Talking about "implied social contracts" doesn't change the fact you are making a moral choice to get the sweat off of someone else's brow without giving them anything in return.
Talking about "immorality" doesn't change the fact that they are making an informed choice to give me the sweat off their brow for nothing in return.
In other words any webserver is quite capable of refusing to serve content without advertising. That a company chooses to serve up ad-free content is their decision alone. Whether they do it out of good-will, convenience or just plain ignorance of their own technical capabilities, doesn't make a difference.
Or more succinctly: You can't blame a guy for asking.
If the original photo adds nothing at all to the "essence" of the final work then Fairey shouldn't have needed it in the first place.
It certainly had mechanical value to Fairey's work, but not much more.
Arguing that it had creative value is going to be extremely difficult - very little of the normal creative elements that go into photography exists in the final work - not depth of field, not framing, not color temp, not grain, not exposure, not lighting, not focus, not fine detail. What Fairey has done is the visual equivalent of summarizing an entire book in a couple of paragraphs and then adding his own spin to the reaming skeleton of a story.
"String up the niggers!" in Alabama in the 1950s, and sure enough, the niggers get strung up. "Kill the queers!" and sure enough, the queers get killed.
Complete and utter FAIL.
You might as well be arguing that video games turn children into murderers. The number of times those phrases have been used outnumbers by many orders of magnitude the number of times action has followed the words. Anyone with basic numeracy would be looking for something with a much higher correlation if he wanted to argue for some sort of causation.
First, hate speech is NOT outlawed in most of the world. It's only outlawed in a few western democracies.
Shows what you know. Practically every country in SE Asia has laws restricting speech "to maintain public order" - i.e. don't insult or provoke ethnic group X or you'll end up in jail, just like Sheppard and Whittle.
I'm sorry, but you'll never convince me that "kill the queers" and "string up the niggers" is how we work out our differences peaceably. Peace only comes when we stop using such language.
Of course you'll never be convinced of it, you are deliberately applying tunnel-vision in order to satisfy yourself of your righteousness. Too bad that you choose to ignore the point you can't get past people THINKING "kill the queers" unless there is public debate in response to it.
I'm not arguing for censorship.
Yes you are. Funny how it is that nowadays all the pro-censorship people like to say that they aren't pro-censorship. Kinda like having a black man as a close friend.
Without tolerance there is no hope for peace and good governance.
You can not legislate tolerance. You are arguing that enforcing tolerance is good enough. Deliberately turning a blind eye to the fact that intolerance continues to seeth beneath the surface ready to explode in violence at any time.
Yeah, but how much of that is lost in the brass and overhead? I'd be VERY surprised if the tech actually doing the work (which would be the case with the consultant being hired back) gets anything close to those 100 bucks/h
It doesn't matter what the peon makes - what matters is what the competition charges. That's why going into business for yourself can be so profitable, if your costs are less than your competitors' you can charge market-rate and still make a ton more profit than the competition.
The US is not the most multicultural or well integrated society in the world...
Really? Name two with a broader range of ethnic populations. I expect you want to point to countries like Sweden and Belgium which rate near the top of EU countries for integration but the number of sizable distinct ethnic groups in those countries is tiny compared to the USA.
I've never heard the assertion of societies which allow people "to insult groups" causes better integration into that society. Frankly that is more bogus and trivializing than my flippant characterization of thought crime.
One man's insult is another man's truth. If you don't allow insults then all you do is drive the insults underground where there is no one to rebuke them and thus gain even further legitimacy.
Furthermore, If you think that the public discourse in the United States is some how creating a meeting of the minds or such (and you live in the United States), you are deceiving yourself.
I do and history is on my side. I expected you to make the error of using too small of a timescale.
I suspect that you don't see the inherent contradiction in your example - we are talking about freedom of speech leading to peace and your example is one of state-controlled media leading to violence. That's not free expression, the state promoting one kind of speech is just the flip side of state censorship.
Christianity does nothing of the sort (but it doesn't surprise me that you think so). Next time you think that, however, I'd challenge you to actually read the words of Christ and then say that again.
Christianity does not, but the people preaching in christian churches frequently do. In any religious text there is ample fodder for selective reading and deliberate misinterpretation that the uncritical among the laity (and among the clergy for that matter) will be happy to embrace.
Of course overt hate speech increases violence, are you nuts? Check out history of the partition of India. In many parts of the world violence is always just below the surface, and it only takes one or two unwise remarks in public to trigger rioting.
And his point is that because "hate speech" is outlawed in most of the rest of the world that violence is always just under the surface. Its like forest fires - stopping the little ones is like censorship, but the end result is that the big ones are unstoppable and far more dangerous, just like riots. Communication, no matter how ugly, is how we work out differences before resorting to violence. Prevent people from working out their differences peaceably and it should be no surprise that violence is all that's left.
Your definition of "thought crime" as "muttering to yourself" is completely bogus trivializing.
As for the tolerance of "hate speech" creating a freer and safer society here - the difference between the US and most of the rest of the world is we let it all hang out - the good, the bad and the ugly so that we get public discourse and an eventual meeting of the minds, even if it does take a generation or two and a lot of nasty words to get there. We are the most ethnic and culturally integrated country in the world in part because of that - contrast that to all the states with laws against insulting groups, your immigrants are far, far less integrated into mainstream society.
You can't fight bad words with censorship, only good words in response to bad words can do that. Censorship just takes away the opportunity for someone to respond with good words.
Wow. I don't think you understand what full disclosure is and what they are allegedly advocating.
Nope. He has it right, you have it 100% wrong. The ATM issue is a perfect example. That vulnerability was disclosed to the vendor eight months ago and they haven't done jack shit. Now the threat of full disclosure - to the entire world - has caused the vendor to get an injunction to prevent disclosure. Where is the fix? I still don't see a fix. Under your theory of "full disclosure is just another word for limited disclosure" the vendor would have fixed the problem long ago.
It rarely ever works like that and we have 30+ years of history to prove it - the security industry used to work the way you wish and the results were the same, vendors didn't do shit. The only time a fix comes is when the vendor knows that the only way to stop the script kiddies and all the serious blackhats is to actually fix the problem instead of sitting on it. Without at least the threat of true full disclosure vendors won't fix their problems, they don't have enough of an economic incentive to do so.
Providing the public with a warning that a vulnerability exists is not unethical and neither is providing information to the vendor but providing full exploit information is not only unethical but completely useless to the end user and places them at additional risk.
If I used ImageShack to host important images for (e.g. a lot of people use it for blog images or forums) and someone figured out a way to hack in, I'd want to know about it so I can take steps to protect myself. What if someone uploaded child porn and it appeared on my forum?
Too bad they didn't. Imagine making instant felons out of half the population of the internet. What better way to demonstrate how the laws that criminalize simple possession are absolute bullshit used to make politicians look good instead of requiring the police to focus on crimes that actually hurt children.
Do you want some piece-of-shit convict being able to elect leaders?
Yes I do. Because you know what? They did their time. Your argument is the equivalent of saying that we should never let people out of prison - if the those assholes wanted to be citizens, they "should not have gotten themselves arrested." If they don't like it, fuck-em, they lost the right to live in society when they broke the law.
If anyone needed any proof that Slashdot's moderation system is a failure, here it is. One of the few "+5 Informative" posts, and it's a baseless attack using the words "shill" and "FUD".
The march of technology can be slowed, but not stopped. Eventually this will give us a world without theft.
Hahahahaha. How naive. There will always be theft, the perpetrators will just change their methods in response to changes in technology, it is a never-ending arms race.
With regard to over-the-shoulder power, I bought by first CHIMP in 98. Can't work without it.
I use a clear piece of plastic, like half of a CD case with the insert removed. Stick it on a shelf near the monitor and with the right angle it is just as good for detecting someone behind your back, but since it is not an obvious mirror, they won't know that you know they are there. I've freaked out a number of people with my 'psychic' ability to detect someone standing at the door to my office while looking the other way and with the music blasting on my headphones.
Slashdot Mirror
Talking about "implied social contracts" doesn't change the fact you are making a moral choice to get the sweat off of someone else's brow without giving them anything in return.
Talking about "immorality" doesn't change the fact that they are making an informed choice to give me the sweat off their brow for nothing in return.
In other words any webserver is quite capable of refusing to serve content without advertising. That a company chooses to serve up ad-free content is their decision alone. Whether they do it out of good-will, convenience or just plain ignorance of their own technical capabilities, doesn't make a difference.
Or more succinctly: You can't blame a guy for asking.
If the original photo adds nothing at all to the "essence" of the final work then Fairey shouldn't have needed it in the first place.
It certainly had mechanical value to Fairey's work, but not much more.
Arguing that it had creative value is going to be extremely difficult - very little of the normal creative elements that go into photography exists in the final work - not depth of field, not framing, not color temp, not grain, not exposure, not lighting, not focus, not fine detail. What Fairey has done is the visual equivalent of summarizing an entire book in a couple of paragraphs and then adding his own spin to the reaming skeleton of a story.
Yep, he's self identifying as a "woosh-candidate" for the entire point of Free software.
I've never said one thing in favor of censorship or hate speech laws.
"Hate speech turns it into violence." -- That's not an argument for censorship?
My point is that people who think hate speech has no consequences, or is somehow beneficial, are ignorant of history and current affairs.
So far you've failed to support that claim.
Don't confuse large populations of only a handful of groups with a large number of groups.
"String up the niggers!" in Alabama in the 1950s, and sure enough, the niggers get strung up. "Kill the queers!" and sure enough, the queers get killed.
Complete and utter FAIL.
You might as well be arguing that video games turn children into murderers. The number of times those phrases have been used outnumbers by many orders of magnitude the number of times action has followed the words. Anyone with basic numeracy would be looking for something with a much higher correlation if he wanted to argue for some sort of causation.
First, hate speech is NOT outlawed in most of the world. It's only outlawed in a few western democracies.
Shows what you know. Practically every country in SE Asia has laws restricting speech "to maintain public order" - i.e. don't insult or provoke ethnic group X or you'll end up in jail, just like Sheppard and Whittle.
I'm sorry, but you'll never convince me that "kill the queers" and "string up the niggers" is how we work out our differences peaceably. Peace only comes when we stop using such language.
Of course you'll never be convinced of it, you are deliberately applying tunnel-vision in order to satisfy yourself of your righteousness. Too bad that you choose to ignore the point you can't get past people THINKING "kill the queers" unless there is public debate in response to it.
I'm not arguing for censorship.
Yes you are. Funny how it is that nowadays all the pro-censorship people like to say that they aren't pro-censorship. Kinda like having a black man as a close friend.
Without tolerance there is no hope for peace and good governance.
You can not legislate tolerance. You are arguing that enforcing tolerance is good enough. Deliberately turning a blind eye to the fact that intolerance continues to seeth beneath the surface ready to explode in violence at any time.
Yeah, but how much of that is lost in the brass and overhead? I'd be VERY surprised if the tech actually doing the work (which would be the case with the consultant being hired back) gets anything close to those 100 bucks/h
It doesn't matter what the peon makes - what matters is what the competition charges. That's why going into business for yourself can be so profitable, if your costs are less than your competitors' you can charge market-rate and still make a ton more profit than the competition.
Censorship is censorship no matter who does it, and no western country has more censorship throughout their society than the US.
Really? Berlusconi's empire is far more effective at soft censorship than what goes on here.
The US is not the most multicultural or well integrated society in the world...
Really? Name two with a broader range of ethnic populations. I expect you want to point to countries like Sweden and Belgium which rate near the top of EU countries for integration but the number of sizable distinct ethnic groups in those countries is tiny compared to the USA.
I've never heard the assertion of societies which allow people "to insult groups" causes better integration into that society. Frankly that is more bogus and trivializing than my flippant characterization of thought crime.
One man's insult is another man's truth. If you don't allow insults then all you do is drive the insults underground where there is no one to rebuke them and thus gain even further legitimacy.
Furthermore, If you think that the public discourse in the United States is some how creating a meeting of the minds or such (and you live in the United States), you are deceiving yourself.
I do and history is on my side. I expected you to make the error of using too small of a timescale.
I suspect that you don't see the inherent contradiction in your example - we are talking about freedom of speech leading to peace and your example is one of state-controlled media leading to violence. That's not free expression, the state promoting one kind of speech is just the flip side of state censorship.
Christianity does nothing of the sort (but it doesn't surprise me that you think so). Next time you think that, however, I'd challenge you to actually read the words of Christ and then say that again.
Christianity does not, but the people preaching in christian churches frequently do. In any religious text there is ample fodder for selective reading and deliberate misinterpretation that the uncritical among the laity (and among the clergy for that matter) will be happy to embrace.
Of course overt hate speech increases violence, are you nuts? Check out history of the partition of India. In many parts of the world violence is always just below the surface, and it only takes one or two unwise remarks in public to trigger rioting.
And his point is that because "hate speech" is outlawed in most of the rest of the world that violence is always just under the surface. Its like forest fires - stopping the little ones is like censorship, but the end result is that the big ones are unstoppable and far more dangerous, just like riots. Communication, no matter how ugly, is how we work out differences before resorting to violence. Prevent people from working out their differences peaceably and it should be no surprise that violence is all that's left.
Your definition of "thought crime" as "muttering to yourself" is completely bogus trivializing.
As for the tolerance of "hate speech" creating a freer and safer society here - the difference between the US and most of the rest of the world is we let it all hang out - the good, the bad and the ugly so that we get public discourse and an eventual meeting of the minds, even if it does take a generation or two and a lot of nasty words to get there. We are the most ethnic and culturally integrated country in the world in part because of that - contrast that to all the states with laws against insulting groups, your immigrants are far, far less integrated into mainstream society.
You can't fight bad words with censorship, only good words in response to bad words can do that. Censorship just takes away the opportunity for someone to respond with good words.
Wow. I don't think you understand what full disclosure is and what they are allegedly advocating.
Nope. He has it right, you have it 100% wrong. The ATM issue is a perfect example. That vulnerability was disclosed to the vendor eight months ago and they haven't done jack shit. Now the threat of full disclosure - to the entire world - has caused the vendor to get an injunction to prevent disclosure. Where is the fix? I still don't see a fix. Under your theory of "full disclosure is just another word for limited disclosure" the vendor would have fixed the problem long ago.
It rarely ever works like that and we have 30+ years of history to prove it - the security industry used to work the way you wish and the results were the same, vendors didn't do shit. The only time a fix comes is when the vendor knows that the only way to stop the script kiddies and all the serious blackhats is to actually fix the problem instead of sitting on it. Without at least the threat of true full disclosure vendors won't fix their problems, they don't have enough of an economic incentive to do so.
Providing the public with a warning that a vulnerability exists is not unethical and neither is providing information to the vendor but providing full exploit information is not only unethical but completely useless to the end user and places them at additional risk.
Without the threat of true full disclosure, nothing ever comes of limited disclosure.
If I used ImageShack to host important images for (e.g. a lot of people use it for blog images or forums) and someone figured out a way to hack in, I'd want to know about it so I can take steps to protect myself. What if someone uploaded child porn and it appeared on my forum?
Too bad they didn't. Imagine making instant felons out of half the population of the internet. What better way to demonstrate how the laws that criminalize simple possession are absolute bullshit used to make politicians look good instead of requiring the police to focus on crimes that actually hurt children.
Say, $100/hr, 100 hours minimum? Oh. That much?
That's peanuts. Look at what the professional services organizations of places like IBM and HP charge for high-quality engineers - ~$300/hr to start.
Do you want some piece-of-shit convict being able to elect leaders?
Yes I do. Because you know what? They did their time. Your argument is the equivalent of saying that we should never let people out of prison - if the those assholes wanted to be citizens, they "should not have gotten themselves arrested." If they don't like it, fuck-em, they lost the right to live in society when they broke the law.
If anyone needed any proof that Slashdot's moderation system is a failure, here it is. One of the few "+5 Informative" posts, and it's a baseless attack using the words "shill" and "FUD".
Dunno if the shill accusation is true or not, but by their own admission (bottom of the page), Microsoft is a client of Redmonk.
neither can ex-cons and felons in most states.
Actually, it is only 11 states that restrict ex-cons from voting. And it is extremely wrong-headed to make that restriction because it breeds an unrepresented underclass.
Last I checked, putting everyone in jail will prevent them from stealing.
Do you seriously think theft doesn't occur in jail too?
The march of technology can be slowed, but not stopped. Eventually this will give us a world without theft.
Hahahahaha. How naive. There will always be theft, the perpetrators will just change their methods in response to changes in technology, it is a never-ending arms race.
This is not an invasion of privacy
You are right. People use cell phones voluntarily.
But nevertheless it is a LOSS of privacy which is what the ACLU is complaining about.
'The cost of carrying a cellphone should not include the loss of one's personal privacy,' said Catherine Crump, a lawyer for the ACLU."
But what if it is an iPhone?
Put it in a faraday cage - aka box lined with tin-foil.
With regard to over-the-shoulder power, I bought by first CHIMP in 98. Can't work without it.
I use a clear piece of plastic, like half of a CD case with the insert removed. Stick it on a shelf near the monitor and with the right angle it is just as good for detecting someone behind your back, but since it is not an obvious mirror, they won't know that you know they are there. I've freaked out a number of people with my 'psychic' ability to detect someone standing at the door to my office while looking the other way and with the music blasting on my headphones.