I think that the difference is more than slight, and on a more fundamental
No, there is no difference, certainly not anything fundamental. "Capitalism which is closely regulated by the state" is a contradiction in terms. An economy regulated by a state is a socialist one. Sure, social democrats are not pure Marxists, but that's besides the point. They are a type of socialist, just as Marxists and Trotskyites are types of socialists.
It matters not that social democrats see socialism as a tool to be used toward some goal. You have merely shown them to be Machiavellian socialists. What matters is that they deny individuals the right to be unmolested by the government.
As another poster mentioned, libertarians are for liberty. That means libertarians support property rights. In order to support property rights, one must deny copyright, as copyright is the denial of the property owner's right to the use of his own property. To put it simply, you are full owner of your pen and paper and you have the right to do with them whatever you want. Noone who denies that can be a libertarian ("in the US" was irrelevant).
No, they are people. Not merely legally, but literally. They have rights and they vote. I don't mean the corporation (i.e. collection of assets) which is owned by people, but the owners themselves. Forbidding them to produce a certain thing is indeed a violation of their rights.
But unless the House page discussing the bill is failing to mention something fairly fundamental, this bill doesn't do that. The bill wouldn't affect end users. It doesn't take away the user's right to modify a phone to not make a sound.
Sure, not yet. You have to realize that state oppression comes in steps. It's been like this throughout history. First they outlaw the manufacture. (As an [important] aside, there is a false dichotomy implicit in your argument. Manufacturers are people; as such, they have rights. Their rights are violated by laws forbidding them to manufacture certain types of items or forcing them to include certain "features" in items they produce.) The public accept this because they see it as not "directly" affecting them. Also, many don't really know what's going on. Many notice that camera phones recently have started clicking, but they think maybe companies that make the phones just started adding that as a feature. They think it's just another fashion, the next stage in the development of the technology. Some, of course, hear word of some government regulation, but most just let it pass, forget all about it. They have other things to do, life to attend to.
The next stage is inevitable. Some Congressman points to an example of some pervert doing something wrong with a modified (or pre-click) phone and proposes outlawing the possession of non-clicking camera phones by consumers. After all, their manufacture was outlawed for a reason. No one in Congress can deny that. Years have passed and it is reasonable to expect that anyone other than a pervert or a crook would have upgraded his phone to the compliant clicking variety by now. So the argument goes. Anyone who buys a new phone and modifies it is clearing trying to circumvent the law and is hence, by definition, a criminal. Congress passes the bill outlawing possession and again, very few people notice or care, largely because they already have clicking camera phones, so how does this affect them, anyway?
You sir, are exactly right, and this is the kind of tactics that the state has been using for years. The more trivial laws the pile on the books, the greater their ability to pick any individual for any reason and find some "law" that that person has violated. And the public will accept it. Juries will convict. After all, "it's the law".
You're exactly right about the money not being "real". Then again, paper "money" isn't any more real either. The guy is still a thief though, if he did actually use the info to steal money from people's accounts, even if they do hold only fake money. As robbing banks is wrong, finding a "safer" way to do is of course still wrong, but the punishment should be proportionate to the crime.
How about making the punishment actually fit the crime? I've always thought the most just crime for theft is not prison, but as stated in the Bible, "if the thief be found, he shall restore double". Most importantly, the victim actually gets compensation for what was stolen, plus some for his trouble. This is a just compensation which actually benefits the victims of a crime. Far more so than locking the guy in jail, especially for a crime which is not imminently violent, is.
Sure, for every accusation of left-wing bias, you see at least three comments by Libertarians. But actual left-wing bias is far more common than accusations of such. Explicitly pointing it out every time would be redundant. For every comment by "extremist Libertarians", I see at least 10 comments by leftists and 20 comments by statists of one sort of another (they're all the same).
I agree with you that the liberal bias on slashdot is no more (actually less) than that on the mainstream media, but that's only because of the extreme degree of such bias on the mainstream media.
Now back to your assertion about "extremist Libertarians". I've made the accusation of leftish bias. Please quote (with links) "at least three comments by extremist Libertarians about how people who can't afford health care somehow don't deserve it". Thanks. Aside from the Christian position of wishing everyone well and contributing via charity even though no person truly "deserves" good, I have not seen this position made in serious debate. Far more common from libertarians is the position that everyone would have better health care (and everything else) without government and for those who could not afford health care of their own, private charity would be much more abundant due to generous individuals having twice as much money as otherwise with which to contribute to the well-being of the less fortunate.
My binder was in my backpack, and she went into my backpack to take it. Is that legal?' Besides the issue with private property invasion, which was the trigger of that post, there is much more important question: Can a teacher ask a student not to retain knowledge? How does IP law relate to teaching and sharing knowledge? Whose property are those notes?"
That is not a more important question than violation of property rights. If she took your notebook without your permission, she stole from you. Very easy answer. The notebook is your property.
So instead of using a legitimate term like 'theft', call it "Intellectual Property" piracy to make it sound like a less legitimate claim? No way. It is theft.
There are different ways of measuring, each of which have a different effect on the particle. When measuring an electron, you can orient your measuring device at any of three different perpendicular angles. The angle at which you measure affects the probability of the entangled particle registering at the (opposites of) that angle and the other two angles.
See here.
The one part of that conclusion I don't get (and I've seen it several times to this point in the thread) is this: Why can't it relay binary information? If I entangle them, separate them, then either DO or DO NOT measure the first, and then measure the second, won't that tell me if the first one was measured or not?
The 'two' are really one system. If you measure the second, you will get the value of the second. From this, you will also know the value of the first, in essence measuring it at the same time. The values of both will be "collapsed". You won't know whether the first had already been measured, because whether it had been or not, all you get by measuring the second is its value. Not the meta-information 'has-been-measured-before'.
Yes, you definitely can NOT control the state. All you can do is measure the unknown state, find out what it is; and the other end will see the same state when it measures. Which of course tells you nothing of use (no information).
Actually, the other end will see the opposite state. But it's the same information-wise.
Slashdot Mirror
It's quite simple. You don't have an absolute right to a job with that employer. You do have a right to live.
Consider the spectrum as such:
I would, were your analogy not so absurd.
I think that the difference is more than slight, and on a more fundamental
No, there is no difference, certainly not anything fundamental. "Capitalism which is closely regulated by the state" is a contradiction in terms. An economy regulated by a state is a socialist one. Sure, social democrats are not pure Marxists, but that's besides the point. They are a type of socialist, just as Marxists and Trotskyites are types of socialists.
It matters not that social democrats see socialism as a tool to be used toward some goal. You have merely shown them to be Machiavellian socialists. What matters is that they deny individuals the right to be unmolested by the government.
The fruits of one's labor are not rightfully guaranteed by denying another of the fruits of his. Now pay up on those consulting fees.
As another poster mentioned, libertarians are for liberty. That means libertarians support property rights. In order to support property rights, one must deny copyright, as copyright is the denial of the property owner's right to the use of his own property. To put it simply, you are full owner of your pen and paper and you have the right to do with them whatever you want. Noone who denies that can be a libertarian ("in the US" was irrelevant).
If the president would like to speak to the American people, why not choose something not affiliated with any company.
You mean... like Akamai?
No, they are people. Not merely legally, but literally. They have rights and they vote. I don't mean the corporation (i.e. collection of assets) which is owned by people, but the owners themselves. Forbidding them to produce a certain thing is indeed a violation of their rights.
But unless the House page discussing the bill is failing to mention something fairly fundamental, this bill doesn't do that. The bill wouldn't affect end users. It doesn't take away the user's right to modify a phone to not make a sound.
Sure, not yet. You have to realize that state oppression comes in steps. It's been like this throughout history. First they outlaw the manufacture. (As an [important] aside, there is a false dichotomy implicit in your argument. Manufacturers are people; as such, they have rights. Their rights are violated by laws forbidding them to manufacture certain types of items or forcing them to include certain "features" in items they produce.) The public accept this because they see it as not "directly" affecting them. Also, many don't really know what's going on. Many notice that camera phones recently have started clicking, but they think maybe companies that make the phones just started adding that as a feature. They think it's just another fashion, the next stage in the development of the technology. Some, of course, hear word of some government regulation, but most just let it pass, forget all about it. They have other things to do, life to attend to.
The next stage is inevitable. Some Congressman points to an example of some pervert doing something wrong with a modified (or pre-click) phone and proposes outlawing the possession of non-clicking camera phones by consumers. After all, their manufacture was outlawed for a reason. No one in Congress can deny that. Years have passed and it is reasonable to expect that anyone other than a pervert or a crook would have upgraded his phone to the compliant clicking variety by now. So the argument goes. Anyone who buys a new phone and modifies it is clearing trying to circumvent the law and is hence, by definition, a criminal. Congress passes the bill outlawing possession and again, very few people notice or care, largely because they already have clicking camera phones, so how does this affect them, anyway?
You sir, are exactly right, and this is the kind of tactics that the state has been using for years. The more trivial laws the pile on the books, the greater their ability to pick any individual for any reason and find some "law" that that person has violated. And the public will accept it. Juries will convict. After all, "it's the law".
You're exactly right about the money not being "real". Then again, paper "money" isn't any more real either. The guy is still a thief though, if he did actually use the info to steal money from people's accounts, even if they do hold only fake money. As robbing banks is wrong, finding a "safer" way to do is of course still wrong, but the punishment should be proportionate to the crime.
How about making the punishment actually fit the crime? I've always thought the most just crime for theft is not prison, but as stated in the Bible, "if the thief be found, he shall restore double". Most importantly, the victim actually gets compensation for what was stolen, plus some for his trouble. This is a just compensation which actually benefits the victims of a crime. Far more so than locking the guy in jail, especially for a crime which is not imminently violent, is.
As opposed to the 2007 before that? Or next 2007?
Hey, it helps to clarify. Didn't you study the Botnet Wars of 2007 BC in history class?
I agree with you that the liberal bias on slashdot is no more (actually less) than that on the mainstream media, but that's only because of the extreme degree of such bias on the mainstream media.
Now back to your assertion about "extremist Libertarians". I've made the accusation of leftish bias. Please quote (with links) "at least three comments by extremist Libertarians about how people who can't afford health care somehow don't deserve it". Thanks. Aside from the Christian position of wishing everyone well and contributing via charity even though no person truly "deserves" good, I have not seen this position made in serious debate. Far more common from libertarians is the position that everyone would have better health care (and everything else) without government and for those who could not afford health care of their own, private charity would be much more abundant due to generous individuals having twice as much money as otherwise with which to contribute to the well-being of the less fortunate.
Given the well-known leftish bias of slashdot posters, your post is not surprising.
It was nice while it lasted.
When do we get to decide how our money is spent?
There, fixed the link for you.
It would be a violation of anyone's rights, no just a man with Asperger's syndrome. Hey, all government is a violation of human rights.
My binder was in my backpack, and she went into my backpack to take it. Is that legal?' Besides the issue with private property invasion, which was the trigger of that post, there is much more important question: Can a teacher ask a student not to retain knowledge? How does IP law relate to teaching and sharing knowledge? Whose property are those notes?"
That is not a more important question than violation of property rights. If she took your notebook without your permission, she stole from you. Very easy answer. The notebook is your property.
So instead of using a legitimate term like 'theft', call it "Intellectual Property" piracy to make it sound like a less legitimate claim? No way. It is theft.
There are different ways of measuring, each of which have a different effect on the particle. When measuring an electron, you can orient your measuring device at any of three different perpendicular angles. The angle at which you measure affects the probability of the entangled particle registering at the (opposites of) that angle and the other two angles. See here.
An Explanation of Bell's Theorem
The one part of that conclusion I don't get (and I've seen it several times to this point in the thread) is this: Why can't it relay binary information? If I entangle them, separate them, then either DO or DO NOT measure the first, and then measure the second, won't that tell me if the first one was measured or not?
The 'two' are really one system. If you measure the second, you will get the value of the second. From this, you will also know the value of the first, in essence measuring it at the same time. The values of both will be "collapsed". You won't know whether the first had already been measured, because whether it had been or not, all you get by measuring the second is its value. Not the meta-information 'has-been-measured-before'.
Yes, you definitely can NOT control the state. All you can do is measure the unknown state, find out what it is; and the other end will see the same state when it measures. Which of course tells you nothing of use (no information).
Actually, the other end will see the opposite state. But it's the same information-wise.
Right, but the transfer of information is still not instantaneous. Just the transfer of the quantum state.
Seems clever, but how do you detect disentanglement?