You could use a PC to commit crimes. In fact you could use almost anything to commit a crime. The basic principle of justice is that you're innocent until proven guilty, and as an innocent there's no reason you should be treated as a criminal.
The government has no business performing security checks on passengers.
If passengers wish secure flights, the airlines will provide security checks, different airlines might even offer different security levels to cater from the person in a rush to the paranoid.
What if someday, I went to the doorstep of a DHS officer and start requiring every one entering, including his friends and family to strip naked, out of security concern for him. What if, even worst, I decided to charge the service to him, by threatening to put him in jail if he doesn't pay for the service or comply with the security checks. Hey I'd be arrested.
The government is doing the exact same thing and guess what : they're just a bunch of people. They are not different from other people. Just because they're elected by a majority and have a nice nametag saying "Hi, I'm from the government" doesn't really give them super-moral powers. If a normal person is not allowed to do something, there's no reason people from the government should.
With a monopoly on law enforcement, it is natural that the quality of enforcement lowers and the price rises. I mean... if everyone is forced to buy your security services, you're going to charge for anything. Hey why not protect people from nail clippers in airplanes ! Good !
What !? Speed is not the benefit, it's the drawback ! CPUs are order of magnitude faster than cellular processes. What you gain from biology is cheap scalability, but certainly not raw speed.
While I do think patent shouldn't exist, I make the difference between more or less legitimate patent waiving and wouldn't call a drug company a "troll". I still feel Opera falls in the troll category when it comes to antitrust, especially considering firefox marketshare.
The point is that it's illegal to use a monopolistic position in one market to gain share in another. It doesn't matter how big the share in that other market is.
So ?
We can debate whether that should be illegal or not, but Opera is not trolling.
How is it different from using the patent system? To me they're both lame people who try to whine to the government to further their end instead of focusing on their product.
After all, are people really suggesting that IE is a much better browser than Firefox? Or would they say it's only more popular because it's bundled with Windows?
For most people IE is much better than firefox because you don't need to download it.
If we're talking trolls, it sounds more to me like people having an automatic anti-Opera reaction, which seems to always happen here on Slashdot for some unknown reason.
For what it's worth, I think Opera is a better browser than Firefox.
Who is microsoft abusing exactly ?
What this shows is that some do a very good browser and some go whining in courts. We have patent-trolls, I suggest to call Opera an anti-trust-troll.
Re:Honest question
on
Hacking Asus EEE
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Why not make laptops break after a month then, they'd sell even more laptop!
A laptop that is easy to upgrade is worth more to the consumer, so you could sell it for more by pointing out you won't need to buy another laptop. Why doesn't it happen ? In a way it does, there are laptop manufacturers that produce these kinds, but they are not really popular, they're a bit bloated etc.
I think laptops are going to diverge between a desktop replacement that you can easily carry - transportables, and those will come with standardized hardware, and ultra-portables where people won't care about the upgradability enough to sacrifice weight or volume.
But the point is, the argument from planned obsolescence works only if the consumer is unable to think mid-long term (which is different from *caring about long term*). Used car sell for much less than new cars so they seem to have that ability.
This is a false dilemma. Artists have no such rights other than those they are granted by the state in this matter. That is because copyrights have always been justified by consequentialist arguments.
As I said, I believe it shouldn't, but that's beside the point:)
Either the musician has control over the information he produces or not, if he does it's not a question of "compensation" but of volition. Should the artist's will be enforced or not for filesharing that's the only question. I believe it shouldn't, but that's beside the point.
To put it another way, either copyright is right or it's wrong. If it's wrong then there compensation should be forcefully required, if it's right then the artist would be deprived of his rights with this kind of scheme.
Either file sharing is intrinsically legitimate or it's not. If it is, then there is no reason to impose this $5 tax, it it is not, then introducing any form of compensation won't make it right either.
Ok I see what you mean. Yes this is a very sad thing and you are right, many people tend to shy away from responsibility and point at other people. We shouldn't give in to these unfair accusations. Unfortunately, if the group of scapegoats is small enough, majority rule often destroys justice. If people cared a little more about themselves rather than other people, they would not join in. Freedom comes with responsibility, you cannot have one without the other.
Oh come on; if one of your family members was given a vaccine and a weekly later developed some severe disease and died (even if they were already dying!), you would again go with the "deliberate malevolence" argument and probably sue someone
No I wouldn't. I am a principled person.If you think this is a common behavior then it's no wonder we are ruled by an immoral bunch of criminals.
Sssshh, don't you know the FDA is here for the common good ? Moreover since we only exist as part of a society we have to accept its rules and its laws and beside it's all chosen by the majority vote so you can't complain. Now shut up, pay your taxes, don't forget to vote and be a good citizen.
I am sincerely sorry for your father, it's very sad that his tragedy is made even worse through deliberate malevolence. The regulators truly deserve the harshest punishment for their actions, unfortunately they'll probably never get it.
This is correct. You'll admit it's a long shot from "microsoft is tha evil monopoly it forces me to support buggy software". Besides Microsoft cannot not be held responsible for the government's actions.
Slashdot Mirror
You could use a PC to commit crimes. In fact you could use almost anything to commit a crime. The basic principle of justice is that you're innocent until proven guilty, and as an innocent there's no reason you should be treated as a criminal.
The same can be said for almost anything, a car, a truck, a computer...
The government has no business performing security checks on passengers.
If passengers wish secure flights, the airlines will provide security checks, different airlines might even offer different security levels to cater from the person in a rush to the paranoid.
What if someday, I went to the doorstep of a DHS officer and start requiring every one entering, including his friends and family to strip naked, out of security concern for him. What if, even worst, I decided to charge the service to him, by threatening to put him in jail if he doesn't pay for the service or comply with the security checks. Hey I'd be arrested.
The government is doing the exact same thing and guess what : they're just a bunch of people. They are not different from other people. Just because they're elected by a majority and have a nice nametag saying "Hi, I'm from the government" doesn't really give them super-moral powers. If a normal person is not allowed to do something, there's no reason people from the government should.
With a monopoly on law enforcement, it is natural that the quality of enforcement lowers and the price rises. I mean... if everyone is forced to buy your security services, you're going to charge for anything. Hey why not protect people from nail clippers in airplanes ! Good !
Look at C++, they broke backwards compatibility with C ( malloc casting for example ) and because of that it never became mainstream.
What !? Speed is not the benefit, it's the drawback ! CPUs are order of magnitude faster than cellular processes. What you gain from biology is cheap scalability, but certainly not raw speed.
While I do think patent shouldn't exist, I make the difference between more or less legitimate patent waiving and wouldn't call a drug company a "troll". I still feel Opera falls in the troll category when it comes to antitrust, especially considering firefox marketshare.
So ? We can debate whether that should be illegal or not, but Opera is not trolling.
How is it different from using the patent system? To me they're both lame people who try to whine to the government to further their end instead of focusing on their product. After all, are people really suggesting that IE is a much better browser than Firefox? Or would they say it's only more popular because it's bundled with Windows?
For most people IE is much better than firefox because you don't need to download it.
If we're talking trolls, it sounds more to me like people having an automatic anti-Opera reaction, which seems to always happen here on Slashdot for some unknown reason.
For what it's worth, I think Opera is a better browser than Firefox.
1. In Soviet Russia, Linux runs beowulf cluster of swarming robots (which I for one welcome) 2. What could possibly go wrong ? 3. ...
5. Profit
Who is microsoft abusing exactly ? What this shows is that some do a very good browser and some go whining in courts. We have patent-trolls, I suggest to call Opera an anti-trust-troll.
Why not make laptops break after a month then, they'd sell even more laptop!
A laptop that is easy to upgrade is worth more to the consumer, so you could sell it for more by pointing out you won't need to buy another laptop. Why doesn't it happen ? In a way it does, there are laptop manufacturers that produce these kinds, but they are not really popular, they're a bit bloated etc.
I think laptops are going to diverge between a desktop replacement that you can easily carry - transportables, and those will come with standardized hardware, and ultra-portables where people won't care about the upgradability enough to sacrifice weight or volume.
But the point is, the argument from planned obsolescence works only if the consumer is unable to think mid-long term (which is different from *caring about long term*). Used car sell for much less than new cars so they seem to have that ability.
Why webkit over khtml ? To avoid the irony ?
There is no such thing as a collective agreement, there are only unanimous agreements. Besides, there are many indie artists too.
As I said, I believe it shouldn't, but that's beside the point
Either the musician has control over the information he produces or not, if he does it's not a question of "compensation" but of volition. Should the artist's will be enforced or not for filesharing that's the only question. I believe it shouldn't, but that's beside the point.
To put it another way, either copyright is right or it's wrong. If it's wrong then there compensation should be forcefully required, if it's right then the artist would be deprived of his rights with this kind of scheme.
At least I'm glad someone got the freakin point. Deontology ftw.
Compensation has nothing to do with it because there can be no "fair" compensation, the value is subjective.
Either file sharing is intrinsically legitimate or it's not. If it is, then there is no reason to impose this $5 tax, it it is not, then introducing any form of compensation won't make it right either.
about 2.10^-8 Newton per steradian
(4100/683/c)
Kill all humans !
Ok I see what you mean. Yes this is a very sad thing and you are right, many people tend to shy away from responsibility and point at other people. We shouldn't give in to these unfair accusations. Unfortunately, if the group of scapegoats is small enough, majority rule often destroys justice. If people cared a little more about themselves rather than other people, they would not join in. Freedom comes with responsibility, you cannot have one without the other.
No I wouldn't. I am a principled person.If you think this is a common behavior then it's no wonder we are ruled by an immoral bunch of criminals.
Sssshh, don't you know the FDA is here for the common good ? Moreover since we only exist as part of a society we have to accept its rules and its laws and beside it's all chosen by the majority vote so you can't complain. Now shut up, pay your taxes, don't forget to vote and be a good citizen.
I am sincerely sorry for your father, it's very sad that his tragedy is made even worse through deliberate malevolence. The regulators truly deserve the harshest punishment for their actions, unfortunately they'll probably never get it.
Best hypothesis I read so far.
Yes, thanks to the Kchroot utility
This is correct. You'll admit it's a long shot from "microsoft is tha evil monopoly it forces me to support buggy software". Besides Microsoft cannot not be held responsible for the government's actions.