Information that "doesn't want to be free" is the kind that doesn't give anything meaningful to humanity at large or the kind that bring me to some harm if released. If the information in question doesn't pass this test then it's okay to keep it secret. What porn I bought yesterday is not really of interest to anybody except me and therefore, under my model, this information is best kept secret. Other secret information, like passwords, credit-card numbers and social security number are outright danger to me if they are released to the public
Okay, but what about personal information that CAN benefit mankind?
For example:
Cameras posted everywhere in the UK have been extremely helpful in capturing terrorists (in the past and recently).
If all your information (birth date, SSN, Blood Type, etc) was contained on a single device (chip, card, etc.), this could greatly increase the speed with which you could be identified (this helps with crime, health care, and others).
If everyone was required to give a DNA sample and fingerprint, this would increase the speed with which crimes are solved.
I believe the issue is much greyer than your rule makes it.
Sure, it's about legitimate technical questions, but the fact remains that throwing in abortion, partisan politics, and the death penalty, is a clear case of someone intentionally trying to turn a technical discussion into a long, off-topic discussion. If that's not flamebait, I don't know what you think _is_ flamebait.
I can't judge his intentions, especially since I don't personally know him, but it seemed to me that the basis of the article was about having two opposing ideas in your head.
I was actually just thinking about this the other day, but maybe in a different vein. I think his examples could have been better, but that's doesn't mean his intention was to start a flame war.
So far (knock on wood) the only flaming I've seen has been people flaming him for posting flamebait. Got sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy going on.
I thought this was "news for nerds", not "political drivel in article descriptions".
Since the post is about something that is technology heavy (information, privacy), I think it is entirely relevent to "nerds". Not all "news for nerds" has to be about the latest video card or a debate on Windows v Linux.
Besides, you can easily bypass the "political drivel" by not clicking the link.
It sounds like we won't be exploring Mars until we have a population of would-be explorers that is 1) worse off here than in space, 2) led by a captain with a penchant for the lash, and 3) drunk off their arse.
The problem with this is that if you don't have a foundation, you'll collapse as soon as your crutch gives out. I don't want to be on a roller-coaster at an amusement park that was designed by someone whose calculator was the only reason he got through physics. Sometimes you've just GOT TO KNOW stuff... and all they're learning is how to punch the correct buttons.
I don't know how roller coasters are designed, but I imagine there is a great deal of CAD involved as well as virtual testing. I don't care how much the designer knows about physics, as long as the design has been tested. The company however, may be more concerned as it could affect their bottom line if the design goes through an entire process and is poorly thought out.
We USians talk about foreign students who can speak 3 or 4 languages and complain about our kids who can't speak 1... but I've watched these people who need lessons in grammar, punctuation and spelling receive excellent grades in ADVANCED ENGLISH. That's what makes me sick. IMHO If you're going to get credit for an advanced course, you should be able to accomplish the tasks related to this course.
But this isn't something that is specific to this generation. The US has never been a breeding ground for brilliance. All you have to do is look at our culture to realize we do not value education or thoughtful ideas. We value money-making ideas. So basically I agree with you, but don't think stupidity was invented by this generation...
It used to be that the "top of the class" was the person who worked the hardest in school. Now it's just whoever gets the highest grade.
How would you measure who works the hardest? The valedictorians in my HS (way back when) were judged on grades and extra-curricular activities (cheerleading, student government, yearbook committee, etc.). It had little to do with hard work.
Bottom line... our "National report card" or whatever it's called says we're doing better than ever, but it's not because the kids are learning more. It's because we don't have the balls to fail kids who don't make the cut. We herd them through the system and give them grades that help our statistics more than they help the kids' education.
I think the kids today are much smarter than the ones I grew up with in the 80's. We (Americans) are still near the bottom of the barrel when stacked up against other countries, but I think we are better off than 20 years ago.
I also think there are forces in this country (everyone get out your tin foil hats) that don't want the masses to become to intelligent...
Right on! Ask the average high school senior to do long division with a multiple-digit divisor. They CAN'T do it. They have to break out their calculator for stuff like 675/25. This, my friend, is pitiful.
I don't think you know what you are talking about. I work with high school children regularly and they are not nearly as stupid as you say here. I agree that they rely heavily on calculators and computer, but so what. I doubt there are a whole lot of people on boats out there that use celestial navigation...
As for verbal scores, have you read any essay written by a high-school student within the last 4 years or so?
A don't recal the kids in my high school (class of '88) being much better. In fact, most of the adults I know could use lessons in grammer, punctuation and spelling.
It's sickening that this kind of crap takes place... I could write better, I could do more advanced math, I did better in almost every field we had in common, but I challenged myself instead of taking the easy road. Wonder what kind of message that sends to those coming up behind us...
You sound a little bitter. You made your choices and he made his. If he didn't want to challenge himself, that's his burden. Did you do it to challenge YOURSELF or to prove you were better than OTHERS?
Violence against unwilling, innocent victims is one thing.
I am a little confused here. Are you saying the animated characters in GTA are unwilling, innocent victims?
Teams lining up on a football field to play each other is totally different, since they voluntarily participate.
I think you missed the point. They are both games that encourage aggressive behaviour. One encourages it against other living breathing beings and another encourages it against pixels. Also, I should point out that few football players volutarily get tackled or have their knees shattered. In fact, from what I understand about the game, the best way to win is to NOT get violence visited upon you.
The article tries to illustrate the rediculousness of the whole idea, not the violence of football.
The reason is that assembling to call the government to task for the wrongs they've done is instantly reclasified as rioting and pillaging.
Obviously you've forgotten the 60's. There were a great number of peacful protests that did not lead to the police bashing peoples skulls, therefore your assertion is false. It happens (Kent state), but it isn't the rule.
Boston tea party. A bunch of guys rioted and pillaged to decry the wrongs of the government.
The Boston Tea Party wasn't exactly a riot, all accounts I have read say it was remarkably peaceful.
Rodney King verdict riots. A bunch of people rioted and pillaged to decry the wrongs of the government.
This was a bad reaction and I wouldn't blame the police for using riot control tactics here.
How about the WTO protests in Seattle that were broken up with rubber bullets and tear gas? Were they causing property damage? Were they pillaging?
The answer to both questions is yes.
And then of course there's all the pillaging that was going on in Tiananmen square.
A serious abuse of power by the Chinese government and not comparable.
Whenever you have a government force putting down "riots", you better take some time to figure out why so many people are so god damned upset. Calling them a bunch of pillagers is moste definately missing the point.
Just because a bunch of people get together, doesn't mean they are there for good reason. Ever hear of Lynch Mobs? Soccer riots? Woodstock II?
While your comments are insightful and this is a neat idea, Expose will always be faster. And I'm not talking about performance. Picture this, you need to move a file to another folder, but wait that folder is two layers below your current level. You'll have to fold back two windows to get there! Now imagine having to fold 5 or more folders. Since Expose can show you all your windows with one action it wins hands down.
Did you watch the demo? You can fold all 5 windows at once, just like pieces of paper. You grab the window right above the one you want and fold it, the ones above fold as well.
What gets me is the game has been out for a while and the government was only mildly concerned with the violence and mayhem. Hell, games where the main objective is to kill everything in sight have been around for a while. But as soon as there is some nudity or sexual situation, the government freaks out.
I am saddened by the message this sends. okay kids, be good little soldiers and kill things, but for the love of God, don't do anything that involves your nasty bits.
Maybe they are, maybe they are not (regardless of whether or not the actions to fulfill the need are legal or not). Whether something is a need or not depends on the individual involved.
What need exactly is being fulfilled by someone downloading the latest FPS? I think the problem is that people have forgotten the difference between needs and desires.
As far as defining needs, I think is is perfectly logical to say that people don't need the latest PC games/software.
After reading several of the reports and articles, my impression is; the British are a very strong people (probably from years of this kind of thing; not to mention WWII).
One of the reports I read had quotes from someone who was on the bus. He was bleeding from his ear. His comment was that others were much worse off.
Not to insult Americans (especially since I am one), but we don't seem to handle tragedy with nearly the grace or strength that our brothers and sisters across the ocean.
My hopes and best wishes go out to everyone over there...
How would labeling programming art improve programming?
Whenever I hear the question "Is _____ art?" I want to cringe. These are labels used to catagorize things or actions, they don't actually change what the thing or action is.
Shakespeare summed it up the best:
That which we call a rose By any other word would smell as sweet.
What he has done is ultimately a favor to microsoft.
I don't think MS was the only company affected by this jack-hole's worm. If I met him in RL, I'd punch him square in the face and then get arrested for assaulting a minor I imagine...
If he did not do it, someone else would have.
Luckily the legal systems of most countries don't use this logic...
According the Swedish laws on "fair use" you have the legal right to make backup copies of your CDs/DVDs for personal use, and even give copies away to your closest friends.
Ah, I am ill-informed on Swedish law. How do they define "closest" friends?
You have to use legal definitions when defining crimes. Dictionary.com would get thrown out of court. If you look up theft in a legal dictionary you find that it is taking someone else's personal property without consent and with intention to convert it to the taker's use (i.e. if you took something on accident it wouldn't be theft)
Actually we are having a philisophical discussion. If this were a discussion of legality, I would just say it is illegal and that would be that.
When two human beings (i.e. non-lawyers) talk to eachother, they don't talk in legal definitions.
BTW, sorry for the slam on lawyers. I know there are a few who aren't evil...
So if you are a haliburton employee and you are against the war in iraq you should be fired?
I am willing to bet that if they were a recognizable person at Haliburton and went on a national television show expressing anti-war views, they would be looking for new employment. Especially if they are at-will (at-will employment can be terminated without reason).
If you are a govt employee and you are against the war in iraq or you publicly state that you think George Bush is an idiot and a religious fundamendalist zealot you should be fired?
Goverment employees are a whole different thing, you can't really reasonably compare them to private employees...
You have just stated that it's OK for employees to fire people for holding an opinion contrary to the opinion of the "corporation". That is a ridiculus assertion. I hope to got this guy sues the hell of out them.
He wasn't fired for having that opinion; he was fired for sharing that opinion on national television. Since it is a technology company, I imagine he is not the only person at the company that has that view.
Take means to remove an item from one position to another.
He took home the book from the library (the library is now deprived of a book)
She takes a poster from the pile (the pile of posters is now smaller)
Take does not mean to remove an item from one position to another. If it meant that, you wouldn't be able to take a picture, take a look or take a break . You also wouldn't be able to take a breath as that would keep someone else from taking a breath.
Considering there are 33 definitions on dictionary.com, take is a flexible word...
The first definition:
To get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice
So if we go by that it doesn't have anything to do with removal, only with aquisition.
You're exactly right. Morality aside (i.e., I'm not condoning piracy), download is not stealing, because you are not taking anything away from someone.
Steal means to take without permission. It has nothing to do with depriving someone of something nor is it limited to physical objects, it describes the act of taking without permission.
Take means to get into ones possesion.
Therefore, if you bring a piece of copyrighted material into your possession without permission, you have stolen it.
Especially when this analogy is bad. In "Les Miz" terms, what we have here is the relentless cop going after the guy for baking a loaf that copied someone else's load, and then eating this new loaf he baked.
Wasn't my analogy...
In fact it was my questioning of a previous faulty analogy...
I don't think you can make an anology drawing together "Les Miserables" and software piracy. Software pirates are not fulfilling a need in their law-breaking...
The term "pirate" when applied to copyright infringement first appeared to denote publishers who didn't pay the authors. They were likened to high sea pirates because they intercepted some of the money that the author could have received, like pirates who intercept goods in transit
Source?
This speech seems to use the term pirate to describe people infringing on copyrights.
Can't we get past the semantics? I recal in my early days of computer usage (mid 80's) people who copied software illegally (I was among them) relished being called pirates. The local pirate BBS made many references to pirates and the guy who ran the place went by the alias Redbeard the Pirate...
One of the biggest bittorrent sites out there is called Pirate Bay...
If fair use does die, it will be the fault of software/movie/music pirates. It's because of all the copying going on out there that the various industries are making it harder and harder for me to make a personal backup copy or a copy on my HDD for streaming throughout my home.
Not being covered in the constitution is not the same thing as unconstitutional.
I wouldn't distribute non-copyright-able information and expect profit, would I?
If you are the only person mass-producing it then yes. People buy stuff they can get for free all the time. Especially information.
If I were to make money from creation and authoring in a world without copyright, I would do it in a completely different model where I am paid for my time or for customizations for my software.
And who pays you and your team of developers? Who decides what your time/effort is worth?
You are not hurting anyone by copying anything. You may be breaking their assumption of holding exclusive copying rights, but if you recognize that copyright is an illegal and immoral law - then that assumption is ill-founded in the first-place.
In todays world, in the real world where we all live; it does indeed hurt people. It increases the amount of money I have to pay for software and it makes it difficult for smaller companies to compete as they don't have the resources (time/money) to protect their software.
If someone allows me to use their idea or knowledge with specific instructions on what I can or cannot do with it, then I am bound by an honor and moral code to follow those instructions if I want to use it.
We see and expect this type of behaviour all the time in forums and newsgroups and even here where there is a system in place to try to reign in people who can't follow the rules.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't judge his intentions, especially since I don't personally know him, but it seemed to me that the basis of the article was about having two opposing ideas in your head.
I was actually just thinking about this the other day, but maybe in a different vein. I think his examples could have been better, but that's doesn't mean his intention was to start a flame war.
So far (knock on wood) the only flaming I've seen has been people flaming him for posting flamebait. Got sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy going on.
Since the post is about something that is technology heavy (information, privacy), I think it is entirely relevent to "nerds". Not all "news for nerds" has to be about the latest video card or a debate on Windows v Linux.
Besides, you can easily bypass the "political drivel" by not clicking the link.
I don't know how roller coasters are designed, but I imagine there is a great deal of CAD involved as well as virtual testing. I don't care how much the designer knows about physics, as long as the design has been tested. The company however, may be more concerned as it could affect their bottom line if the design goes through an entire process and is poorly thought out.
But this isn't something that is specific to this generation. The US has never been a breeding ground for brilliance. All you have to do is look at our culture to realize we do not value education or thoughtful ideas. We value money-making ideas. So basically I agree with you, but don't think stupidity was invented by this generation...
How would you measure who works the hardest? The valedictorians in my HS (way back when) were judged on grades and extra-curricular activities (cheerleading, student government, yearbook committee, etc.). It had little to do with hard work.
I think the kids today are much smarter than the ones I grew up with in the 80's. We (Americans) are still near the bottom of the barrel when stacked up against other countries, but I think we are better off than 20 years ago.
I also think there are forces in this country (everyone get out your tin foil hats) that don't want the masses to become to intelligent...
I don't think you know what you are talking about. I work with high school children regularly and they are not nearly as stupid as you say here. I agree that they rely heavily on calculators and computer, but so what. I doubt there are a whole lot of people on boats out there that use celestial navigation...
A don't recal the kids in my high school (class of '88) being much better. In fact, most of the adults I know could use lessons in grammer, punctuation and spelling.
You sound a little bitter. You made your choices and he made his. If he didn't want to challenge himself, that's his burden. Did you do it to challenge YOURSELF or to prove you were better than OTHERS?
I am a little confused here. Are you saying the animated characters in GTA are unwilling, innocent victims?
I think you missed the point. They are both games that encourage aggressive behaviour. One encourages it against other living breathing beings and another encourages it against pixels. Also, I should point out that few football players volutarily get tackled or have their knees shattered. In fact, from what I understand about the game, the best way to win is to NOT get violence visited upon you.
The article tries to illustrate the rediculousness of the whole idea, not the violence of football.
Obviously you've forgotten the 60's. There were a great number of peacful protests that did not lead to the police bashing peoples skulls, therefore your assertion is false. It happens (Kent state), but it isn't the rule.
The Boston Tea Party wasn't exactly a riot, all accounts I have read say it was remarkably peaceful.
This was a bad reaction and I wouldn't blame the police for using riot control tactics here.
The answer to both questions is yes.
A serious abuse of power by the Chinese government and not comparable.
Just because a bunch of people get together, doesn't mean they are there for good reason. Ever hear of Lynch Mobs? Soccer riots? Woodstock II?
Did you watch the demo? You can fold all 5 windows at once, just like pieces of paper. You grab the window right above the one you want and fold it, the ones above fold as well.
What gets me is the game has been out for a while and the government was only mildly concerned with the violence and mayhem. Hell, games where the main objective is to kill everything in sight have been around for a while. But as soon as there is some nudity or sexual situation, the government freaks out.
I am saddened by the message this sends. okay kids, be good little soldiers and kill things, but for the love of God, don't do anything that involves your nasty bits.
What need exactly is being fulfilled by someone downloading the latest FPS? I think the problem is that people have forgotten the difference between needs and desires.
As far as defining needs, I think is is perfectly logical to say that people don't need the latest PC games/software.
After reading several of the reports and articles, my impression is; the British are a very strong people (probably from years of this kind of thing; not to mention WWII).
One of the reports I read had quotes from someone who was on the bus. He was bleeding from his ear. His comment was that others were much worse off.
Not to insult Americans (especially since I am one), but we don't seem to handle tragedy with nearly the grace or strength that our brothers and sisters across the ocean.
My hopes and best wishes go out to everyone over there...
Does the label "art" really matter?
How would labeling programming art improve programming?
Whenever I hear the question "Is _____ art?" I want to cringe. These are labels used to catagorize things or actions, they don't actually change what the thing or action is.
Shakespeare summed it up the best:
Just write good software and forget about labels.
I don't think MS was the only company affected by this jack-hole's worm. If I met him in RL, I'd punch him square in the face and then get arrested for assaulting a minor I imagine...
Luckily the legal systems of most countries don't use this logic...
Ah, I am ill-informed on Swedish law. How do they define "closest" friends?
Actually we are having a philisophical discussion. If this were a discussion of legality, I would just say it is illegal and that would be that.
When two human beings (i.e. non-lawyers) talk to eachother, they don't talk in legal definitions.
BTW, sorry for the slam on lawyers. I know there are a few who aren't evil...
I am willing to bet that if they were a recognizable person at Haliburton and went on a national television show expressing anti-war views, they would be looking for new employment. Especially if they are at-will (at-will employment can be terminated without reason).
Goverment employees are a whole different thing, you can't really reasonably compare them to private employees...
He wasn't fired for having that opinion; he was fired for sharing that opinion on national television. Since it is a technology company, I imagine he is not the only person at the company that has that view.
Okay, the legal definition of theft is right here (couldn't find steal).
The generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent.
Hmmmm, once again nothing about depriving someone of property only about aquisition...
Take does not mean to remove an item from one position to another. If it meant that, you wouldn't be able to take a picture, take a look or take a break . You also wouldn't be able to take a breath as that would keep someone else from taking a breath.
Considering there are 33 definitions on dictionary.com, take is a flexible word...
The first definition:
To get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice
So if we go by that it doesn't have anything to do with removal, only with aquisition.
Steal means to take without permission. It has nothing to do with depriving someone of something nor is it limited to physical objects, it describes the act of taking without permission.
Take means to get into ones possesion.
Therefore, if you bring a piece of copyrighted material into your possession without permission, you have stolen it.
Sources:
dictionary.com
etymonline.com
Wasn't my analogy...
In fact it was my questioning of a previous faulty analogy...
I don't think you can make an anology drawing together "Les Miserables" and software piracy. Software pirates are not fulfilling a need in their law-breaking...
Source?
This speech seems to use the term pirate to describe people infringing on copyrights.
Can't we get past the semantics? I recal in my early days of computer usage (mid 80's) people who copied software illegally (I was among them) relished being called pirates. The local pirate BBS made many references to pirates and the guy who ran the place went by the alias Redbeard the Pirate...
One of the biggest bittorrent sites out there is called Pirate Bay...
You can see why people become confused...
What exactly does this have to do with fair use?
If fair use does die, it will be the fault of software/movie/music pirates. It's because of all the copying going on out there that the various industries are making it harder and harder for me to make a personal backup copy or a copy on my HDD for streaming throughout my home.
I would hardly equate pirating the latest music movie or game with stealing bread to sustain your life.
Not being covered in the constitution is not the same thing as unconstitutional.
If you are the only person mass-producing it then yes. People buy stuff they can get for free all the time. Especially information.
And who pays you and your team of developers? Who decides what your time/effort is worth?
In todays world, in the real world where we all live; it does indeed hurt people. It increases the amount of money I have to pay for software and it makes it difficult for smaller companies to compete as they don't have the resources (time/money) to protect their software.
If someone allows me to use their idea or knowledge with specific instructions on what I can or cannot do with it, then I am bound by an honor and moral code to follow those instructions if I want to use it.
We see and expect this type of behaviour all the time in forums and newsgroups and even here where there is a system in place to try to reign in people who can't follow the rules.