I never said that it would be easy to determine where the line is drawn. I just said what I thought was right. You have found one of the major problems of anarchism.
I do not need the law or money or anything to motivate myself other than knowing that I am doing my best to help make a positive impact on those I interact with. Some people do need such motivation. Anarchism/socialism are not for those people. Those people should live in a society that has a carrot and stick approach to motivation.
On another note, it is good to hear someone debate the issues rather than start with the OMG COMMUNIST stuff. Civil discussions on/. are few and far between.
Anarcho-socialism. I wouldn't say I agree with all of it, but its as close as I've found.
homeless people should be allowed to break into my house and steal food out of my fridge, possibly killing me in the process.
Yes, if they are on the brink of starvation. I'd hope they'd have the sense to break into a well-off person's house rather than another poor or middle class person's. They have no right to harm you or anyone in your house though. It would only be ethical to take only what you needed to survive in the immediate sense (perhaps a day or so) and do so in a way that minimizes the negative effects on the person you stole from. That is, take the bare minimum you need from someone who would miss it the least.
To say "It's not wrong to steal in order to survive" is a tiny bit less bad, but that still violates somebody else's property rights.
You seem to think that property rights are more important than someone living. I find that sad.
While we're on the topic, I don't even ascribe to the belief in property rights. Being an anarchist, I'm more in tune with the idea of "use rights". Property rights are all too often used to infringe on the rights of others.
The Swedish Pirate Party has launched a commercial, high-capacity darknet, on an unprecedented scale and bandwidth.
Even today, you can route your Bittorrent traffic over Tor or I2P, but its slow as hell. And lets not be coy. The vast majority of people will use this for infringing copyright. That is the difference -- performance.
At this point, you are certainly trolling, but its 4:48 EDT and working 3rd shift at a small private college has left me with little work to do. CHOMP.
So who is going to make new movies, tv programs, books and vidoe games and operating systems then? Nobody, because you just removed their incentive.
You can't really believe that with no copyright that nobody would make any new artistic works. I point to the books, songs, and plays that were made before the advent of copyright. I will also point to Wikipedia, to which people regularly contribute with no expectation that they will recieve anything out of their contributions.
Go read "economics for dummies" to see how capitalism works, or admit to being a communist. Your choice. I'm not insulting you, thats communism, go look it up.
False dichotomy. I suppose you think that our friend dada21 is a communist because he is against copyright. Hint: he's an anarcho-capitalist. In fact, many libertarians believe that copyright is incompatible with the free-market because it involves government intervention. Communism is about communial ownership of property. Since copyright isn't property, communism doesn't come into the discussion.
I agree, but you will find slashdot swamped with people who think they have a 'right' to take your hard work, and cloak this theft under some truly lame argument about 'information wanting to be free'.
In fact, I do have a right to copy and distribute anyone's writings, but the society in which I live gives the creator of those writings a limited monopoly on distribution. This is, in theory, so that he will continue to distribute other writings that will increase the sum total of knowlege when the monopoly has expired. (To be perfectly clear, copyright infringers do not "take work" as that is impossible, but I gathered what you meant)
If your believe you have a right to take anything you need, regardless of your means to pay, i cant see how your not an anarchist or a communist.
I believe all people have the right to take anything they need to live regardless of ability to pay. Oddly enough, I do consider myself a bit of an anarchist and am not ashamed to say it; do not make the mistake of taking my sig for my ideology though -- it is just something interesting I read. Since the topic is copyrighted works, none of which are essential for survival, it is odd that you would say that.
Nobody is born with an inate right to enjoy all episodes of "24" for free.
Just as nobody is born with an innate right to sell episodes of "24" for whatever they wish. You seem to mistake copyright as being a property right. I assure you, it is not. Society has decided it is better for all of us if we give creators that monopoly on distribution that I spoke of. My society (well, politicians) thinks that the life of the author plus 70 years is the length of monopoly best to get people to distribute their works (with the overall goal being the enrichment of the public domain, mind you). I respectfully disagree.
Reminder: copyright infringment is illegal, but not necessarily immoral.
I'm sure the people who wanted to blow up thousands of westerners on planes about this time wouldn't figure out how to use something like this.
They already use something like this. If you were doing something really illegal, like planning to kill thousands of people, would you send it in the mail or speak about it over an unsecure line?
The problem (is it a problem?) with freedom is that people will abuse it. In this case, the right is privacy. If you outlawed crypto for fear of terrorists using it they would just use other methods. It might not be SSL/TLS/etc. but simple keywords. For instance, it could be agreed upon at a meeting that if the heist/bombing/etc. is going to go ahead, I speak to you about my mother. If not, I could speak to you about my father. Simple things that like that is essentally all they'd need to do to circumvent any outlawed crypto. The counter to that is to monitor the communcations of every last person on earth for all time.
Here, I'd hope you'd understand that the solution is worse than the problem. So that terrorists can't use tools that law abiding citizens use, you'd have to totally eliminate privacy and have everyone monitored all the time.
Its funny how freedom of the press was designed to allow for independent criticism of public policy, yet a government-run news service is about the most even-handed news you can get.
Re:What will make KDE the perfect desktop...
on
KDE 3.5.4 Released
·
· Score: 1
I've been thinking about testing Gentoo, so the comment was tongue-in-cheek.
It has its advantages and disadvantages, just like any distro.
Re:What will make KDE the perfect desktop...
on
KDE 3.5.4 Released
·
· Score: 1
That said, I'm still emerging it today.
You might emerge it today, but it will be done sometime next week.:-)
I had a friend who worked at a gas station (in Ohio). Whenever someone bought alcohol, he had to have another employee come over to the register and physically press the key for an alcoholic beverage purchase since he was not allowed to do so. He was able to take the money and make change from the till, but he couldn't press that key.
I believe Michael Badnarik had the best idea. Namely, seperating the state instiution of marriage from the religious instiution of marriage.
1) If you would like to get married, go to your church, temple, mosque, etc. Since we have freedom of religion and a seperation of church and state, your church can marry you and whomever (or whatever) you'd like to marry. 2) If you would like the benefits that the state provides to a couple that is more or less a family, then you can go down to the courthouse and get a civil union certificate, which doesn't depend on any such religious ceremony you went through. The state should recognise the joining of any two people because of the 14th amendment.
Perhaps its just me, but I don't understand why some people are for homosexual civil unions, but not homosexual marriage, even when they are functionally the same. To me, marriage implies a religious ceremony, and no one has seriously advocated that church X has to marry a homosexual couple.
The only possible snag is if it shuts down some valid copies
That is just the thing. Anyone who uses XP, legal or illegal, that doesn't have WGA installed will have their proverbial plug pulled if they don't install it within 30 days. Currently, I have a valid license to XP (which I don't use). If I used it and refused to use WGA, the plug would be pulled on me. It makes you wonder if MS can get away with this by the terms of their own EULA.
I agree to an extent. But the OP has a point as well. Either way, Microsoft will be decreasing their install base in order to gain a few more legit sales. Expect to see more volume license keys here and there.
This really smacks of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. If they do go through with this, I can see them losing their monopoly status within a few years.
It all depends on what your values are. What are we compromising here?
Although I don't wish to get too far off topic, take my sig for instance. The common objection to mutualism* is that if everyone essentially makes the same wage, everyone will try to do the easiest jobs. This will reward laziness. Of course, it is very plain that this is a valid complaint.
People have similar complaints regarding capitalism. Economic inequality is common. Capitalism as implemented has problems with the rich and powerful being able to essentially buy laws to keep themselves profitable. All social/economic systems are implemented by men, which means that they will not work out according to theory. It just so happens that the most of the people of the world believe that a social market economy is the best way to go.
*Note: I don't necessarily believe in mutualism. It is just in my sig because I found it interesting and worth a bit of study.
I wouldn't take a stance that rejects all ideological positions prima facia. Instrumental pragmatism is just as bad, and in many cases worse.
In fact, I'd go as far as saying that Instrumental pragmatism is an ideological position itself. No ideology is still an ideology. Having no ethics is an ethical system. This is because one must make a choice as to the ideology they will follow (if any).
Slashdot Mirror
I never said that it would be easy to determine where the line is drawn. I just said what I thought was right. You have found one of the major problems of anarchism.
/. are few and far between.
I do not need the law or money or anything to motivate myself other than knowing that I am doing my best to help make a positive impact on those I interact with. Some people do need such motivation. Anarchism/socialism are not for those people. Those people should live in a society that has a carrot and stick approach to motivation.
On another note, it is good to hear someone debate the issues rather than start with the OMG COMMUNIST stuff. Civil discussions on
Yes, if they are on the brink of starvation. I'd hope they'd have the sense to break into a well-off person's house rather than another poor or middle class person's. They have no right to harm you or anyone in your house though. It would only be ethical to take only what you needed to survive in the immediate sense (perhaps a day or so) and do so in a way that minimizes the negative effects on the person you stole from. That is, take the bare minimum you need from someone who would miss it the least.
OS/2 will never be open sourced. AFAIK, Microsoft holds copyrights to some of that code.
You seem to think that property rights are more important than someone living. I find that sad.
While we're on the topic, I don't even ascribe to the belief in property rights. Being an anarchist, I'm more in tune with the idea of "use rights". Property rights are all too often used to infringe on the rights of others.
I was unaware of that. Do you have a link or other citation you could share?
You missed "steak and cheese". :-)
Vi? Real men use ed! After all, it is the standard UNIX text editor!!!
Ed, man! !man ed
An hour? I got down to section entitled "Free as in Freedom" in about 5 minutes.
That, too. :-)
Of course, even if the government could simply wipe crypto off the planet except for themselves, it wouldn't change a thing.
I've regularly been getting pings to pptp.relakks.com in the 150ms range.
This is from Dayton, OH using Roadrunner as my ISP.
If you're going to use this for any sort of interactive application, you may want to look elsewhere.
I believe that it is in the article summary:
The Swedish Pirate Party has launched a commercial, high-capacity darknet, on an unprecedented scale and bandwidth.
Even today, you can route your Bittorrent traffic over Tor or I2P, but its slow as hell. And lets not be coy. The vast majority of people will use this for infringing copyright. That is the difference -- performance.
You can't really believe that with no copyright that nobody would make any new artistic works. I point to the books, songs, and plays that were made before the advent of copyright. I will also point to Wikipedia, to which people regularly contribute with no expectation that they will recieve anything out of their contributions.
False dichotomy. I suppose you think that our friend dada21 is a communist because he is against copyright. Hint: he's an anarcho-capitalist. In fact, many libertarians believe that copyright is incompatible with the free-market because it involves government intervention. Communism is about communial ownership of property. Since copyright isn't property, communism doesn't come into the discussion.
I believe all people have the right to take anything they need to live regardless of ability to pay. Oddly enough, I do consider myself a bit of an anarchist and am not ashamed to say it; do not make the mistake of taking my sig for my ideology though -- it is just something interesting I read. Since the topic is copyrighted works, none of which are essential for survival, it is odd that you would say that.
Just as nobody is born with an innate right to sell episodes of "24" for whatever they wish. You seem to mistake copyright as being a property right. I assure you, it is not. Society has decided it is better for all of us if we give creators that monopoly on distribution that I spoke of. My society (well, politicians) thinks that the life of the author plus 70 years is the length of monopoly best to get people to distribute their works (with the overall goal being the enrichment of the public domain, mind you). I respectfully disagree.
Reminder: copyright infringment is illegal, but not necessarily immoral.
The problem (is it a problem?) with freedom is that people will abuse it. In this case, the right is privacy. If you outlawed crypto for fear of terrorists using it they would just use other methods. It might not be SSL/TLS/etc. but simple keywords. For instance, it could be agreed upon at a meeting that if the heist/bombing/etc. is going to go ahead, I speak to you about my mother. If not, I could speak to you about my father. Simple things that like that is essentally all they'd need to do to circumvent any outlawed crypto. The counter to that is to monitor the communcations of every last person on earth for all time.
Here, I'd hope you'd understand that the solution is worse than the problem. So that terrorists can't use tools that law abiding citizens use, you'd have to totally eliminate privacy and have everyone monitored all the time.
They don't even have to go that far.
Since copyright is government-granted, there is no reason why they can't simply recind the copyright for whatever reason they wish.
And after hearing it a grand total of 4 times, I'll never again say that the BBC is government run, but government sponsored. :-)
Its funny how freedom of the press was designed to allow for independent criticism of public policy, yet a government-run news service is about the most even-handed news you can get.
I've been thinking about testing Gentoo, so the comment was tongue-in-cheek.
It has its advantages and disadvantages, just like any distro.
I had a friend who worked at a gas station (in Ohio). Whenever someone bought alcohol, he had to have another employee come over to the register and physically press the key for an alcoholic beverage purchase since he was not allowed to do so. He was able to take the money and make change from the till, but he couldn't press that key.
I believe Michael Badnarik had the best idea. Namely, seperating the state instiution of marriage from the religious instiution of marriage.
1) If you would like to get married, go to your church, temple, mosque, etc. Since we have freedom of religion and a seperation of church and state, your church can marry you and whomever (or whatever) you'd like to marry.
2) If you would like the benefits that the state provides to a couple that is more or less a family, then you can go down to the courthouse and get a civil union certificate, which doesn't depend on any such religious ceremony you went through. The state should recognise the joining of any two people because of the 14th amendment.
Perhaps its just me, but I don't understand why some people are for homosexual civil unions, but not homosexual marriage, even when they are functionally the same. To me, marriage implies a religious ceremony, and no one has seriously advocated that church X has to marry a homosexual couple.
That is just the thing. Anyone who uses XP, legal or illegal, that doesn't have WGA installed will have their proverbial plug pulled if they don't install it within 30 days. Currently, I have a valid license to XP (which I don't use). If I used it and refused to use WGA, the plug would be pulled on me. It makes you wonder if MS can get away with this by the terms of their own EULA.
I agree to an extent. But the OP has a point as well. Either way, Microsoft will be decreasing their install base in order to gain a few more legit sales. Expect to see more volume license keys here and there.
This really smacks of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. If they do go through with this, I can see them losing their monopoly status within a few years.
It all depends on what your values are. What are we compromising here?
Although I don't wish to get too far off topic, take my sig for instance. The common objection to mutualism* is that if everyone essentially makes the same wage, everyone will try to do the easiest jobs. This will reward laziness. Of course, it is very plain that this is a valid complaint.
People have similar complaints regarding capitalism. Economic inequality is common. Capitalism as implemented has problems with the rich and powerful being able to essentially buy laws to keep themselves profitable. All social/economic systems are implemented by men, which means that they will not work out according to theory. It just so happens that the most of the people of the world believe that a social market economy is the best way to go.
*Note: I don't necessarily believe in mutualism. It is just in my sig because I found it interesting and worth a bit of study.