"Well I'm happy for McDonalds, but take another example: Starbucks. It does very well in Japan (every location I've seen in Tokyo is equally busy as locations in the U.S. and Canada). And Starbucks did not alter its menu. "
Well, even though Starbucks's menu is pretty uniform worldwide, Japan seems to have influenced it a little. See, for example, the matcha (virgin green tea) drinks you can get in the summer.
That said, European-style coffee is one of those non-Japanese things that the Japanese really have a taste for. Even at Starbucks, though, they order different things than people order at Starbucks in Canada (where I'm from). When I'm at Starbucks here in Nagoya, 2/3rds of the Japanese are typically getting iced drinks, even in winter. In Canada, the majority of people get hot lattes or cappuccinos.
Starbucks is lucky enough to have a set of products that generally appeal to Japanese. McDonalds didn't, which is why they had to add special Japanese items - teriyaki burgers, korokke burgers, and so on.
In contrast, I've been to Starbucks in Thailand too, and didn't see a single Thai person there ever.
My friend (now wife) bought herself a Toshiba Satellite a few years back. It lasted for 2-3 years and then just died. It was out of warranty, but we called Toshiba's support line and requested repair advice anyway. Nothing happened, so we sold off the few usable parts (battery, RAM module) on eBay and threw the laptop away.
13 months later, a Toshiba technician called her up, saying he'd just gotten her support request. Oh boy...
Anyway, we're both happy Mac users these days. My wife's G5 iMac did stop booting the other day, but Apple picked it up, fixed it, and dropped it off at the door before the week was over. She didn't even lose any data.
"Any entity that is to continue to exist must look out for its own survival."
You're on the right track there.
"In our current system of government, the greatest danger to the existing power structure is voting."
I disagree. The democratic state relies almost entirely on masses of selfish people voting. It's so much easier to keep their power by pandering to the ignorant 70% than by demonstrating true merit to the smarter 30%. All they have to do is promise each large demographic that they'll give them a bunch of stuff for nothing, and then steal that stuff from someone else. In fact, the state's best customers (voters) are the country's least productive people, the sorts who would rather watch 6 hours of TV a night than go be entrepreneurial or pay down the credit card.
That's why they always push to get as many people to vote as possible. In fact, many democracies are trying to make non-voting a crime. Getting all those uninformed people to rubber-stamp the politicians' activities is just too important.
Is the government up to something by legislating digital TV? Definitely, but it probably has more to do with all the media companies that give Congressmen bribes and campaign financing. It's one more step towards the total media lock-in that the MPAA and TV companies want. Everything you're allowed to watch will be subject to government licenses and industry DRM.
Here in Japan (Nagoya), I see DSes everywhere. Toy stores and department stores have big DS (and Gameboy) sections, but I've yet to notice any PSPs, though I suppose they must be tucked away somewhere. I also see a lot of kids carrying around DSes, but again, I've never even seen a PSP here. I did see a PSP subway ad once.
I believe trespassing is still an inaccurate metaphor. Trespassing, whether harmless or not, does infringe the owner's right to use his property as he wishes. Copyright infringement is more like acquiring a piece of land exactly like your neighbour's and then walking on that instead.
"Are there really that many people, even on Slashdot, that think stealing intellectual property is not wrong?"
I hope so, considering that it's impossible to steal a thought or idea. The most you can do is to copy it and benefit from it.
In fact, I strongly feel that promoting intellectual property is wrong. I'm not looking for an argument with you, just showing you that not everyone thinks as you do.
First off, when the L.A. Times says "sources tell us", it's a little more reliable than your typical rumour site or ZDnet blogger.
Secondly, look at Google's efforts to port stuff like the Google toolbar to Firefox.
Thirdly, look at some of their applications, like Picasa. It uses a completely custom look and widget set, right down to unusual (but quite functional) scrollbars. Presumably, they've built a whole application API that draws and uses these widgets. That's a nice big building block of a custom OS, I think.
If there really is a GoogleOS, it'll offer customers: 1. A spyware and virus-free platform. 2. A cheap Internet/media appliance that very likely Just Works. 3. Worry-free online storage and backup of all documents, email, etc. 4. Seamless desktop-Internet application, where most applications either are already web applications or hook into web applications. 5. A stream of new applications and regular upgrades that are all performed by Google, with no hassle to the user.
"ICANN is making sure that TLDs for countries are controlled by the governments of those countries? And what is wrong with this?"
The Internet is, at heart, a phenomenon created by the free interaction of hundreds of millions of human beings. People and private companies improve the Internet every year by forming and contributing to standards groups, trade associations, open source software projects, and so on. Had the Internet been kept firmly under government control, it would never have become what it is now.
In many cases, it was individual pioneers and enthusiasts who kick-started the adoption of the Internet in their countries. They set up DNS servers, formed users' groups and so on. Why, barring any serious operational problems, should ICANN snatch their responsibilities out of their hands and hand them over to oppressive regimes that are mostly just interested in censorship and control of communications?
The Internet isn't about governments and the ambitions of the state. It's about people.
I agree. The gauge is neat (thanks to the photo used), but the titling looks like the gaudy, over-textured effects I used to see in books with titles like "Photoshop 3 for beginners". Not that I'm purposely trying to be unkind. I assume that was the best graphic submitted.
"I've been curious what is the justification for support of: particles are in multiple simultaneous states until measured causing the distributed probabilities to collapse into a definite known state"
The famous double-slit experiment demonstrates the problem very well. Imagine shooting electrons through a wall with two slits. The slits are close enough that each electron, given the vagueness of its exact position, could go through either slit. After going through the slits, the electrons register themselves on a detection screen of some kind.
Well, if you have a sensor at each slit watching to see where the electrons go, they each go through either one slit or the other quite nicely, and they register their impacts on the screen in a nice bell distribution.
However, if you don't check which slit the electrons go through, there is equal possibility of going through both. Therefore, bizarrely enough, they actually *do* go through both slits at once. The detector then records a more complicated ripple pattern of impacts, as each electron's ghostly half interferes with the other half in a wave pattern.
So when we say there are two opposite states existing at once in the quantum world, it is actually true, and the effect is often bizarre. But the state of a particle behaves itself when you decide to "look" at it.
"Alternately, if schroedinger's cat is in an alive/dead superposition in the box, then if the cat experiences a sane and straightforward set of experiences yet the outside-of-box observer claims it to be in an alive/dead combo state, then outside the box observer and inside the box observer's consciousness lines must potentially deviate."
Schödinger introduced the cat just to point out this weirdness. What does the cat see? Is he both alive and dead at once? Does the universe split into two timelines? Adherents of the "Copenhagen Interpretation" would, I think, argue over whether or not the cat qualifies as an observer, and can collapse the quantum randomness on his own.
Another, more intriguing interpretation, is that at last, when you look at the cat and see whether he died or not, your observation propagates a randomness-collapsing wave *backwards in time* that forces the past action of the cat living/dying to resolve itself. There are variations of the double-slit experiment (like measuring the slits after the electron's already through) that reinforce this idea.
Note that I'm not a physicist, and not necessarily good at explaining things.
Well said! Regular readers all know that Slashdot, editorially, is fairly mediocre. Awful editing and spelling, frequent duplicate posts, and so on. But it's the moderation system and comments that make it shine. Where else can you read astrophysicists discuss the latest astronomy finding, or professional engineers dissecting the latest technology invention? Thanks to moderation, the best posts rise to the top.
The one time I visited Digg, I found the comments worthless.
"Here you attempt to link the cuddly and innocent terms "copying", "sharing", "human culture and advamcent" with acts that break the social contract known as copyright."
I didn't agree to your silly social contract.
"Copyright exists for a reason..."
To pad wealthy pockets and protect stagnant business models? Or for political censorship, as was intended with the first copyright laws in England?
"history and economics have shown UNQUESTIONABLY that the notion of copyright... are actually very useful for "human culture and advancement."
Hardly provable and easily questioned. But then, one could argue that for all kinds of unethical laws.
"When somebody downloads music off the internet that they do not have the righs to..."
Again, you just fell for the fallacy that copyright covers receiving or listening to music rather than distribution.
"The fact is that in EVERYWHERE in the world where you are likely to be reading this (except for taiwan), IP laws have been harmonized to the point where the basics are the same."
You haven't travelled much, have you? The laws where I live are very different where I live. No DMCA, no ridiculous 120-year terms, etc.
"I dont know about morality..."
I concede that point.
"Many things are licensed, not sold..."
A license is a writ or contract giving permission to do something that is normally illegal or forbidden. I need no license to buy and use a CD or a book. Your use of the term is simply a common way to pretend that my property belongs to someone else.
I guess you fall for most of the fallacies on my list.:) You may believe as you like, of course.
I have no inclination to keep arguing the same thing over and over; but if you're not trolling, please think over what you're saying and see the contradictions.
"If you don't want to have anything to do with copyright, don't buy copyrighted material."
The one doesn't follow from the other. I fail to see how coming into possession of material, either by gift or through purchase, morally beholds me to restrict my usage or sharing of that material. I have agreed to no such restrictions.
Imagine some country passed a law saying everyone who learned to read had to convert to a particular religion - backed by coercive punishment, of course. That would be a stupid and immoral law. And yet, someone could use an exact analog of your argument to say "if you don't want to convert to that religion, you don't have to learn to read."
Well, I don't have to agree to someone's religion to learn to read. And I don't have too agree with copyright to buy a book.
"Like I said, copyright is forced on no one."
This is obviously false; copyright is nothing more than using force against me for sharing my property in a completely voluntary, non-violent manner. If you want to stop me from peacefully sharing a song with a friend, you must initiate force to do so.
"If copyright were abolished, then you would be imposing your views on me, because a system I use would be destroyed"
That's like a plantation owner saying if slavery were abolished, a non-slaver's views would be imposed on him because a system he used was destroyed. Not a very compelling argument.
My system - freedom - violates your rights in no way. Your system severely restricts my completely natural rights to share and communicate.
"[a contractual copyright solution] sounds just like copyright, except without government regulation."
Yes. Voluntary and free-market-oriented.
"I can imagine such copyright would be considerably more restrictive than the one we have today; copyright holders would have little or no incentive to provide the fair use provisions the government does."
The opposite would be true, because copyright would only apply to parties that had explicitly agreed to the contract's limited terms. To get competing publishers and other organizations on board, companies would have every incentive to make the contract as fair and open as possible. Copyright wouldn't, as I said, be applicable for terrorizing the public at large.
Conclusion: even serious copyright and patent apologists recognize that it is based on government coercion and force. It is infantile to pretend it is a non-restrictive set of laws. The general argument in its favour is that the supposed creative incentive is worth the loss of freedom. My argument is that it isn't. The digital age is rapidly taking us to a place where copyright only works if a small oligarchy of corporations or monitor and control everything we do with our computers and our data at all times. That is unacceptable, and I won't have it forced on me.
"Actually, several of premises are actually false, or are putting words in the RIAA's mouth."
I don't think so, but let's see.
"No one ever said copying and sharing are heinous crimes. Unauthorized copying and sharing of copyright materials is against the law (copyright infringement isn't a criminal act, but it can get you sued)."
I didn't say "all copying and sharing", but it's clear the RIAA/MPAA and Congress are bent on making more and more kinds of cultural sharing criminal acts, where none at all (in my opinion) should be. Laws are coming into being that impose worse penalties for copying than for rape and manslaughter.
"I'm not sure what you meant, so I can't refute it. Please elaborate."
In relation to my post's parent post, I was referring to the fact that the RIAA and its ilk want to equate *distribution* (which is sometimes prohibited by copyright law) with reading, hearing, and seeing said materials.
"most (all?) countries have their own copyright laws."
Many, perhaps most, certainly not all. And most are not onerous or punishing as US laws; yet RIAA apologists constantly make remarks to the effect that anyone in the world downloading some copyrighted music is breaking the law. That's just not a valid assumption.
"I agree with you:) (that ethics are more important than legal technicalities.) But if you're suggesting that copyright is unethical, I disagree. "
Then we disagree.:)
"Actually, in the world of copyright, this is often true."
"License" is just one term that hides the fact many people (including yourself) want to pervert true personal property with the concept that ideas and data is scarce property. The only way this is practical is if corporations and copyright holders, rather than me, control my computer, my VCR, my TV, and so on. They are working hard to make ownership of many electronics, as well as altering your own equipment, illegal.
"I don't know of anyone who is saying this. It's just as easy for you to copyright your own work as it is for a large company. But given the context here, I'm not sure what's so "creative" about copyright infringement."
Copyright and patents are simply government-enforced monopolies to prevent other people from sharing information. While they are somewhat accessible to individuals, they are most easily wielded by powerful corporations to threaten competitors and customers.
All creative and scientific works in this world build on the work of others. Just look at how a creative movie industry sprang up and thrived in California in defiance of Thomas Edison and his movie camera patents.
"Profits are rarely, if ever, guaranteed, but your wording is rather misleading."
Copyrights are designed these days to protect a business model that wouldn't work otherwise. It's easier for a large company to litigate than to innovate or change.
'By "freedom," you really mean "the right to freely redistribute copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder." '
Yes. I don't believe the right to speech, cultural exchange, and sharing should be arbitrarily abridged. It is a basic human right. Getting the government to hurt people who spread or copy your ideas is not a basic human right. I don't see why protecting one specific business model takes priority over my right to privately exchange ideas and data with my friends.
I believe I have backed up all my points. You disagree with many of them, and I think that's because you have fallen for many of the errors I outlined. You are free to hold such views, naturally. What I wish is not to have those views imposed on me by force.
"And if not, please tell me how *you* think copyright should be enforced."
My own theory is that large publishers and media companies, bilaterally or through trade organizations, should arrange voluntary copyright contracts, settled and upheld by contract law. Such copyright would protect publishing channels quite well without terrorizing customers.
"Though, it is true, what you say about not being required to _EAT_ sugars. Your body will happily produce it's own glucose from protein and fat."
That is, of course, what I meant. There's no need to eat sugar so long as you eat enough protein and fat. (Heck, your body can even make glucose from alcohol.)
This is something most people don't get, and it's a misconception the RIAA/MPAA push as much as possible when they go on about "illegal downloads". They've gone way past the limits on *distribution* that copyright imposes, and they'd like to attack your right to watch and listen to the speech of others at its very core. Their business model can't easily coexist with basic human freedom in the digital age, just as many moguls and kings in the agricultural age couldn't get by without slavery; after all, didn't their incomes depend on it?
To understand the blatantly false statements the RIAA and their shills love to make, you have to see through their numerous incorrect premises:
1. Copying and sharing, the basis of all human culture and advancement, are somehow heinous crimes in the digital age. 2. Seeing something is the same as doing something. 3. The US's laws apply to everyone in the world, and are superior to every other law. 4. Legality is more important than morality. 5. Your property belongs to some corporation instead of to you. 6. Creativity cannot exist without cartels and monopolies. 7. Guaranteed profits are better than freedom.
Every person who advocates for the RIAA and punishing downloaders falls for one or more of these errors. Reject these, and you see the RIAA's legal tactics for what they are: criminal extortion and racketeering. Now that the RIAA gets to teach these awful anti-values to elementary students, however, the future of freedom is in serious jeopardy.
Pimsleur is excellent for getting acquainted with speaking and hearing a language. Two lessons a day will get you through parts I, II, and III in two months, with a natural feel for the grammar and a battery of vocabulary. Buying it outright is a little pricey, but there are a number of online stores that sell used copies and buy them back from you again when you're done. You could also check your local library for Pimsleur CDs. Put it on your iPod and you're good to go.
Pimsleur isn't enough, though. I highly recommend the following:
1. One or more language-teaching books, including a travel-oriented book with simple phrases and conversations.
2. Some actual comics or magazines you can read.
3. A real-live speaker of the language who can give you lessons and conversation practice once or twice a week. Refuse to speak English with this person if possible.
4. Use your new language as much as possible. Read and post on Spanish-language forums and blogs with topics that interest you.
5. A determined attitude. Learning a new language well is extremely hard, but anyone who works hard enough can do it. Take pride in every accomplishment you make along the way. In the end, it'll make you a better, more complete human being.
I'm currently slogging through Japanese myself. Gambatte, ne!
I've always have extreme difficulty keeping my weight down in spite of exercise and a "balanced" diet. When I hit 230 lbs and realized I was a good candidate for diabetes, I began a low carb diet. It worked pretty well for over a year, and I lost about 20 pounds. I'm pretty positive my body was somewhat insulin resistant, and a low-carb diet was the first diet that ever made me feel healthier.
Then I decided to let it slide for a while as I made a big shift in my life and moved abroad. For two months I reverted to my old eating habits: lots of bread, and too much sugar (including products with too much fructose). In the space of those 2 months, I started gaining weight, getting sick, having vision problems, and so on. I got back on the low-carb kick, and I'm growing healthy again. I've also lost another 18 pounds in three months, just thanks to a good diet and some daily walking or biking.
If you have a poor metabolism or suspect you're insulin-resistant, I can't say enough good things about the Atkins diet. You feel better and more energetic too, without the carb-induced blood sugar highs and lows that can lead to physical and mental malaise. Sugar is intended for our bodies to be a source of emergency energy, not a food staple. Fats, proteins, vitamins, amino acids, and minerals are essential for life; starches and sugars are not.
You're confusing Liberals with liberalism. Most informed Canadians, at least as far as I can tell, understand liberalism to be closer to its classic meaning of more freedoms. The Liberal party, on the other hand, has drifted well left of centre politically (but continues to be regarded as a centrist party because of the existence of extreme-left parties).
I live in Japan, and as I have noticed, this is the custom. Even if a Japanese individual isn't personally responsible for an error, he will do his best to apologize and make amends if he was involved. It's very unlike the modern Western legal client, where people are paranoid of being held liable for mistakes.
Slashdot Mirror
"Well I'm happy for McDonalds, but take another example: Starbucks. It does very well in Japan (every location I've seen in Tokyo is equally busy as locations in the U.S. and Canada). And Starbucks did not alter its menu. "
Well, even though Starbucks's menu is pretty uniform worldwide, Japan seems to have influenced it a little. See, for example, the matcha (virgin green tea) drinks you can get in the summer.
That said, European-style coffee is one of those non-Japanese things that the Japanese really have a taste for. Even at Starbucks, though, they order different things than people order at Starbucks in Canada (where I'm from). When I'm at Starbucks here in Nagoya, 2/3rds of the Japanese are typically getting iced drinks, even in winter. In Canada, the majority of people get hot lattes or cappuccinos.
Starbucks is lucky enough to have a set of products that generally appeal to Japanese. McDonalds didn't, which is why they had to add special Japanese items - teriyaki burgers, korokke burgers, and so on.
In contrast, I've been to Starbucks in Thailand too, and didn't see a single Thai person there ever.
"You aren't violating any patents, the provider is."
Hm, I wonder then why the IP/RIAA/MPAA shills always claim I'm violating copyright if someone else gives me a song or movie.
My friend (now wife) bought herself a Toshiba Satellite a few years back. It lasted for 2-3 years and then just died. It was out of warranty, but we called Toshiba's support line and requested repair advice anyway. Nothing happened, so we sold off the few usable parts (battery, RAM module) on eBay and threw the laptop away.
...
13 months later, a Toshiba technician called her up, saying he'd just gotten her support request. Oh boy
Anyway, we're both happy Mac users these days. My wife's G5 iMac did stop booting the other day, but Apple picked it up, fixed it, and dropped it off at the door before the week was over. She didn't even lose any data.
"Any entity that is to continue to exist must look out for its own survival."
You're on the right track there.
"In our current system of government, the greatest danger to the existing power structure is voting."
I disagree. The democratic state relies almost entirely on masses of selfish people voting. It's so much easier to keep their power by pandering to the ignorant 70% than by demonstrating true merit to the smarter 30%. All they have to do is promise each large demographic that they'll give them a bunch of stuff for nothing, and then steal that stuff from someone else. In fact, the state's best customers (voters) are the country's least productive people, the sorts who would rather watch 6 hours of TV a night than go be entrepreneurial or pay down the credit card.
That's why they always push to get as many people to vote as possible. In fact, many democracies are trying to make non-voting a crime. Getting all those uninformed people to rubber-stamp the politicians' activities is just too important.
Is the government up to something by legislating digital TV? Definitely, but it probably has more to do with all the media companies that give Congressmen bribes and campaign financing. It's one more step towards the total media lock-in that the MPAA and TV companies want. Everything you're allowed to watch will be subject to government licenses and industry DRM.
Here in Japan (Nagoya), I see DSes everywhere. Toy stores and department stores have big DS (and Gameboy) sections, but I've yet to notice any PSPs, though I suppose they must be tucked away somewhere. I also see a lot of kids carrying around DSes, but again, I've never even seen a PSP here. I did see a PSP subway ad once.
I believe trespassing is still an inaccurate metaphor. Trespassing, whether harmless or not, does infringe the owner's right to use his property as he wishes. Copyright infringement is more like acquiring a piece of land exactly like your neighbour's and then walking on that instead.
"Are there really that many people, even on Slashdot, that think stealing intellectual property is not wrong?"
I hope so, considering that it's impossible to steal a thought or idea. The most you can do is to copy it and benefit from it.
In fact, I strongly feel that promoting intellectual property is wrong. I'm not looking for an argument with you, just showing you that not everyone thinks as you do.
First off, when the L.A. Times says "sources tell us", it's a little more reliable than your typical rumour site or ZDnet blogger.
Secondly, look at Google's efforts to port stuff like the Google toolbar to Firefox.
Thirdly, look at some of their applications, like Picasa. It uses a completely custom look and widget set, right down to unusual (but quite functional) scrollbars. Presumably, they've built a whole application API that draws and uses these widgets. That's a nice big building block of a custom OS, I think.
If there really is a GoogleOS, it'll offer customers:
1. A spyware and virus-free platform.
2. A cheap Internet/media appliance that very likely Just Works.
3. Worry-free online storage and backup of all documents, email, etc.
4. Seamless desktop-Internet application, where most applications either are already web applications or hook into web applications.
5. A stream of new applications and regular upgrades that are all performed by Google, with no hassle to the user.
"ICANN is making sure that TLDs for countries are controlled by the governments of those countries?
And what is wrong with this?"
The Internet is, at heart, a phenomenon created by the free interaction of hundreds of millions of human beings. People and private companies improve the Internet every year by forming and contributing to standards groups, trade associations, open source software projects, and so on. Had the Internet been kept firmly under government control, it would never have become what it is now.
In many cases, it was individual pioneers and enthusiasts who kick-started the adoption of the Internet in their countries. They set up DNS servers, formed users' groups and so on. Why, barring any serious operational problems, should ICANN snatch their responsibilities out of their hands and hand them over to oppressive regimes that are mostly just interested in censorship and control of communications?
The Internet isn't about governments and the ambitions of the state. It's about people.
I agree. The gauge is neat (thanks to the photo used), but the titling looks like the gaudy, over-textured effects I used to see in books with titles like "Photoshop 3 for beginners". Not that I'm purposely trying to be unkind. I assume that was the best graphic submitted.
Thanks, that's very interesting. I'd only read about the experiment in books until now. And you managed to do it with a consumer CCD, too.
"I've been curious what is the justification for support of: particles are in multiple simultaneous states until measured causing the distributed probabilities to collapse into a definite known state"
The famous double-slit experiment demonstrates the problem very well. Imagine shooting electrons through a wall with two slits. The slits are close enough that each electron, given the vagueness of its exact position, could go through either slit. After going through the slits, the electrons register themselves on a detection screen of some kind.
Well, if you have a sensor at each slit watching to see where the electrons go, they each go through either one slit or the other quite nicely, and they register their impacts on the screen in a nice bell distribution.
However, if you don't check which slit the electrons go through, there is equal possibility of going through both. Therefore, bizarrely enough, they actually *do* go through both slits at once. The detector then records a more complicated ripple pattern of impacts, as each electron's ghostly half interferes with the other half in a wave pattern.
So when we say there are two opposite states existing at once in the quantum world, it is actually true, and the effect is often bizarre. But the state of a particle behaves itself when you decide to "look" at it.
"Alternately, if schroedinger's cat is in an alive/dead superposition in the box, then if the cat experiences a sane and straightforward set of experiences yet the outside-of-box observer claims it to be in an alive/dead combo state, then outside the box observer and inside the box observer's consciousness lines must potentially deviate."
Schödinger introduced the cat just to point out this weirdness. What does the cat see? Is he both alive and dead at once? Does the universe split into two timelines? Adherents of the "Copenhagen Interpretation" would, I think, argue over whether or not the cat qualifies as an observer, and can collapse the quantum randomness on his own.
Another, more intriguing interpretation, is that at last, when you look at the cat and see whether he died or not, your observation propagates a randomness-collapsing wave *backwards in time* that forces the past action of the cat living/dying to resolve itself. There are variations of the double-slit experiment (like measuring the slits after the electron's already through) that reinforce this idea.
Note that I'm not a physicist, and not necessarily good at explaining things.
"Why do they always have to use the atomic bomb as an example of the applications of quantum mechanics?"
;)
It's the only way to get some Americans interested in science.
[obligatory karma-burning acknowledgement goes here]
Why, you jerk! I've only got 50 mbit fibre at home here in Nagoya. ;)
Well said! Regular readers all know that Slashdot, editorially, is fairly mediocre. Awful editing and spelling, frequent duplicate posts, and so on. But it's the moderation system and comments that make it shine. Where else can you read astrophysicists discuss the latest astronomy finding, or professional engineers dissecting the latest technology invention? Thanks to moderation, the best posts rise to the top.
The one time I visited Digg, I found the comments worthless.
"Bluetooth products have to pass a test-suite."
Did Congress pass a law stating that? I'm guessing not.
"Here you attempt to link the cuddly and innocent terms "copying", "sharing", "human culture and advamcent" with acts that break the social contract known as copyright."
:) You may believe as you like, of course.
I didn't agree to your silly social contract.
"Copyright exists for a reason..."
To pad wealthy pockets and protect stagnant business models? Or for political censorship, as was intended with the first copyright laws in England?
"history and economics have shown UNQUESTIONABLY that the notion of copyright... are actually very useful for "human culture and advancement."
Hardly provable and easily questioned. But then, one could argue that for all kinds of unethical laws.
"When somebody downloads music off the internet that they do not have the righs to..."
Again, you just fell for the fallacy that copyright covers receiving or listening to music rather than distribution.
"The fact is that in EVERYWHERE in the world where you are likely to be reading this (except for taiwan), IP laws have been harmonized to the point where the basics are the same."
You haven't travelled much, have you? The laws where I live are very different where I live. No DMCA, no ridiculous 120-year terms, etc.
"I dont know about morality..."
I concede that point.
"Many things are licensed, not sold..."
A license is a writ or contract giving permission to do something that is normally illegal or forbidden. I need no license to buy and use a CD or a book. Your use of the term is simply a common way to pretend that my property belongs to someone else.
I guess you fall for most of the fallacies on my list.
I have no inclination to keep arguing the same thing over and over; but if you're not trolling, please think over what you're saying and see the contradictions.
"If you don't want to have anything to do with copyright, don't buy copyrighted material."
The one doesn't follow from the other. I fail to see how coming into possession of material, either by gift or through purchase, morally beholds me to restrict my usage or sharing of that material. I have agreed to no such restrictions.
Imagine some country passed a law saying everyone who learned to read had to convert to a particular religion - backed by coercive punishment, of course. That would be a stupid and immoral law. And yet, someone could use an exact analog of your argument to say "if you don't want to convert to that religion, you don't have to learn to read."
Well, I don't have to agree to someone's religion to learn to read. And I don't have too agree with copyright to buy a book.
"Like I said, copyright is forced on no one."
This is obviously false; copyright is nothing more than using force against me for sharing my property in a completely voluntary, non-violent manner. If you want to stop me from peacefully sharing a song with a friend, you must initiate force to do so.
"If copyright were abolished, then you would be imposing your views on me, because a system I use would be destroyed"
That's like a plantation owner saying if slavery were abolished, a non-slaver's views would be imposed on him because a system he used was destroyed. Not a very compelling argument.
My system - freedom - violates your rights in no way. Your system severely restricts my completely natural rights to share and communicate.
"[a contractual copyright solution] sounds just like copyright, except without government regulation."
Yes. Voluntary and free-market-oriented.
"I can imagine such copyright would be considerably more restrictive than the one we have today; copyright holders would have little or no incentive to provide the fair use provisions the government does."
The opposite would be true, because copyright would only apply to parties that had explicitly agreed to the contract's limited terms. To get competing publishers and other organizations on board, companies would have every incentive to make the contract as fair and open as possible. Copyright wouldn't, as I said, be applicable for terrorizing the public at large.
Conclusion: even serious copyright and patent apologists recognize that it is based on government coercion and force. It is infantile to pretend it is a non-restrictive set of laws. The general argument in its favour is that the supposed creative incentive is worth the loss of freedom. My argument is that it isn't. The digital age is rapidly taking us to a place where copyright only works if a small oligarchy of corporations or monitor and control everything we do with our computers and our data at all times. That is unacceptable, and I won't have it forced on me.
"Actually, several of premises are actually false, or are putting words in the RIAA's mouth."
:) (that ethics are more important than legal technicalities.) But if you're suggesting that copyright is unethical, I disagree. "
:)
I don't think so, but let's see.
"No one ever said copying and sharing are heinous crimes. Unauthorized copying and sharing of copyright materials is against the law (copyright infringement isn't a criminal act, but it can get you sued)."
I didn't say "all copying and sharing", but it's clear the RIAA/MPAA and Congress are bent on making more and more kinds of cultural sharing criminal acts, where none at all (in my opinion) should be. Laws are coming into being that impose worse penalties for copying than for rape and manslaughter.
"I'm not sure what you meant, so I can't refute it. Please elaborate."
In relation to my post's parent post, I was referring to the fact that the RIAA and its ilk want to equate *distribution* (which is sometimes prohibited by copyright law) with reading, hearing, and seeing said materials.
"most (all?) countries have their own copyright laws."
Many, perhaps most, certainly not all. And most are not onerous or punishing as US laws; yet RIAA apologists constantly make remarks to the effect that anyone in the world downloading some copyrighted music is breaking the law. That's just not a valid assumption.
"I agree with you
Then we disagree.
"Actually, in the world of copyright, this is often true."
"License" is just one term that hides the fact many people (including yourself) want to pervert true personal property with the concept that ideas and data is scarce property. The only way this is practical is if corporations and copyright holders, rather than me, control my computer, my VCR, my TV, and so on. They are working hard to make ownership of many electronics, as well as altering your own equipment, illegal.
"I don't know of anyone who is saying this. It's just as easy for you to copyright your own work as it is for a large company. But given the context here, I'm not sure what's so "creative" about copyright infringement."
Copyright and patents are simply government-enforced monopolies to prevent other people from sharing information. While they are somewhat accessible to individuals, they are most easily wielded by powerful corporations to threaten competitors and customers.
All creative and scientific works in this world build on the work of others. Just look at how a creative movie industry sprang up and thrived in California in defiance of Thomas Edison and his movie camera patents.
"Profits are rarely, if ever, guaranteed, but your wording is rather misleading."
Copyrights are designed these days to protect a business model that wouldn't work otherwise. It's easier for a large company to litigate than to innovate or change.
'By "freedom," you really mean "the right to freely redistribute copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder." '
Yes. I don't believe the right to speech, cultural exchange, and sharing should be arbitrarily abridged. It is a basic human right. Getting the government to hurt people who spread or copy your ideas is not a basic human right. I don't see why protecting one specific business model takes priority over my right to privately exchange ideas and data with my friends.
I believe I have backed up all my points. You disagree with many of them, and I think that's because you have fallen for many of the errors I outlined. You are free to hold such views, naturally. What I wish is not to have those views imposed on me by force.
"And if not, please tell me how *you* think copyright should be enforced."
My own theory is that large publishers and media companies, bilaterally or through trade organizations, should arrange voluntary copyright contracts, settled and upheld by contract law. Such copyright would protect publishing channels quite well without terrorizing customers.
"Though, it is true, what you say about not being required to _EAT_ sugars. Your body will happily produce it's own glucose from protein and fat."
That is, of course, what I meant. There's no need to eat sugar so long as you eat enough protein and fat. (Heck, your body can even make glucose from alcohol.)
This is something most people don't get, and it's a misconception the RIAA/MPAA push as much as possible when they go on about "illegal downloads". They've gone way past the limits on *distribution* that copyright imposes, and they'd like to attack your right to watch and listen to the speech of others at its very core. Their business model can't easily coexist with basic human freedom in the digital age, just as many moguls and kings in the agricultural age couldn't get by without slavery; after all, didn't their incomes depend on it?
To understand the blatantly false statements the RIAA and their shills love to make, you have to see through their numerous incorrect premises:
1. Copying and sharing, the basis of all human culture and advancement, are somehow heinous crimes in the digital age.
2. Seeing something is the same as doing something.
3. The US's laws apply to everyone in the world, and are superior to every other law.
4. Legality is more important than morality.
5. Your property belongs to some corporation instead of to you.
6. Creativity cannot exist without cartels and monopolies.
7. Guaranteed profits are better than freedom.
Every person who advocates for the RIAA and punishing downloaders falls for one or more of these errors. Reject these, and you see the RIAA's legal tactics for what they are: criminal extortion and racketeering. Now that the RIAA gets to teach these awful anti-values to elementary students, however, the future of freedom is in serious jeopardy.
Pimsleur is excellent for getting acquainted with speaking and hearing a language. Two lessons a day will get you through parts I, II, and III in two months, with a natural feel for the grammar and a battery of vocabulary. Buying it outright is a little pricey, but there are a number of online stores that sell used copies and buy them back from you again when you're done. You could also check your local library for Pimsleur CDs. Put it on your iPod and you're good to go.
Pimsleur isn't enough, though. I highly recommend the following:
1. One or more language-teaching books, including a travel-oriented book with simple phrases and conversations.
2. Some actual comics or magazines you can read.
3. A real-live speaker of the language who can give you lessons and conversation practice once or twice a week. Refuse to speak English with this person if possible.
4. Use your new language as much as possible. Read and post on Spanish-language forums and blogs with topics that interest you.
5. A determined attitude. Learning a new language well is extremely hard, but anyone who works hard enough can do it. Take pride in every accomplishment you make along the way. In the end, it'll make you a better, more complete human being.
I'm currently slogging through Japanese myself. Gambatte, ne!
I've always have extreme difficulty keeping my weight down in spite of exercise and a "balanced" diet. When I hit 230 lbs and realized I was a good candidate for diabetes, I began a low carb diet. It worked pretty well for over a year, and I lost about 20 pounds. I'm pretty positive my body was somewhat insulin resistant, and a low-carb diet was the first diet that ever made me feel healthier.
Then I decided to let it slide for a while as I made a big shift in my life and moved abroad. For two months I reverted to my old eating habits: lots of bread, and too much sugar (including products with too much fructose). In the space of those 2 months, I started gaining weight, getting sick, having vision problems, and so on. I got back on the low-carb kick, and I'm growing healthy again. I've also lost another 18 pounds in three months, just thanks to a good diet and some daily walking or biking.
If you have a poor metabolism or suspect you're insulin-resistant, I can't say enough good things about the Atkins diet. You feel better and more energetic too, without the carb-induced blood sugar highs and lows that can lead to physical and mental malaise. Sugar is intended for our bodies to be a source of emergency energy, not a food staple. Fats, proteins, vitamins, amino acids, and minerals are essential for life; starches and sugars are not.
You're confusing Liberals with liberalism. Most informed Canadians, at least as far as I can tell, understand liberalism to be closer to its classic meaning of more freedoms. The Liberal party, on the other hand, has drifted well left of centre politically (but continues to be regarded as a centrist party because of the existence of extreme-left parties).
I live in Japan, and as I have noticed, this is the custom. Even if a Japanese individual isn't personally responsible for an error, he will do his best to apologize and make amends if he was involved. It's very unlike the modern Western legal client, where people are paranoid of being held liable for mistakes.