well, quite. my point however, was that the production of of a snuff pic is predicated on the commission of a heinous crime, and for that reason society has deemed such images to be, at the absolutely very least, in bad taste and not worth of protection. This is of course the difference between crimescene photos one might see on something awful and say a pic posted by the killer from said crimescene. One gets left up, and one should rightfully be taken down and investigated.
I'm not sure what definition of "censorship" you're using, but I know that if I were in, say, China and published a pro-Falung Gong website, they'd call it illegal but most everyone else would call it censorship. And by "common parlance" you meant "obfuscated government legalese," didn't you?
I should have been more specific. When i think of images being removed or blocked, i think of my own experiences, which do not include internet access from any of the world's more repressive regimes. I was mainly attempting to make a distinction between the removal of material that can only be produced by harming and/or exploiting another person (kiddie-porn, snuff pics, etc) and the removal of material that has been deemed 'offensive' by some corporate entity. In the U.S. at least, photos that would be illegal to post would fall into the former, not the latter category. Clearly more repressive regimes will not fit into this scheme, and for that i apologize. I would assume howerver, that the pirate bay will be conforming not to China's or Iran's laws, but to their own, liberal scandanavian ones. I merely meant to say that I really dont give a flying fuck if they keep off the kiddie porn and snuff pics and continue to call it "uncensored." and that anyone who still needs to pick that bone should really fuck off and get some perspective. Hosting picutres of adults fucking small children and hosting torrents of pirated media files are nowhere near the same ballpark. Both illegal? clearly. Both same level of transgression on either moral or legal grounds? Fuck No. Again, get some perspective.
Making images illegal is censorship in any parlance.
In this case, society by and large has decided that the damage done by child porn is a greater harm than the damage done by the censorship of it.
No its not censorship in any parlance. First definition in the dictionary? Obviously. But in general, in my experience, censorship has an implicitly negative connotation and is used primarily to refer to those restrictions of speech or other expression(s) that society has not deemed to be more damaging than would be caused by restricting them. I hardly see how restricting the posting of kiddie-porn or snuff-pics runs justifies the "OMG that's still teh 3vil cens0rship!!!1!" response from/. get some perspective.
The file-sharing the pirate bay enables is considered illegal, but they continue as part of a "no, this isnt illegal," statement. And they should.
Censoring out illegal content from a photo-hosting site is an entirely different animal. Here illegal content doesnt take the form of conscientious objectors standing up for end-user rights in a draconian sector of civil law, illegal content takes the form of photos of people being abused, assaulted, and worse. Posting a picture from a publicly available autopsy, or crash-scene should be legal; posting a pic of you killing someone shouldnt be, and I'd hardly call it censorship if PB doestn want to host kiddie-porn and snuff pics.
Restricting images for legality is different than censoship in the common parlance. censored for appropriateness of content, or type of image, or anything else that the various previously existing hosting site censor for is an invasive filtering that goes a level above simply saying, "hey please dont upload anything illegal." And given what the pirate bay does, i think we can safely assume that they're concerned less with the minutae of libelous or offensive images than not going to jail as part of a kiddie-porn ring. saying "we're going to censor your images so we dont go to jail" is totally ok in a way that saying "we're going to censor your images for things we dont like" is not.
Hrmmm.... legally purchased OS X? check. Legally free downloaded oss browser? check. ok I guess i meet those requirements. Now, in reply: clearly your focus on software pirating is misplaced. Microsoft isnt bringing this suit mentioned in TFA, and the MPAA sure doesn't give a fuck about pirated windows. I'm sure if you asked them to comment they would deplore all copyright infringement as being one and the same and all evil, blah blah blah blah blah. But what they really care about is their bottom line. And i can respect that. Its not that I dont think they should make money. Its mainly that i think their business model is antiquated in a digital age and they're retarded for trying to criminalize their customers by legislating it into perpetuity. For a long while after the Napster bust, i refused to download music anymore. Didnt want to get caught, didnt want to steal, yadda yadda yadda. But then I realized that my music has massively stagnated, i hadnt been to any shows of bands I didnt know personally in 3 years, and that was rather absurd. So i rethought it. I download now. I download a good bit. I also throw music away if I don't *really* like it. And i use those downloads as a guide for shows i go see. There was an interview on the Onion AV Club recently with Redman. He basically said that he couldnt give a fuck about his record deal because his albums existed solely to get people to his shows, where he made all his money. I can definitely respect that, but the RIAA doesnt get a cut of that cash, so even though their members may not individually be put out by downloading, the bureaucracy itself is, so they go litigious. And thats bullshit. I realize this was a suit by the MPAA, but I dont download movies. I've got netflix for things i want to watch once, and I like havign the boxes of movies i keep, and despite having a rather large TV, nothing beats a big fucking theater for the proper first-viewing of a good film. Or an awesomely bad film with rat effects.
Yes, you RTFAed. But you didn't RTFP. Spreading misinformation is a mistake. Correcting posters who realize that it is misinformation when you do not understand the basic facts is irresponsible. I will not keep this information to myself, and you've earned the public embarrassment that's upset you so.
I heartily encourage you to continue correcting misinformation. I am not suggesting that you keep any information to yourself. I'm not embarrassed at all. I am perfectly comfortable being corrected when I'm wrong. Expanding my understanding of the world is one of my reasons for being here. My remark about keeping it to yourself was merely to say that you were not conducting yourself as someone interested in, A. constructively furthering the debate, or B. sharing you specialized knowledge of the area with others, which if I'm not mistaken, is one of the purposes of this little community. You told me to that I was stupid and should shut up, so i returned that you were an asshole and should shut up. Seems like fair turn-around to me. Have a problem with me talking out of my ass? Display a little golden-rule action and enlighten me rather than calling me a patent-n00b.
I prosecute and litigate patents for a living. Your bluster concerning my ability to "muddle through a patent application" does not cure your error. Neither does your reliance on "TFA," which is egregiously wrong, nor does your reliance on the summary, which is also egregiously wrong.
It was not a bluster, I figured you probably were a patent attorney. It was merely pointing out that doing so is not my strong-suit. You have a problem with that? Fine. Have a problem with me reading TFA and commenting on the subject based on what i read? Fuck Off. Try explaining why TFA was in error before you go off ripping people to shreds simply for agreeing with analysis you feel is in error. Considering how many posts get modded +5 informative and start with "I'm to lazy to RTFA, but..." Your stance on my acceptance of TFA is not just unfounded, but a total dick move. You're a patent attorney, I'm not, clearly, but that doesnt entitle you to flame-powers just because you're in the field. I'm an environmental scientist, but I dont go around ripping open everyone who says stupid shit like "hybrid cars are the silver bullet that will save the environment." I calmly explain why they're wrong. We're a group of nerds here, but nerds with vastly differing areas of nerddom. Show a bit more respect for your fellows.
If any single one of those conditions is not met, your engineered organism is not covered by the patent. There is nothing that requires you to strip any genes out of your organism unless you're trying to engineer a minimalist organism which simultaneously falls within those 5 criterion.
Thankyou, that actually was a significantly better explanation of what's going on than in either of the linked articles. I do understand what you were trying to say earlier, and yes, TFA is rather off base. Dont you think it would have been easier to just post that first, and say, uh, no this is what's going on here? I do. But then you wouldnt have gotten that nice rush from getting to slam someone online.
You've said "this is in effect trying to patent the single foundation of an entire emergent field." Yep. You gain that privilege when you create the field. The PCR reaction used in practically all DNA work was patented as US Patents 4,683,195, 4,683,202 and 4,965,188. The junction transistor was patented as US patent 2,569,347. Biology and electronics both survived and flourished.
I assume you've been reading/. for a while, based on your user #... are you surprised that someone here would be opposed to the locking up of something like this in proprietary IP? You... shouldnt be. Obviously that's how our system works, but I think that's kinda fucked up. I will assume you feel differently, though I d
Well, patent attorney i may not be, but RTFA i did, so you can take your arrogant "knowing the mere basics" bullshit and shove it.
TFA did mention very specifically that this patent application was for the minimum genes necessary for life. Now while in the specific instance, they are merely trying to patent the genome of this single microbe. But given their stated intentions to use that then as the building block for engineering other single-celled organisms by simply dropping in the necessary genes, this is in effect trying to patent the single foundation of an entire emergent field.
The project, which began in the early 2000s, was partly a philosophical exercise: to help define life itself better by identifying its bare-bones requirements. But it was also fraught with commercial possibilities: if one could reliably recreate a standardized, minimal life form, other useful genes could be added in as needed for various purposes.
For instance, "If we made an organism that produced fuel, that could be the first billion- or trillion-dollar organism," said Venter in the June 4 issue of Newsweek magazine. The scientists based the design on the bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium, in which they had identified an estimated 265 to 350 core genes required for life.
This sounds to me very much like they are specifically aiming to patent this particular organism to own the ip on the genes necessary for life. Not sure that it would really fucking matter too much if i had this brilliant little microbe designed that didnt infringe on their patent, since those 39 genes I'd have to axe would be fucking necessary for life. This is what i mean when i say 'trying to patent synthetic life'. Now you as the apparently patent-law savvy individual that you are, at least I'm assuming you'd have to be savvy to give code citations anyone with an internet connection could find, may have some further insight into why this patent doesnt say this, and I'm certainly interested to hear what these are. And I'm sure you'll deliver them in the same *cough* polite fashion as your contention that my previous thoughts were bullcrap.
Though you do clearly have grasp on the mere basics of patent law, your ability to discuss the implications of said patents are bullcrap. I'm happy for you being able to muddle through a patent application, i really am. But merely saying 'no the patent actually says X' in response to 'the patent implies Y' isnt really a meaninful thing to add. So unless you're going to do so without being a dick, why dont you just keep it to yourself?
Granted, however it reads as though it seeks to cover any and all future synthetic life as well. By defining terms in such a broad fashion, they leave little room for others to follow, regardless of methodology. And that's bullcrap.
I feel like there should be some bad chat/leet speak in there though, to really hammer home how stupid of an idea it is.
like, "We OWNz teH tUbes!!!!1!" or something.
At the very least this fails obviousness test until they have methodology. Like they were the first people ever to have the idea to make a synthetic organism that reproduces and propagates itself through a genetic code. Given that's how natural life works, seems like a bit of a no brainer.
I hope the patent is rejected with a "DUrrrrrr" stamp on it.
Uh, doesnt that seem rather overbroad? I mean, there's nothing about methodology, just 'we own any synthetic life.'
What utter bullshit. Why dont they try to patent nonsynthetic life while they're at it?
Re:In other words, taxes exist to harm rich people
on
Internet Tax Imminent?
·
· Score: 1
Taxes got cut once. No one starved.
If you're referring to Reagan or Bush the 1st, and you think no one starved during those years, you're even more deluded and ignorant than previously indicated. Social programs were left unfunded across the board, and people definitely did starve.
I think that more-or-less completely summarizes your position.
Once again, I will ask you to find a mode of argumentation that doesnt involve the quoting out of context for the straw man. If you cant defend your own position without resorting to such bullshit rhetoric, maybe you should just stop.
Take without end, without need, without sympathy, without compassion, without regard to right and wrong, without thinking of the consequences, without the intrusion of reality, without dealing with what works and what doesn't, and even without humanity. Because you want to and because you can.
This is the interesting bit. I would say that it is you, who thinks that preserving your wealth is more important than contributing to a working society, who acts without sympathy, compassion, regard to right and wrong, and yes, even without humanity. This is clearly the heart of our disagreement. And I dont see any way around it. I think your approach to being a member of society is staggeringly immature and selfish, and is tantamount to sitting around whining "MINE!!!!" like a baby who has lost his rattle.
Your existence detracts from my hope for humanity. If we self-destruct it will be because people like you were too concerned with themselves and what was theirs to think about anything or anyone else.
Re:In other words, taxes exist to harm rich people
on
Internet Tax Imminent?
·
· Score: 1
Why aren't taxes just voluntary? Pay them if you think you're getting a good deal. Don't if you don't. They aren't voluntary because giving people a good deal isn't the goal.
No, they aren't voluntary because its a classic prisoner's dilemma. People wont give because the money everyone else gives should be enough. Also, its not voluntary because its not voluntary. Tautological i realize, but thats what it is. If you had the option to not pay taxes for programs you didnt like, the system would pretty much be fucked. Not fucked like, you'd get to say 'hooray' i get to keep all my money, but fucked, like we wouldnt have roads or a military.
It's clearly analogous. Especially if the receiver votes the money for himself. Does the recipient ever say "thank you"? No. The recipients say "More!!!!". The recipients say the payers are greedy for wanting to keep their own money.
Its not analogous. Because its the bulk of the payers who are voting to be paying. Also, your contentions to the contrary, its not theft. You may not want to be paying, but that's just your problem. And its everyone saying you're greedy, not just the recepients. Because you are, apparently, if you would rather let people starve than pay taxes. I realize that's not the most equitable way of phrasing the situation, but thats what it comes down to eventually, and you clearly dont see that. So, yes, you are greedy for wanting to keep your taxes.
Sympathy is pointless. I would like people to think twice before they steal any more. Not because of sympathy, but because stealing is wrong. The hate campaigns against certain groups are wrong. The appeals to envy are wrong. We can't have a just government or live in peace when hatred and envy are the driving forces.
As opposed to the greed driving yours? Seriously, get the fuck over yourself. Taxes are not stealing. They are standard. Sympathy is pointless... nice. Hate campaigns, appeals to envy... what are you on? We've all got much better things to do than devise new ways to get the government to fuck you out of your money. So we're going to add paranoid to greedy. awesome.
Except they're giving 20% and "you" are giving 50%. And they are going to decide who gets the money -- it's going to be their friends. And some of them are keeping part of the money as a handling fee. And they want more next year. And they hate "you" for not being poor.
Well, if you giving 50% still leaves you with more than the rest of your neighbors combined, i really dont give a fuck. And no, they dont hate you for not being poor, they dislike your attitude of entitlement and justification in allowing greed to be the driving force in your life. They feel no respect or warmth to someone so shallow and cold that he would be more concerned with being thanked than with ensuring that his taxes are spent well.
Yes. 51% of the people vote to pay *a little* themselves and take *a lot* from the other 49%. And the 51% are going to spend the money on things they like, take part of it as a handling fee, and divide up the rest.
fuck. I didnt know we were divying up the rest. Shit, I'm sure I'm owed a few of those mystical Government Checks you were talking about earlier. Because that's *really* how they do it. Divide it amongst themselves personally. Right into the personal bank accounts of the 51%. So we're adding Stupid to your list of paranoid and greedy.
If the taxes weren't so high, we could afford to give more to private charities. Private charities have to compete for contributions. The corrupt ones eventually get found out and the money stops coming in. The same is true for the ones that don't actually help people. And unlike government agencies, private charities can ask for things in return for their help -- like telling the recipients not to be drunk all the time, for an example.
and we come to th
Re:In other words, taxes exist to harm rich people
on
Internet Tax Imminent?
·
· Score: 1
If you don't understand how paying taxes is harmful, you are welcome to pay my taxes for me. Or I can find some other people, and you can pay their taxes for them. No one is keeping you from paying as much extra as you want
I dont understand how, if you're not manageing your money like a complete asshat, paying the appropriate taxes given your income can be harmful, no. And no, I wont pay your taxes, mine are just fine, thank you. Thats the whole fucking point. Each contributing their part.
People like me, on the other hand, are getting ripped off. People like me are getting harmed. We are not satisfied customers. If this was a business, we would take our business elsewhere. But this is the government, and they have guys with guns who will come and get me if I take my tax money elsewhere. And they will kill me if I resist effectively.
Its true, you dont get to take your business elsewhere. Why do you feel so strongly that the greater good isnt worth coughing up a bit more money for? If you dont understand why that is simply basic civic duty in a society such as ours, then I give up.
It's not OK for someone to come to my house and force me at gunpoint to give them money, but it's just fine for them to hire government workers to do effectively the same thing.
Wait, are you honestly saying that receiving welfare or social security is tantamount/analogous to a person of lessened means hiring someone to rob you? Because that's just fucking absurd. Its more like all of your neighbors coming over and saying, hey, we've decided we're giving X% of our income away to others, and you are too. I'm going to go ahead and assume that you're using some hyperbole with the whole theft analogy, because otherwise you're a complete fucking idiot. Taxes are taken with the implicit approval of the people. Implicit in that the laws raising said taxes were passed with their approval, and that hopefully there was no malfeasance or other shenannigans involved in the passing of said laws that would render said laws invalid (contravening the constitution, etc.). Now this isnt to say that you shouldnt campaign to have said laws changed. By all means do. I disagree with you, but whatever. All I'm saying is that the your implication of criminality or at the very least overarching unfairness on general principle is utter bullshit. Some people want to engage in polygamy. They cant. Some people want to eat the dead. They cant. Some people want to park in front of fire hydrants. They cant. You want to pay drastically lower taxes. You cant.
In theory I'm sorry that you feel wronged by your government, but in practice, i'm having trouble mustering much sympathy. You talk about all this harm being done you by the thievery of the government, and the woes of having your money "stolen" and on and on and on. But you dont seem to concerned about the harms being healed with your tax money, and you dont seem concerned about what would happen to those programs in its absence. So yes, I find you to be a selfish jackass. And no, not wanting to be robbed doesnt make you selfish, it makes you rational. Construing the paying of taxes as people robbing you for their own benefit makes you selfish, and its an attitude indicative of the decline of our society.
Re:In other words, taxes exist to harm rich people
on
Internet Tax Imminent?
·
· Score: 1
It's not about being able to afford it. It's about one group of people taking money from another group of people to enrich themselves. It's about taking money from people by force instead of earning it yourself.
I'd hardly call the funding of social welfare programs one group forcibly taking money from another to enrich itself. Though you'll get no argument from me that its rather fucked up that the younguns are paying social security tax that gets directly dispensed to elderly folk who may not necessarily need it. However, I'd rather pay the tax and have that money also be available to those elderly folk who do need it than scrap the thing just because i dont like how my money is being spent. And I'm one of those young, not too well-off wage-earners, so yes, it is my money we're talking about. But I'm ok with it, because its what one does when when one realizes that one is a member of a society and not merely an individual.
By the same token, it's OK to beat up healthy people because they'll be able to recover.
No. You continue to misconstrue what I'm saying instead of actually offering up a reasonable argument. Taxes = beating someone up is a bullshit metaphor. Though you clearly feel that Taxes = Harm, I have stated fairly clearly that i feel differently. As i said, what is harmful in one circumstance, isnt in another. The harm visited upon the poor by regressively large tax burdens is by definition absent when the same or even a larger tax burden is placed upon someone making millions of dollars a year. I feel that the harm comes not from the very act of being taxed but by the tax burden making it impossible to eek out a living. It is of course, this very instance that necessitates the government checks to individuals that you seem to think are so wrong, but apparently you'd like to have it both ways, with the poor being the most harmed, and apparently the most unjustifiably benefitting from their own exploitation. what a crock. Decide which way you'd like to argue it and get back to me.
Indeed it does. But government taxes are taken from an individual. Government checks are written to an individual. The harm is individual. The gains are often individual.
Yes, government spending is sometimes inefficient. But "government checks are written to an individual" is reductionist bullshit. Like you can just get in a line and fill out some forms and ask for "One Government Money Check, please!" You've still not articulated exactly how taxes are harmful, either. If you don't want to fund government, thats fine, but I'm not entirely sure how else its supposed to happen.
Government spending that doesn't result in individual gain tends to be a lot more legitimate. Roads and sewers and the military are among these areas. Subsidized housing, food stamps, welfare, social security, and other personal benefits are just stealing from others for individual personal gain.
Yes, roads and military are good. So the rest should just be axed? We should just leave people homeless and starving on the street? You'll pardon me if I'm a little more concerned with the harm that would cause than the supposed and as-yet unspecified harm some richer experiences from being compelled to subsidize the welfare of his fellow man.
It's interesting how "society" and the "coming together of individuals" are celebrated by someone when the personal benefits he receives outweigh the personal costs he has to pay.
I was kind enough not to assume anything about your socioeconomic status relative to what we're discussing here, and I'll thank you to do me the same kindness. Because 1. its pretty fucking rude, and 2. you're completely fucking wrong. I'm neither a richer nor a welfare cow, and I feel strongly about "society" and the "coming together of individuals" because i think that we should be motivated by more than self-interest. Sure, if i didnt have
not entirely sure I've claimed either to have seen the film or that he's not an asshole, actually.
My point was merely that the MTV article also pointed out some areas where he seemed to be getting the shaft. Like things that *could* be edited out/around. Like the conflicting rendition of how gameplay went down at an exhibition they both attended, or his reasons for not jumping out and meeting a thrown-down gauntlet. All I'm saying is that the film and filmmakers had a very explicit message, one they were ok with broadcasting, "This guy's a dick, and when it comes down to it he sucks at the game now, and this other guy's soo much cooler and is still breaking records." That is an agenda, and when a documentary is that explicitly agenda-ridden, my skepticism flags go up. and I feel justified in that, so just deal with it. And nobody's saying he saves kittens. jesus.
Re:In other words, taxes exist to harm rich people
on
Internet Tax Imminent?
·
· Score: 1
Its not to my "advantage" to consider your point of view shallow. Its just how it strikes me.
I dont see any kind of ethos tieing it together with anything else, just an assertion that taxes = harm/punishment and therefore should be decreased. This ignores why we have taxes in the first place, and emphasizes divisions and the individual rather than society and and the coming together of individuals. Furthermore it is an argument usually proffered by the relatively wealthy (usually, i obviously know nothing of your personal circumstances and would not want to speak whereof i do not know) when they dont want to pay any taxes or are bitching about the "gubbement stealing (their) money."
Now of course I'm not saying that necesarily taxes != harm. because this is how we got into this in the first place. When someone is harmed by their tax burden, I personally think that tax burden should be shifte up the economic ladder to someone who can afford to chip more into the kitty. This is why those in the lower income brackets dont pay federal income tax, or pay very little, and this is why i feel a sales tax is necessarily retrogressive and places an inordinately higher burden on the poor that is justifiable. But the fact that tax on the poor is harmful does not make shifting that tax burden to the rich a shifting of that harm to the rich. The harm part comes from taxing someone who barely has enough to survive in the first place, not from the taxes by themselves.
Re:In other words, taxes exist to harm rich people
on
Internet Tax Imminent?
·
· Score: 1
This sounds familiar, havent we had this debate before, you and I?
To the point, however, no, I'm saying nothing of the sort. Find another way of discussion that doesnt involve a reliance on putting words in other peoples mouths. Its obnoxious.
Taxes exist to fund the government, which exists to serve the people. We may debate the efficacy of said arrangement, obviously. But in an ideal sense, that's what's going down. I personally believe that rich people should pay a higher tax rate than those that are not rich, not as a punishment, but simply because they can. Or, if you insist on your utter bullshit straw-man of "you're saying taxes exist to punish people" then, given that the wealthy can absorb more punishment than can the poor, shouldn't they be asked to do so? I think so.
But basically, i think that taxes are one of the duties of citizenship. There arent many, but one should, to the best of one's ability, inform onesself about the politics of the land so as to make informed decisions when voting, and support, as one's means allow, the government financially so it may function to serve the people.
If you feel punished, that is of course your prerogative. I'm sorry that you do, and i feel it is a rather shallow way of approaching public life, but if that's your bag, fine. But you can just go ahead and shove that Straw Man bullshit right up your ass.
I already pay sales tax on most of my major online purchases... unles Amazon's just fucking me out of that 9.6% or whatever. What's the big fucking deal. If you buy something, and your state has sales tax, you should pay it. I know that Washington sales tax law even has clauses stating that large purchases (over $500 i believe) being purchased elsewhere for *use* in the state are subject to sales tax.
Is there something here I'm jsut totally missing about all this?
Re:In other words, taxes exist to harm rich people
on
Internet Tax Imminent?
·
· Score: 1
there's nothing socialist about it. The affluent person pays a lower percentile tax in a sales-tax scheme than he/she would in even a flat-tax income-tax scheme. Socialism doesnt even enter into. its numbers.
The socialist part comes in whereby the parent was implying that because the rich are *able* to pay more, they should. And if you think this is wrong, than maybe you've missed the overwhelming themes of "duty of privilege" in most of the founding fathers' writings.
Canada "liberated"? It was granted independence in a completely peaceful and orderly process. No shock and awe required.
Actually they withheld cream and sugar when having the British Ambassador over for tea. He was both shocked and awed at the impropriety of it all. No amount of stammering, "Now listen here, old chap, this simply will not do," could conjure up the required accompaniments, and he was forced to telegraph home immediately recommending that such dastardly manners be answered with expulsion from The Empire.
The rest of the world was like, "What the Fuck? Canada just got its independence now? That's stupid, why'd they bother after waiting so fucking long?"
In the film, Billy Mitchell is not portrayed as an asshole. Billy Mitchell is an asshole. The film just portrays him in his natural habitat.
because if its a documentary, then there's no portrayal, just the facts? what a load. He comes off as an asshole in the movie, and as a regular dude in the MTV interview. Truth's probably somewhere inbetween. Also, given that the refs also think the movie was unfair and contrived, maybe there's something to it. yes, they were also criticized. fine. seems like the only one actually talking trash is Wiebe.
Slashdot Mirror
well, quite. my point however, was that the production of of a snuff pic is predicated on the commission of a heinous crime, and for that reason society has deemed such images to be, at the absolutely very least, in bad taste and not worth of protection. This is of course the difference between crimescene photos one might see on something awful and say a pic posted by the killer from said crimescene. One gets left up, and one should rightfully be taken down and investigated.
first line: "No its not censorship in every parlance."
Obviously its censorship in parlances other than that in which i participate, or we'd not be having the disagreement.I dont think it defeats the point at all.
The file-sharing the pirate bay enables is considered illegal, but they continue as part of a "no, this isnt illegal," statement. And they should.
Censoring out illegal content from a photo-hosting site is an entirely different animal. Here illegal content doesnt take the form of conscientious objectors standing up for end-user rights in a draconian sector of civil law, illegal content takes the form of photos of people being abused, assaulted, and worse. Posting a picture from a publicly available autopsy, or crash-scene should be legal; posting a pic of you killing someone shouldnt be, and I'd hardly call it censorship if PB doestn want to host kiddie-porn and snuff pics.
Restricting images for legality is different than censoship in the common parlance. censored for appropriateness of content, or type of image, or anything else that the various previously existing hosting site censor for is an invasive filtering that goes a level above simply saying, "hey please dont upload anything illegal." And given what the pirate bay does, i think we can safely assume that they're concerned less with the minutae of libelous or offensive images than not going to jail as part of a kiddie-porn ring.
saying "we're going to censor your images so we dont go to jail" is totally ok in a way that saying "we're going to censor your images for things we dont like" is not.
laf. if it isn't, it is now.
hilarious
Hrmmm.... legally purchased OS X? check. Legally free downloaded oss browser? check. ok I guess i meet those requirements.
Now, in reply:
clearly your focus on software pirating is misplaced. Microsoft isnt bringing this suit mentioned in TFA, and the MPAA sure doesn't give a fuck about pirated windows. I'm sure if you asked them to comment they would deplore all copyright infringement as being one and the same and all evil, blah blah blah blah blah. But what they really care about is their bottom line. And i can respect that. Its not that I dont think they should make money. Its mainly that i think their business model is antiquated in a digital age and they're retarded for trying to criminalize their customers by legislating it into perpetuity.
For a long while after the Napster bust, i refused to download music anymore. Didnt want to get caught, didnt want to steal, yadda yadda yadda. But then I realized that my music has massively stagnated, i hadnt been to any shows of bands I didnt know personally in 3 years, and that was rather absurd. So i rethought it. I download now. I download a good bit. I also throw music away if I don't *really* like it. And i use those downloads as a guide for shows i go see.
There was an interview on the Onion AV Club recently with Redman. He basically said that he couldnt give a fuck about his record deal because his albums existed solely to get people to his shows, where he made all his money. I can definitely respect that, but the RIAA doesnt get a cut of that cash, so even though their members may not individually be put out by downloading, the bureaucracy itself is, so they go litigious. And thats bullshit.
I realize this was a suit by the MPAA, but I dont download movies. I've got netflix for things i want to watch once, and I like havign the boxes of movies i keep, and despite having a rather large TV, nothing beats a big fucking theater for the proper first-viewing of a good film. Or an awesomely bad film with rat effects.
I heartily encourage you to continue correcting misinformation. I am not suggesting that you keep any information to yourself. I'm not embarrassed at all. I am perfectly comfortable being corrected when I'm wrong. Expanding my understanding of the world is one of my reasons for being here. My remark about keeping it to yourself was merely to say that you were not conducting yourself as someone interested in, A. constructively furthering the debate, or B. sharing you specialized knowledge of the area with others, which if I'm not mistaken, is one of the purposes of this little community. You told me to that I was stupid and should shut up, so i returned that you were an asshole and should shut up. Seems like fair turn-around to me. Have a problem with me talking out of my ass? Display a little golden-rule action and enlighten me rather than calling me a patent-n00b.
It was not a bluster, I figured you probably were a patent attorney. It was merely pointing out that doing so is not my strong-suit. You have a problem with that? Fine. Have a problem with me reading TFA and commenting on the subject based on what i read? Fuck Off. Try explaining why TFA was in error before you go off ripping people to shreds simply for agreeing with analysis you feel is in error. Considering how many posts get modded +5 informative and start with "I'm to lazy to RTFA, but..." Your stance on my acceptance of TFA is not just unfounded, but a total dick move. You're a patent attorney, I'm not, clearly, but that doesnt entitle you to flame-powers just because you're in the field. I'm an environmental scientist, but I dont go around ripping open everyone who says stupid shit like "hybrid cars are the silver bullet that will save the environment." I calmly explain why they're wrong. We're a group of nerds here, but nerds with vastly differing areas of nerddom. Show a bit more respect for your fellows.
Thankyou, that actually was a significantly better explanation of what's going on than in either of the linked articles. I do understand what you were trying to say earlier, and yes, TFA is rather off base. Dont you think it would have been easier to just post that first, and say, uh, no this is what's going on here? I do. But then you wouldnt have gotten that nice rush from getting to slam someone online.
I assume you've been reading /. for a while, based on your user #... are you surprised that someone here would be opposed to the locking up of something like this in proprietary IP? You... shouldnt be. Obviously that's how our system works, but I think that's kinda fucked up. I will assume you feel differently, though I d
Well, patent attorney i may not be, but RTFA i did, so you can take your arrogant "knowing the mere basics" bullshit and shove it.
TFA did mention very specifically that this patent application was for the minimum genes necessary for life. Now while in the specific instance, they are merely trying to patent the genome of this single microbe. But given their stated intentions to use that then as the building block for engineering other single-celled organisms by simply dropping in the necessary genes, this is in effect trying to patent the single foundation of an entire emergent field.
This sounds to me very much like they are specifically aiming to patent this particular organism to own the ip on the genes necessary for life. Not sure that it would really fucking matter too much if i had this brilliant little microbe designed that didnt infringe on their patent, since those 39 genes I'd have to axe would be fucking necessary for life. This is what i mean when i say 'trying to patent synthetic life'. Now you as the apparently patent-law savvy individual that you are, at least I'm assuming you'd have to be savvy to give code citations anyone with an internet connection could find, may have some further insight into why this patent doesnt say this, and I'm certainly interested to hear what these are. And I'm sure you'll deliver them in the same *cough* polite fashion as your contention that my previous thoughts were bullcrap.
Though you do clearly have grasp on the mere basics of patent law, your ability to discuss the implications of said patents are bullcrap. I'm happy for you being able to muddle through a patent application, i really am. But merely saying 'no the patent actually says X' in response to 'the patent implies Y' isnt really a meaninful thing to add. So unless you're going to do so without being a dick, why dont you just keep it to yourself?
Granted, however it reads as though it seeks to cover any and all future synthetic life as well. By defining terms in such a broad fashion, they leave little room for others to follow, regardless of methodology. And that's bullcrap.
I feel like there should be some bad chat/leet speak in there though, to really hammer home how stupid of an idea it is.
like, "We OWNz teH tUbes!!!!1!" or something.
At the very least this fails obviousness test until they have methodology. Like they were the first people ever to have the idea to make a synthetic organism that reproduces and propagates itself through a genetic code. Given that's how natural life works, seems like a bit of a no brainer.
I hope the patent is rejected with a "DUrrrrrr" stamp on it.
Uh, doesnt that seem rather overbroad? I mean, there's nothing about methodology, just 'we own any synthetic life.' What utter bullshit. Why dont they try to patent nonsynthetic life while they're at it?
This is the interesting bit. I would say that it is you, who thinks that preserving your wealth is more important than contributing to a working society, who acts without sympathy, compassion, regard to right and wrong, and yes, even without humanity. This is clearly the heart of our disagreement. And I dont see any way around it. I think your approach to being a member of society is staggeringly immature and selfish, and is tantamount to sitting around whining "MINE!!!!" like a baby who has lost his rattle.
Your existence detracts from my hope for humanity. If we self-destruct it will be because people like you were too concerned with themselves and what was theirs to think about anything or anyone else.
No, they aren't voluntary because its a classic prisoner's dilemma. People wont give because the money everyone else gives should be enough. Also, its not voluntary because its not voluntary. Tautological i realize, but thats what it is. If you had the option to not pay taxes for programs you didnt like, the system would pretty much be fucked. Not fucked like, you'd get to say 'hooray' i get to keep all my money, but fucked, like we wouldnt have roads or a military.
Its not analogous. Because its the bulk of the payers who are voting to be paying. Also, your contentions to the contrary, its not theft. You may not want to be paying, but that's just your problem. And its everyone saying you're greedy, not just the recepients. Because you are, apparently, if you would rather let people starve than pay taxes. I realize that's not the most equitable way of phrasing the situation, but thats what it comes down to eventually, and you clearly dont see that. So, yes, you are greedy for wanting to keep your taxes.
As opposed to the greed driving yours? Seriously, get the fuck over yourself. Taxes are not stealing. They are standard. Sympathy is pointless... nice. Hate campaigns, appeals to envy... what are you on? We've all got much better things to do than devise new ways to get the government to fuck you out of your money. So we're going to add paranoid to greedy. awesome.
Well, if you giving 50% still leaves you with more than the rest of your neighbors combined, i really dont give a fuck. And no, they dont hate you for not being poor, they dislike your attitude of entitlement and justification in allowing greed to be the driving force in your life. They feel no respect or warmth to someone so shallow and cold that he would be more concerned with being thanked than with ensuring that his taxes are spent well.
fuck. I didnt know we were divying up the rest. Shit, I'm sure I'm owed a few of those mystical Government Checks you were talking about earlier. Because that's *really* how they do it. Divide it amongst themselves personally. Right into the personal bank accounts of the 51%. So we're adding Stupid to your list of paranoid and greedy.
and we come to th
Wait, are you honestly saying that receiving welfare or social security is tantamount/analogous to a person of lessened means hiring someone to rob you? Because that's just fucking absurd. Its more like all of your neighbors coming over and saying, hey, we've decided we're giving X% of our income away to others, and you are too. I'm going to go ahead and assume that you're using some hyperbole with the whole theft analogy, because otherwise you're a complete fucking idiot. Taxes are taken with the implicit approval of the people. Implicit in that the laws raising said taxes were passed with their approval, and that hopefully there was no malfeasance or other shenannigans involved in the passing of said laws that would render said laws invalid (contravening the constitution, etc.). Now this isnt to say that you shouldnt campaign to have said laws changed. By all means do. I disagree with you, but whatever. All I'm saying is that the your implication of criminality or at the very least overarching unfairness on general principle is utter bullshit. Some people want to engage in polygamy. They cant. Some people want to eat the dead. They cant. Some people want to park in front of fire hydrants. They cant. You want to pay drastically lower taxes. You cant.
In theory I'm sorry that you feel wronged by your government, but in practice, i'm having trouble mustering much sympathy. You talk about all this harm being done you by the thievery of the government, and the woes of having your money "stolen" and on and on and on. But you dont seem to concerned about the harms being healed with your tax money, and you dont seem concerned about what would happen to those programs in its absence. So yes, I find you to be a selfish jackass. And no, not wanting to be robbed doesnt make you selfish, it makes you rational. Construing the paying of taxes as people robbing you for their own benefit makes you selfish, and its an attitude indicative of the decline of our society.
I'd hardly call the funding of social welfare programs one group forcibly taking money from another to enrich itself. Though you'll get no argument from me that its rather fucked up that the younguns are paying social security tax that gets directly dispensed to elderly folk who may not necessarily need it. However, I'd rather pay the tax and have that money also be available to those elderly folk who do need it than scrap the thing just because i dont like how my money is being spent. And I'm one of those young, not too well-off wage-earners, so yes, it is my money we're talking about. But I'm ok with it, because its what one does when when one realizes that one is a member of a society and not merely an individual.
No. You continue to misconstrue what I'm saying instead of actually offering up a reasonable argument. Taxes = beating someone up is a bullshit metaphor. Though you clearly feel that Taxes = Harm, I have stated fairly clearly that i feel differently. As i said, what is harmful in one circumstance, isnt in another. The harm visited upon the poor by regressively large tax burdens is by definition absent when the same or even a larger tax burden is placed upon someone making millions of dollars a year. I feel that the harm comes not from the very act of being taxed but by the tax burden making it impossible to eek out a living. It is of course, this very instance that necessitates the government checks to individuals that you seem to think are so wrong, but apparently you'd like to have it both ways, with the poor being the most harmed, and apparently the most unjustifiably benefitting from their own exploitation. what a crock. Decide which way you'd like to argue it and get back to me.
Yes, government spending is sometimes inefficient. But "government checks are written to an individual" is reductionist bullshit. Like you can just get in a line and fill out some forms and ask for "One Government Money Check, please!" You've still not articulated exactly how taxes are harmful, either. If you don't want to fund government, thats fine, but I'm not entirely sure how else its supposed to happen.
Yes, roads and military are good. So the rest should just be axed? We should just leave people homeless and starving on the street? You'll pardon me if I'm a little more concerned with the harm that would cause than the supposed and as-yet unspecified harm some richer experiences from being compelled to subsidize the welfare of his fellow man.
I was kind enough not to assume anything about your socioeconomic status relative to what we're discussing here, and I'll thank you to do me the same kindness. Because 1. its pretty fucking rude, and 2. you're completely fucking wrong. I'm neither a richer nor a welfare cow, and I feel strongly about "society" and the "coming together of individuals" because i think that we should be motivated by more than self-interest. Sure, if i didnt have
not entirely sure I've claimed either to have seen the film or that he's not an asshole, actually.
My point was merely that the MTV article also pointed out some areas where he seemed to be getting the shaft. Like things that *could* be edited out/around. Like the conflicting rendition of how gameplay went down at an exhibition they both attended, or his reasons for not jumping out and meeting a thrown-down gauntlet. All I'm saying is that the film and filmmakers had a very explicit message, one they were ok with broadcasting, "This guy's a dick, and when it comes down to it he sucks at the game now, and this other guy's soo much cooler and is still breaking records." That is an agenda, and when a documentary is that explicitly agenda-ridden, my skepticism flags go up. and I feel justified in that, so just deal with it.
And nobody's saying he saves kittens. jesus.
Its not to my "advantage" to consider your point of view shallow. Its just how it strikes me.
I dont see any kind of ethos tieing it together with anything else, just an assertion that taxes = harm/punishment and therefore should be decreased. This ignores why we have taxes in the first place, and emphasizes divisions and the individual rather than society and and the coming together of individuals. Furthermore it is an argument usually proffered by the relatively wealthy (usually, i obviously know nothing of your personal circumstances and would not want to speak whereof i do not know) when they dont want to pay any taxes or are bitching about the "gubbement stealing (their) money."
Now of course I'm not saying that necesarily taxes != harm. because this is how we got into this in the first place. When someone is harmed by their tax burden, I personally think that tax burden should be shifte up the economic ladder to someone who can afford to chip more into the kitty. This is why those in the lower income brackets dont pay federal income tax, or pay very little, and this is why i feel a sales tax is necessarily retrogressive and places an inordinately higher burden on the poor that is justifiable. But the fact that tax on the poor is harmful does not make shifting that tax burden to the rich a shifting of that harm to the rich. The harm part comes from taxing someone who barely has enough to survive in the first place, not from the taxes by themselves.
This sounds familiar, havent we had this debate before, you and I?
To the point, however, no, I'm saying nothing of the sort. Find another way of discussion that doesnt involve a reliance on putting words in other peoples mouths. Its obnoxious.
Taxes exist to fund the government, which exists to serve the people. We may debate the efficacy of said arrangement, obviously. But in an ideal sense, that's what's going down.
I personally believe that rich people should pay a higher tax rate than those that are not rich, not as a punishment, but simply because they can.
Or, if you insist on your utter bullshit straw-man of "you're saying taxes exist to punish people" then, given that the wealthy can absorb more punishment than can the poor, shouldn't they be asked to do so?
I think so.
But basically, i think that taxes are one of the duties of citizenship. There arent many, but one should, to the best of one's ability, inform onesself about the politics of the land so as to make informed decisions when voting, and support, as one's means allow, the government financially so it may function to serve the people.
If you feel punished, that is of course your prerogative. I'm sorry that you do, and i feel it is a rather shallow way of approaching public life, but if that's your bag, fine. But you can just go ahead and shove that Straw Man bullshit right up your ass.
I already pay sales tax on most of my major online purchases... unles Amazon's just fucking me out of that 9.6% or whatever.
What's the big fucking deal. If you buy something, and your state has sales tax, you should pay it. I know that Washington sales tax law even has clauses stating that large purchases (over $500 i believe) being purchased elsewhere for *use* in the state are subject to sales tax.
Is there something here I'm jsut totally missing about all this?
there's nothing socialist about it. The affluent person pays a lower percentile tax in a sales-tax scheme than he/she would in even a flat-tax income-tax scheme. Socialism doesnt even enter into. its numbers. The socialist part comes in whereby the parent was implying that because the rich are *able* to pay more, they should. And if you think this is wrong, than maybe you've missed the overwhelming themes of "duty of privilege" in most of the founding fathers' writings.
Actually they withheld cream and sugar when having the British Ambassador over for tea. He was both shocked and awed at the impropriety of it all. No amount of stammering, "Now listen here, old chap, this simply will not do," could conjure up the required accompaniments, and he was forced to telegraph home immediately recommending that such dastardly manners be answered with expulsion from The Empire.
The rest of the world was like, "What the Fuck? Canada just got its independence now? That's stupid, why'd they bother after waiting so fucking long?"
Dude, how bout a game with Demon Aliens fighting Zombies both in space and underground, during WWII?
How tits would that be?