"So can I still fill up used bottled water bottles with my tap water if it is labled '1 liter'?"
if you are using a patented bottle potentially. Patent law prohibits unlicensed USE. And the word "USE" in patent law literally means "USE". Whereas in copyright law it only means 'do something normally exclusively the right of the copyright holder'.
However in your specific case the language implies that as long as you dont exceed 1 litre it would comply.
" This is yet another example of what I consider a grave "abuse" of the system for their own personal gain."
Creative labs is a corporation. So is Apple.
Stop acting suprised and offended when corporations do the immoral. They can't help themselves. They are NOT human beings.
Corporations do not exist to exercise the discretion we take for granted when talking about human beings. A properly functioning corporation exploits the market environment for maximum growth. If laws make it beneficial to focus on the short term, they will. If laws make it beneficial to focus on long term. they will. If laws make it beneficial to act like greedy lying bastards.. they will.
"My cracker ancestors came to the US after being persecuted by the Russians well after the end of slavery in the US. Why should any of my money go to people who's ancestors were on a different continent than mine?"
I'm not at all sure what you are talking about. Who's talking about *your* money?
"Owning slaves back then wasn't a crime, either. It wasn't a moral thing, but it was legal."
So what? If I accidentally burn your house down, I didn't do anything illegal either. But I still have to make reparations.. what's up with that?
Would you be satisfied if a law was passed making it a crime to possess the proceeds of slavery? If you admit it is a moral crime (which you seem to do), why would you then take the immoral position of hiding behind a legal technicallity?
"To go the complete asshole route: Take a look at Africa. I'd argue that the decendants of US slaves have it better than most who are still in Africa."
Well at least you admit that you are an asshole.
The western world has been fucking Africa since it was discovered. The only reason descendants of slaves are better off in America than the people of Africa, is that the West is STILL fucking Africa.
Just as we are trying are hardest to fuck south america. Except that south american's are now largely descendants of europeans (since we murdered something like 90% of the original inhabitants), so we treat south american's better than African's who are black.
A Religious leader of what country called for the assassination of the leader of what sovereign country simply for threatening to not sell its own oil to America. You'd think that American's belief THEY own that oil.
"By that logic, Germany and Italy would be completely screwed. Especially the latter, since they'd have to pay the descendants of the Celts who suffered so much under their oppression two thousand years ago."
Perhaps but not necessarily. It is not a matter of how much the oppressed suffered which justifies repatriation by descendants of the oppressors. It is a question of how much monetary benefit do the descendants of the oppressors today CONTINUE to enjoy because of crimes of their ancestors.
Is it wrong to benefit from the proceeds of crime? Do we accept that the descendants of yesterdays oppressed would have likely inherited what was taken from their ancestors had it not been wrongfully deprived them by their ancient oppressors? Do we believe that todays descendants of ancient oppressors are in possession of wealth which was derived from the WRONGFUL possession in the past?
Are these not the basic issues?
I don't know what happened to the Celts at the hands of Germans or Italians. But I am also aware that germany was quite trounced during WWI and have a hunch that it would be difficult to establish that it derives any benefits today from its crimes 2000 years ago. But I would not deny that perhaps reparations are owed. It is certainly something which could be argued.
But purpose of reparation is NOT punitive.
Todays germans bare no moral responsibility for crimes which may have been perpetrated by their ancestors. Just as rich white folk of today are not morally responsible for slavery. However there is no JUST argument say they should be allowed to benefit from crimes perpetrated by their ancestors.
At least... no argument more persuasive than what I've heard around here which is : "that's bullshit!"
"Even if you were right, denying reparations wouldn't be bigotry unless it stemmed from hatred of the race the reparations were going to be given to."
I never said it was bigotry. But I will say that denying reparations (where they are established in a just and fair way) is theft. And denying the very principle of reparations itself is just simply embracing the principle that criminals should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crimes.
" Thinking that giving blacks "reparations" for slavery that occurred about 150 years ago is bullshit is hardly bigotry."
right. Because rich white folks don't leave any lands or wealth to their descendants when they die. Proceeds of crime are still proceeds of crime even after 150 years. Reparations are not punitive nor are they rewards.
"Most older blacks that I talk to about it feel that it's just young people trying to get something for nothing."
They can hold their oppressors harmless. But they can't do it on behalf of other victims.
shit... so we are living of the profits created by destroying the lives of entire generations of your people... cry me a river. Your ancestors should have complained about it 150 years ago!
"To quote from the Ashkenazi study I referenced, "... IQ (as measured by IQ tests) is the best predictor we have of success in academic subjects and most jobs". The study cites a bunch of sources on IQ-related issues, but I don't see one associated with that particular assertion. If you have a citable source for your assertion, please cite it."
That is a fair request. Unfortunately I don't have a source handy, as I read this in a paper bound book (I'll take a wild guess and say Profit Before People by Noam Chomsky.) , which apart from being harder to search through, I don't have with me at this time. But I invite you to look at the GDP of some third world countries of comparible size to the United States, and explain to me wether compared to the United states, the disparity in child outcomes more corelated to the relative IQ's of americans vs third worlders or corelates to the average wealth of parents in those same countries 1 generation ago.
I take it as given that Americans do not have a higher IQ than third worlders. Although you may which to not concede this point. So please tell me.
"higher earned income is more correlated with good child outcomes than is unearned income, such as child support, alimony, or an inheritance"
this does not negate the general conclusion that child performance is most highly corelated on wealth of the parents. The general term wealth includes not only capital itself, but income. High income itself can be transformed into capital by way of loans, and owned capital earns an income (by way of dividends, capital gains etc)...
I don't know what the distinction is between "parent wealth" and "parental wealth". So I can't speak to your concluding statement.
I retract the "during childhood" clause of my statement. That was made in error. outcomes continue to be influenced by parent wealth well beyond childhood. Having rich parents is always beneficial and having poor parents holds one back.
Are americans say 30 standard deviations more intelligent than chinese?
" You think people have a moral right to download copyrighted material?"
You have a MORAL right to do whatever you want to do, unless that action causes greater harm than good.
The question is.... does an owner of intellectual property have a MORAL right to monopolize that IP to the point of dictating what other people may do with their own physical property?
Saying they do, don't make it true. Making it law, doesn't make it true either.
"The film industry should just let everyone into the cinemas for free because people have the moral right to take things for free rather than paying."
This is a straw man attack. No one is arguing that. That is a matter of tresspassing on someone elses land (inside their building no less). NOT a matter of immitating something you have seen somewhere. i.e. COPYING.
"When did the freeloading teenagers take over?"
I've never downloaded a single movie or song. I've spent over $3000 on my DVD library, and something over $2000 on my CD's. I visit the theatre between 3-6 times a month. But your arguments on morality are way off the mark.
you are directing your rebuttal at the wrong post son. It was not *I* who claimed that homeless people were getting arrested on purpose simply to get free food and board.
If there is (as you dubiously claim) free food and board for all homeless people (without needing to be arrested), then clearly this is evidence that homeless people are being imprisoned for reasons other than free food and board.
"in fact, in alot of cities, one of the first things they do when a neighborhood has an increase in violent crime is to increase the traffic patrols, because they're a visible police presence which turns on the flashers often and allows for all sorts of weird technicalties to bug someone for a few minutes."
Is it not sad that the response to violent crime is for COPS to search for backdoor ways to violate civil liberties rather than to talk openly and appropriately about the issues and appeal to the public to support a remedy in LAW.
If surveilance is called for, it should be lawmakers and courts (using powers law makers grant to them) which decide it. Not cops doing it secretly under the guise of enforcing "traffic laws".
This is not a police state. Arbitrary law enforcement (meaning at the discretion of individuals, rather than according to written law) has been decided (rightfully so) to be a violation of the fundamental principles of justice.
The right of police to stop vehicles etc.. is granted by the PEOPLE, pursuant to an assumption that the vehicles being stopped are being stopped for a lawful TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT reason. Not simply to allow cops to perform arbitrary purity checks on people who live in areas they dont personally like, or to secretly place the neighborhood under surveilance and only use traffic enforcement as a coverup for what would otherwise be a warrantless and unreasonable search.
When we want to live in a police state, we the people will explicitly VOTE for that, ammend the contitution, and abolish the judicial and legislative branches of government. The cops (part of the executive branch) have no business assuming this is what THE PEOPLE want.
"Its common for homeless people or people without money to commit stupid crimes in order to get locked up for a while in order to get a free place to stay and food."
don't blaim the poor for trying to get food and board. Blaim lawmakers for imposing so many inane and trivial laws that we would actually imprison people for such petty offenses.
"No one was even close to the ease of use that Windows offered. ""
Since 1985 until around 1995 AmigaOS blew the socks off Windows for EASE OF USE.
It took until 1995 for Windows to have such things as true pre-emptive multitasking and proportional slider bars. Windows still does not have dynamic RAM disks, datatype libraries, user installable filing systems.. I think it only just recently added symbolic and hardlinks or file notification (if it even truly has it yet).
Windows does not have a truely standardized scripting language which AmigaOS had by around 1990.
Windows still lacks, virtual desktops, virtual screens.
And.. wait... you forgot BeOS. Which is even EASIER to use.
Windows for ease of use? Stop me... I'm beside myself with myrth at the pure BS factor of that statement.
Windows brought ease of use to the desktop if you exclude just about every other OS ever written.
You are misquoting me. The complete quote I used was "we should go because we are compelled by our curiosity... Much basic science was done because people simply wanted to know; "
It is the reference to "WAS DONE" which gives me "we have done them in the past".
Your argument claimed that past practices in pursuing science are grounds to warrant their continuation.
We should colonize mars because we have a single point of failure in the mission critical system we rely on for the existence of our species. (and for all we know... all life in the universe).
We must colonize mars so that if or when the earth is destroyed life goes on.
(moreover we should colonize other star systems in case the solar system is destroyed)
"We should go because we are compelled to go by our curiosity.... Much basic science was done because people simply wanted to know;"
I agree with your conclusion. But your argument is falacious. It presupposes that we should do things simply because we have done them in the past.
We did a lot of things in the past(such as slavery, genocide, witch burning) but we decided doing those things was wrong.
In any event I just wanted to alert you to the flaw in your logic process.
I would argue we should go to mars even if we had never accomplished any novel thing in recorded history and suffered from an infinite lack of curiosity.
"When you're still in your employer's uniform, especially that of a security company wishing to maintain its reputation as a professional organization, you shouldn't be going on dates with your clients."
What if the company forced you to BUY the uniform? Then you own it right? And you can do what you want?
Re:I agree. The very idea of such a penalty is evi
on
Death Penalty For Hackers?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"In many ways our justice system makes victims out of the perpetrators of crimes when the punishment is way out of proportion to the actual crime committed. When that happens, the justice system is perpetrating an injustice on the person found guilty in court."
When that happens the justice system is no longer a justice system at all but merely a means of oppression. But worse, it exercises oppression not only over those "convicted of crime" (which itself would have little meaning in an unjust system), but also all people who must live under the yoke of oppression and the threat of being unjustly victimized.
In exchange for doing this, I expect (and receive) a reasonable tolerance of doing personal things (like surfing to slashdot) during normal working hours.
Hey.. I get the same thing and I DONT get logged. Who works at a better company?
and the employer didn't have to wait until my project got screwed, and the deadline missed by months before realising that I'm not working,
Right.. and when exactly did looking at your keystroke log determine if the project was on schedule?
I mean.. any faster than simply asking you?
Or are you likely to lie about something like that?
I'm going to skip over all the mom and pop shop down the street, part of the community, doin' it for the love anecdotes. Here's an example; super markets. Yes, they exist to generate profit/growth, but huge got nothing to do with it. Folks down at at Winn Dixie are eeking out closer to 2% margin. 20% ain't even in their dreams.
They make 2% margin on each sale. It doesnt take 1 year to make a sale. If they turn over their inventory 30 times in a year, and make 2% each time..... think about it. velocity.
Walmart averages even less than 2% if I'm not mistaken.
Walmart actually turns over their entire inventory of toilet paper more than once per day!
I was referring to a 20% return on investment in a year.
But they survive for only 1 of 2 reasons. They are state operated or subsidized (either openly or quietly) or they consistantly rake in profit margins or growth of ohh... 20%.
Private businesses which dont generate huge profits/growth, dont survive. Unless you know of some examples.
Given you started a thread titled "Libertarians", that you keep attacking "libertarians" with aggressive language and superficial reasoning and you keep trying to brand me as one, I beg to differ. Your comments are very much directed at "libertarians".
I never said my comments are not "directed" at libertarians. I said I am not "ranting".
I did not try to brand you a libertarian either.
You did introduce the might makes right principle as a a proof or justification of the naturality of physical property law.
You say that you are talking about "enforcement". But I'm not sure what the relevence is. Unless you are arguing that "enforcibility" justifies law.
Unenforcibility may show a law is unjust, but enforcibility does not show a law is just. This is already accepted by the legal community, and I will not try to prove that point. In any event, both IP and real property law are routinely enforced.
I also argued that "might makes right" can be used to enforce anything at all, and therefore does *not* differentiate between IP and real property. Therefore "Might makes right" can not be a deciding factor in the argument about whether physical property is less or more oppressive than IP property.
Calling my argument superficial doesn't make it so.
My original argument is that IP law is *no more* oppressive than real property law.
I do not need to prove that physical property law is oppressive. At best I only need to show how they are they are *equally oppressive*.
However I would argue that I dont even need to show this. I am taking the DEFAULT POSITION. It is already accepted in the legal community that Intellectual property is as valuable as real property and intellectual property law is internationally enforced just as is real property law.
It is the libertarians who must prove that IP law is MORE oppressive than real property.
They must prove this because libertarians according to their web site, put private property up to have the same moral weight as basic fundamental human rights. Libertarians even argue that other fundamental human rights are actually derived from private property.
It is the libertarians who are making the claim which is radical.
You provided "might makes right" or naturalness and I argued against those.
I've already repeated the "might makes right" argument in this post.
Against the "naturalness" argument, I put forward that there is nothing unnatural about human beings dealing with abstract concepts. You argued that prehomosapiens and even animals understood real property, and I will now put forward, that prehomosapiens and animals are morally inferior to human beings and it is not persuasive in the least to argue we should adopt them as role models.
Your argument that most homosapiens cant understand abstract concepts is a radical claim, and you have not provided evidence of it. It happens to contradict the general understanding of psychologists and linguists (i.e. that human beings are unique in that we DO deal well with abstract concepts). I wont prove that here. If you really really need proof of that I can direct you to a couple of textbooks on the subject of the psychology and linguistics that I have read.
As to whether my claim that prehomosapiens and animals are morally inferior or not, I will say that I am also taking the default position on that. It is already widely accepted that human beings are morally further developed than animals and prehomosapiens. If you want you may prove otherwise but the onus is on you.
How is being in posession of a physical item and having that protected (either by yourself or someone else on your behalf) "oppressive" ?
Property law extends well beyond physical items in your possession and you know that. Property law allows you to dictate, as a tyrant would, what people may and may not do on your land (even in your absence), on threat of banishment or exile. Property law is not
Golias said "So, unless everybody wants to agree to my kooky libertarian ideal of abolishing copyright entirely (and we all know that such a thing will never happen), then we need a big hammer to enforce the law as it exists."
I merely replied that IP is as oppressive as real property. It was you who went on a rant about how real property is morally more defensible than IP because real property can be enforced using the "might makes right" principle.
I countered and said "might makes right" can enforce anything you want to. It is not a justification. And it does not disprove my original claim that property law and IP law are equally oppressive.
You would have ME be the defender of IP law. I do not defend IP law, because it is not moral. NEITHER IS PRIVATE PROPERTY LAW.
I believe both IP law and property law are defective, oppressive, unjust and totalitarian.
I was just curious why libertarians are so in favor of real property law, when it is so oppressive. It seems to me to be hypocritical.
Libertarians *ARE* in favor of private property law. At least according to the Libertarian Party website. www.libertarianparty.org
I said: " And therefore should not libertarians wanting to avoid being properly labelled as hypocrits uphold IP rights just as much as private property rights (or otherwise abandon both)?"
you said: No, because one is a concept firmly grounded in the real, physical world whereas the other is a legal construct that is neither valid nor supportable outside the framework of the legal system.
By that argument stealing "money" is not really wrong, because "money" has no real value. It only has abstract value. You can't eat money, You can build anything with money.
But your argument is a distraction. Why does it matter if a concept is or is not "firmly grounded in the real physical world"?
Human beings use language and abstractions all the time. We are not mere animals, and we are quite capable of dealing with concepts which are purely abstract. Is the libertarian state supposed to represent a cripled mind? Capable of dealing only with simple concepts on the level of a 3 year old child? What is wrong with abstraction?
I say, whether or not IP is REAL or abstract, is not in itself an argument against IP Law.
Physical property law is, fundamentally, an extension of "might makes right" - if you can acquire some item and stop others from taking it from you, then it's yours. You may consider that "oppressive", although personally I can't see the reasoning behind such a position.
"might makes right".
We get the the foundation of your position.
It is not relevant if "might" can effectively enforce IP law. Quite frankly, it can, because "fear" is quite real in the minds of the fearful, and "fear" can compell compliance with any arbitrary law, whether it involves the handling of real objects or even merely ideas.
The government does not usually act by physically preventing people from trespassing on "real property". It is not physically impossible to steal or commit vandalism. It is "fear of punishment" which the government uses as the ultimate mode of enforcement.
This "might" is applied equally well to both IP and real property.
finally 1 last word:
Might makes right is a bullshit legal doctrine. It is as morally arbitrary as "height makes right" or "might makes wrong" or "purple makes right".
If might makes right is truly the doctrine you believe in, then you would be against having a state at all. All citizens would be reduced to demi-humans with no rights.
Slashdot Mirror
"So can I still fill up used bottled water bottles with my tap water if it is labled '1 liter'?"
if you are using a patented bottle potentially. Patent law prohibits unlicensed USE. And the word "USE" in patent law literally means "USE". Whereas in copyright law it only means 'do something normally exclusively the right of the copyright holder'.
However in your specific case the language implies that as long as you dont exceed 1 litre it would comply.
"
This is yet another example of what I consider a grave "abuse" of the system for their own personal gain."
Creative labs is a corporation. So is Apple.
Stop acting suprised and offended when corporations do the immoral. They can't help themselves. They are NOT human beings.
Corporations do not exist to exercise the discretion we take for granted when talking about human beings. A properly functioning corporation exploits the market environment for maximum growth. If laws make it beneficial to focus on the short term, they will. If laws make it beneficial to focus on long term. they will. If laws make it beneficial to act like greedy lying bastards.. they will.
"My cracker ancestors came to the US after being persecuted by the Russians well after the end of slavery in the US. Why should any of my money go to people who's ancestors were on a different continent than mine?"
I'm not at all sure what you are talking about. Who's talking about *your* money?
"Owning slaves back then wasn't a crime, either. It wasn't a moral thing, but it was legal."
So what? If I accidentally burn your house down, I didn't do anything illegal either. But I still have to make reparations.. what's up with that?
Would you be satisfied if a law was passed making it a crime to possess the proceeds of slavery? If you admit it is a moral crime (which you seem to do), why would you then take the immoral position of hiding behind a legal technicallity?
"To go the complete asshole route: Take a look at Africa. I'd argue that the decendants of US slaves have it better than most who are still in Africa."
Well at least you admit that you are an asshole.
The western world has been fucking Africa since it was discovered. The only reason descendants of slaves are better off in America than the people of Africa, is that the West is STILL fucking Africa.
Just as we are trying are hardest to fuck south america. Except that south american's are now largely descendants of europeans (since we murdered something like 90% of the original inhabitants), so we treat south american's better than African's who are black.
A Religious leader of what country called for the assassination of the leader of what sovereign country simply for threatening to not sell its own oil to America. You'd think that American's belief THEY own that oil.
"By that logic, Germany and Italy would be completely screwed. Especially the latter, since they'd have to pay the descendants of the Celts who suffered so much under their oppression two thousand years ago."
Perhaps but not necessarily. It is not a matter of how much the oppressed suffered which justifies repatriation by descendants of the oppressors. It is a question of how much monetary benefit do the descendants of the oppressors today CONTINUE to enjoy because of crimes of their ancestors.
Is it wrong to benefit from the proceeds of crime?
Do we accept that the descendants of yesterdays oppressed would have likely inherited what was taken from their ancestors had it not been wrongfully deprived them by their ancient oppressors? Do we believe
that todays descendants of ancient oppressors are in possession of wealth which was derived from the WRONGFUL possession in the past?
Are these not the basic issues?
I don't know what happened to the Celts at the hands of Germans or Italians. But I am also aware that germany was quite trounced during WWI and have a hunch that it would be difficult to establish that it derives any benefits today from its crimes 2000 years ago. But I would not deny that perhaps reparations are owed. It is certainly something which could be argued.
But purpose of reparation is NOT punitive.
Todays germans bare no moral responsibility for crimes which may have been perpetrated by their ancestors. Just as rich white folk of today are not morally responsible for slavery. However there is no JUST argument say they should be allowed to benefit from crimes perpetrated by their ancestors.
At least... no argument more persuasive than what I've heard around here which is : "that's bullshit!"
"Even if you were right, denying reparations wouldn't be bigotry unless it stemmed from hatred of the race the reparations were going to be given to."
I never said it was bigotry. But I will say that denying reparations (where they are established in a just and fair way) is theft. And denying the very principle of reparations itself is just simply embracing the principle that criminals should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crimes.
" Thinking that giving blacks "reparations" for slavery that occurred about 150 years ago is bullshit is hardly bigotry."
right. Because rich white folks don't leave any lands or wealth to their descendants when they die.
Proceeds of crime are still proceeds of crime even after 150 years. Reparations are not punitive nor are they rewards.
"Most older blacks that I talk to about it feel that it's just young people trying to get something for nothing."
They can hold their oppressors harmless. But they can't do it on behalf of other victims.
shit... so we are living of the profits created by destroying the lives of entire generations of your people... cry me a river. Your ancestors should have complained about it 150 years ago!
"To quote from the Ashkenazi study I referenced, "... IQ (as measured by IQ tests) is the best predictor we have of success in academic subjects and most jobs". The study cites a bunch of sources on IQ-related issues, but I don't see one associated with that particular assertion. If you have a citable source for your assertion, please cite it."
That is a fair request. Unfortunately I don't have a source handy, as I read this in a paper bound book (I'll take a wild guess and say Profit Before People by Noam Chomsky.) , which apart from being harder to search through, I don't have with me at this time. But I invite you to look at the GDP of some third world countries of comparible size to the United States, and explain to me wether compared to the United states, the disparity in child outcomes more corelated to the relative IQ's of americans vs third worlders or corelates to the average wealth of parents in those same countries 1 generation ago.
I take it as given that Americans do not have a higher IQ than third worlders. Although you may which to not concede this point. So please tell me.
"higher earned income is more correlated with good child outcomes than is unearned income, such as child support, alimony, or an inheritance"
this does not negate the general conclusion that child performance is most highly corelated on wealth of the parents. The general term wealth includes not only capital itself, but income. High income itself can be transformed into capital by way of loans, and owned capital earns an income (by way of dividends, capital gains etc)...
I don't know what the distinction is between "parent wealth" and "parental wealth". So I can't speak to your concluding statement.
I retract the "during childhood" clause of my statement. That was made in error. outcomes continue to be influenced by parent wealth well beyond childhood. Having rich parents is always beneficial and having poor parents holds one back.
Are americans say 30 standard deviations more intelligent than chinese?
" You think people have a moral right to download copyrighted material?"
You have a MORAL right to do whatever you want to do, unless that action causes greater harm than good.
The question is.... does an owner of intellectual property have a MORAL right to monopolize that IP to the point of dictating what other people may do with their own physical property?
Saying they do, don't make it true.
Making it law, doesn't make it true either.
"The film industry should just let everyone into the cinemas for free because people have the moral right to take things for free rather than paying."
This is a straw man attack. No one is arguing that. That is a matter of tresspassing on someone elses land (inside their building no less). NOT a matter of immitating something you have seen somewhere. i.e. COPYING.
"When did the freeloading teenagers take over?"
I've never downloaded a single movie or song. I've spent over $3000 on my DVD library, and something over $2000 on my CD's. I visit the theatre between 3-6 times a month. But your arguments on morality are way off the mark.
"some sources saying that IQ testing is the best known predictor for salary, family stability, and a whole bunch of other things."
the best predictor of those things is how rich your parents were during your childhood.
"In general male bell curves are wider than women's. Its true of height, weight, IQ, most diseases."
where did you get these statistics?
Care to cite them?
Sounds like BS
you are directing your rebuttal at the wrong post son. It was not *I* who claimed that homeless people were getting arrested on purpose simply to get free food and board.
If there is (as you dubiously claim) free food and board for all homeless people (without needing to be arrested), then clearly this is evidence that homeless people are being imprisoned for reasons other than free food and board.
reasons such as I previously mentioned.
"in fact, in alot of cities, one of the first things they do when a neighborhood has an increase in violent crime is to increase the traffic patrols, because they're a visible police presence which turns on the flashers often and allows for all sorts of weird technicalties to bug someone for a few minutes."
Is it not sad that the response to violent crime is for COPS to search for backdoor ways to violate civil liberties rather than to talk openly and appropriately about the issues and appeal to the public to support a remedy in LAW.
If surveilance is called for, it should be lawmakers and courts (using powers law makers grant to them) which decide it. Not cops doing it secretly under the guise of enforcing "traffic laws".
This is not a police state. Arbitrary law enforcement (meaning at the discretion of individuals, rather than according to written law) has been decided (rightfully so) to be a violation of the fundamental principles of justice.
The right of police to stop vehicles etc.. is granted by the PEOPLE, pursuant to an assumption that the vehicles being stopped are being stopped for a lawful TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT reason. Not simply to allow cops to perform arbitrary purity checks on people who live in areas they dont personally like, or to secretly place the neighborhood under surveilance and only use traffic enforcement as a coverup for what would otherwise be a warrantless and unreasonable search.
When we want to live in a police state, we the people will explicitly VOTE for that, ammend the contitution, and abolish the judicial and legislative branches of government. The cops (part of the executive branch) have no business assuming this is what THE PEOPLE want.
"Its common for homeless people or people without money to commit stupid crimes in order to get locked up for a while in order to get a free place to stay and food."
don't blaim the poor for trying to get food and board. Blaim lawmakers for imposing so many inane and trivial laws that we would actually imprison people for such petty offenses.
"No one was even close to the ease of use that Windows offered. ""
Since 1985 until around 1995 AmigaOS blew the socks off Windows for EASE OF USE.
It took until 1995 for Windows to have such things as true pre-emptive multitasking and proportional slider bars. Windows still does not have dynamic RAM disks, datatype libraries, user installable filing systems.. I think it only just recently added symbolic and hardlinks or file notification (if it even truly has it yet).
Windows does not have a truely standardized scripting language which AmigaOS had by around 1990.
Windows still lacks, virtual desktops, virtual screens.
And.. wait... you forgot BeOS. Which is even EASIER to use.
Windows for ease of use? Stop me... I'm beside myself with myrth at the pure BS factor of that statement.
Windows brought ease of use to the desktop if you exclude just about every other OS ever written.
You are misquoting me. The complete quote I used was "we should go because we are compelled by our curiosity... Much basic science was done because people simply wanted to know; "
It is the reference to "WAS DONE" which gives me "we have done them in the past".
Your argument claimed that past practices in pursuing science are grounds to warrant their continuation.
We should colonize mars because we have a single point of failure in the mission critical system we rely on for the existence of our species. (and for all we know... all life in the universe).
We must colonize mars so that if or when the earth is destroyed life goes on.
(moreover we should colonize other star systems in case the solar system is destroyed)
"We should go because we are compelled to go by our curiosity. ... Much basic science was done because people simply wanted to know;"
I agree with your conclusion. But your argument is falacious. It presupposes that we should do things simply because we have done them in the past.
We did a lot of things in the past(such as slavery, genocide, witch burning) but we decided doing those things was wrong.
In any event I just wanted to alert you to the flaw in your logic process.
I would argue we should go to mars even if we had never accomplished any novel thing in recorded history and suffered from an infinite lack of curiosity.
"I'm not sure I see the point of even going to Mars in the first place; "
Before colonizing mars you must be able to go there.
Or do you not see the point of colonization?
"When you're still in your employer's uniform, especially that of a security company wishing to maintain its reputation as a professional organization, you shouldn't be going on dates with your clients."
What if the company forced you to BUY the uniform?
Then you own it right? And you can do what you want?
"In many ways our justice system makes victims out of the perpetrators of crimes when the punishment is way out of proportion to the actual crime committed. When that happens, the justice system is perpetrating an injustice on the person found guilty in court."
When that happens the justice system is no longer a justice system at all but merely a means of oppression. But worse, it exercises oppression not only over those "convicted of crime" (which itself would have little meaning in an unjust system), but also all people who must live under the yoke of oppression and the threat of being unjustly victimized.
In exchange for doing this, I expect (and receive) a reasonable tolerance of doing personal things (like surfing to slashdot) during normal working hours.
Hey.. I get the same thing and I DONT get logged.
Who works at a better company?
and the employer didn't have to wait until my project got screwed, and the deadline missed by months before realising that I'm not working,
Right.. and when exactly did looking at your keystroke log determine if the project was on schedule?
I mean.. any faster than simply asking you?
Or are you likely to lie about something like that?
Walmart makes about a 20% gross profit margin
No one is talking about gross profit margins.
I'm talking about RETURN ON INVESTMENT
This is comparing apples and oranges.
I'm going to skip over all the mom and pop shop down the street, part of the community, doin' it for the love anecdotes. Here's an example; super markets. Yes, they exist to generate profit/growth, but huge got nothing to do with it. Folks down at at Winn Dixie are eeking out closer to 2% margin. 20% ain't even in their dreams.
They make 2% margin on each sale. It doesnt take 1 year to make a sale. If they turn over their inventory 30 times in a year, and make 2% each time..... think about it. velocity.
Walmart averages even less than 2% if I'm not mistaken.
Walmart actually turns over their entire inventory of toilet paper more than once per day!
I was referring to a 20% return on investment in a year.
Businesses exist for several reasons.
True, Businesses exist for several reasons.
But they survive for only 1 of 2 reasons. They are state operated or subsidized (either openly or quietly) or they consistantly rake in profit margins or growth of ohh... 20%.
Private businesses which dont generate huge profits/growth, dont survive. Unless you know of some examples.
Given you started a thread titled "Libertarians", that you keep attacking "libertarians" with aggressive language and superficial reasoning and you keep trying to brand me as one, I beg to differ. Your comments are very much directed at "libertarians".
I never said my comments are not "directed" at libertarians. I said I am not "ranting".
I did not try to brand you a libertarian either.
You did introduce the might makes right principle as a a proof or justification of the naturality of physical property law.
You say that you are talking about "enforcement". But I'm not sure what the relevence is. Unless you are arguing that "enforcibility" justifies law.
Unenforcibility may show a law is unjust, but enforcibility does not show a law is just. This is already accepted by the legal community, and I will not try to prove that point.
In any event, both IP and real property law are routinely enforced.
I also argued that "might makes right" can be used to enforce anything at all, and therefore does *not* differentiate between IP and real property. Therefore "Might makes right" can not be a deciding factor in the argument about whether physical property is less or more oppressive than IP property.
Calling my argument superficial doesn't make it so.
My original argument is that IP law is *no more* oppressive than real property law.
I do not need to prove that physical property law is oppressive. At best I only need to show how they are they are *equally oppressive*.
However I would argue that I dont even need to show this. I am taking the DEFAULT POSITION. It is already accepted in the legal community that Intellectual property is as valuable as real property and intellectual property law is internationally enforced just as is real property law.
It is the libertarians who must prove that IP law is MORE oppressive than real property.
They must prove this because libertarians according to their web site, put private property up to have the same moral weight as basic fundamental human rights. Libertarians even argue that other fundamental human rights are actually derived from private property.
It is the libertarians who are making the claim which is radical.
You provided "might makes right" or naturalness and I argued against those.
I've already repeated the "might makes right" argument in this post.
Against the "naturalness" argument, I put forward that there is nothing unnatural about human beings dealing with abstract concepts. You argued that prehomosapiens and even animals understood real property, and I will now put forward, that prehomosapiens and animals are morally inferior to human beings and it is not persuasive in the least to argue we should adopt them as role models.
Your argument that most homosapiens cant understand abstract concepts is a radical claim, and you have not provided evidence of it. It happens to contradict the general understanding of psychologists and linguists (i.e. that human beings are unique in that we DO deal well with abstract concepts). I wont prove that here. If you really really need proof of that I can direct you to a couple of textbooks on the subject of the psychology and linguistics that I have read.
As to whether my claim that prehomosapiens and animals are morally inferior or not, I will say that I am also taking the default position on that. It is already widely accepted that human beings are morally further developed than animals and prehomosapiens. If you want you may prove otherwise but the onus is on you.
How is being in posession of a physical item and having that protected (either by yourself or someone else on your behalf) "oppressive" ?
Property law extends well beyond physical items in your possession and you know that. Property law allows you to dictate, as a tyrant would, what people may and may not do on your land (even in your absence), on threat of banishment or exile. Property law is not
I'm not ranting about libertarians.
Golias said "So, unless everybody wants to agree to my kooky libertarian ideal of abolishing copyright entirely (and we all know that such a thing will never happen), then we need a big hammer to enforce the law as it exists."
I merely replied that IP is as oppressive as real property. It was you who went on a rant about how real property is morally more defensible than IP because real property can be enforced using the "might makes right" principle.
I countered and said "might makes right" can enforce anything you want to. It is not a justification. And it does not disprove my original claim that property law and IP law are equally oppressive.
You would have ME be the defender of IP law. I do not defend IP law, because it is not moral. NEITHER IS PRIVATE PROPERTY LAW.
I believe both IP law and property law are defective, oppressive, unjust and totalitarian.
I was just curious why libertarians are so in favor of real property law, when it is so oppressive. It seems to me to be hypocritical.
Libertarians *ARE* in favor of private property law. At least according to the Libertarian Party website. www.libertarianparty.org
I said:
" And therefore should not libertarians wanting to avoid being properly labelled as hypocrits uphold IP rights just as much as private property rights (or otherwise abandon both)?"
you said:
No, because one is a concept firmly grounded in the real, physical world whereas the other is a legal construct that is neither valid nor supportable outside the framework of the legal system.
By that argument stealing "money" is not really wrong, because "money" has no real value. It only has abstract value. You can't eat money, You can build anything with money.
But your argument is a distraction. Why does it matter if a concept is or is not "firmly grounded in the real physical world"?
Human beings use language and abstractions all the time. We are not mere animals, and we are quite capable of dealing with concepts which are purely abstract. Is the libertarian state supposed to represent a cripled mind? Capable of dealing only with simple concepts on the level of a 3 year old child? What is wrong with abstraction?
I say, whether or not IP is REAL or abstract, is not in itself an argument against IP Law.
Physical property law is, fundamentally, an extension of "might makes right" - if you can acquire some item and stop others from taking it from you, then it's yours. You may consider that "oppressive", although personally I can't see the reasoning behind such a position.
"might makes right".
We get the the foundation of your position.
It is not relevant if "might" can effectively enforce IP law. Quite frankly, it can, because "fear" is quite real in the minds of the fearful, and "fear" can compell compliance with any arbitrary law, whether it involves the handling of real objects or even merely ideas.
The government does not usually act by physically preventing people from trespassing on "real property". It is not physically impossible to steal or commit vandalism. It is "fear of punishment" which the government uses as the ultimate mode of enforcement.
This "might" is applied equally well to both IP and real property.
finally 1 last word:
Might makes right is a bullshit legal doctrine. It is as morally arbitrary as "height makes right" or "might makes wrong" or "purple makes right".
If might makes right is truly the doctrine you believe in, then you would be against having a state at all. All citizens would be reduced to demi-humans with no rights.