycott Blizzard. :)
I downloaded both the Live and Install versions of it a few months back and I'm making .iso's of them at the moment. According to the readme.txt file in it, it's the March 2004 release, so it's probably not the newest, but I figure I'll start a torrent of it in the next 24 hours if no one's offering a newer one. Sorry, I don't have the source code.
More like "convoluted laws on reverse engineering are interfering with the project".
I'm sure other people have copies of the source code, though, so development may continue to some extent during the audit.
Printing presses, the Internet, and the posting feature on Slashdot can be misused in order to libel someone too. That doesn't mean they should be kept under lock and key.
What does the fact that things can be misquoted and then used against someone have to do with whether or not it's right to collect quotes from them? If the man in the article hasn't misused the quotes and doesn't have a history of doing so, your post has nothing to do with it.
"That's why they have guns (to "protect" themselves from the poor) and they drive SUVs (so they can squish the poor on the road)."
The number of the "poor" with guns outnumbers the rich at least ten to one, at least in the US. Do you live in 18th century France or something?
I can't find anything wrong with the parent post. If someone doesn't want something quoted, they can refrain from spouting it off in front of hundreds of people.The same goes for the "claim of copyright" bull, unless everyone's going to start paying royalties for yelling "it's a trap!"
Not that that'll stop someone from hitting all the unmoderated quotes they disagree with with "-1, overrated".
"or does god to "snapshots" of people just before they die, so he can "recover" them at the end of days...?"
A series of save states that people get to pick from when they're restored would make more sense (if you believe in literal physical resurrection). Otherwise, he'd end up with billions of aged people barely able to walk.
Transendence always made more sense to me.
"If you do not make it to Heaven, you end up in Purgatory until your sins are cleansed and then make it to Heaven, or if your sins are too much you end up in Hell. Anything else goes against Christian Dogma, as far as I know."
That (especially the Purgatory bit) was invented during the Middle Ages in order to augment donations to the Catholic Church, and is in direct contradiction to "Christian Dogma":
For God so loved the world That He gave His only begotten Son, That whosoever believeth in Him Should not perish, But have everlasting life.
The Internet contains one hell of a lot more than the average Playboy. And I'm not talking about the number of pictures. I wouldn't be alarmed to find out my kids viewed porn, but I'd get a bit worried if I found out they were regularly watching things involving beastiality, scat, severe sadomasochism (ie, knife and fire), et cetera. I'm sure some of the things I've seen online could screw with a kid's head pretty badly.
I will, however, say that 1. it's the responsibility of the parents to guide their child and 2. for the most part, the government needs to not mind the business of the individual.
Actually, no, I didn't say that. I was arguing the benefits of a republic versus that of a democracy, not the benefits of the current regime.
What would they consider to be "winning the war", anyway? Complete elimination of the Pirates Of The Internet (won't happen)? 80% decrease in piracy rates (possibly, not likely)? Their sales going up to the point they want them?
I have a feeling that they'll declare victory no matter what happens in order to keep up morale and put up a good front. The same way both political parties in the US try to claim victory every two years. Anything else would make them look weak.
Yeah, a friend of mine at the Electric Slide Rule and Graphical Telegraph Society pointed that out last week.
Nah. It's just that they weren't expecting people to catch on and get riled up, so the *AA has to try to convince people that they've "misunderstood" and that DRM is a "good thing". And for the most part, they were probably right...I meet few people outside of the Outer Geek Circle who know what it is. Still, look forward to seeing Billy the Jolly DRM Chipmunk on TV.
Though I want less strict copyright laws myself, I would be VERY cautious about wanting democracy in its purest form - the "people" taking by force whatever they want. The "people" don't tend to think things through, and having a republic slows things down enough so that an actual thought process can happen.
Yeah, those kids who steal cookies, comic books, and CDs always grow up and get involved in armed robberies.
1. People don't think that it's a big risk if there's a 1 in 100,000 chance they'll be the next one sued (especially if they don't swap too much).
2. Suing people tends to piss them off, making them less likely to buy from you.
People complain about things they don't like, especially ones that they can't really avoid running into, such as MS Office Suite apps... and posts on Slashdot complaining about things someone doesn't like.
I know architects for a metal building company that use spreadsheets on a regular basis. Not Excel, though...Last I checked, they didn't want to move from Lotus.
Actually, thanks to the F/OSS community, it has a large amount of free (as in both speech and beer) software as well. Surely you've hooked up a few people who didn't want to switch to Linux with Firefox, OpenOffice,(or whatever F/OSS apps you like) et cetera?
"The director of IT at the college (where I'm glad to say I no longer go but I know people who still do and it hasn't changed) tells students who ask to use Firefox that it, I quote, "is a hacking [sic] tool like `Kuhzuh' [sic]" and makes it clear that running it off a USB dongle will get your account removed."
By "college", you mean "technical school", right? I can't see anyone holding any significant job in IT who believes that, even at a small college. I've seen a few people who balked at it because it didn't come out of Redmond, but "a hacking tool"?
The "one or two sentences in English" thing doesn't sound like a bad idea. I'm not so sure that's the result of gold farmer paranoia.
As I interpret it, the right to privacy (in one's own home, at least) would be covered under "searches".