"how am I possibly getting your CD or the original copy on the server "in my possession"? "
Because the CD squeezes down a magical wire and pops out your drive, duh, what ends up in your posession is not the media I store it on, but the information.
Unless you're telling me that you do not possess any information, in which case, I could see why you're arguing what you are.
"Hopefully, this is an admission that an act that involves creating a copy of something without even touching (or TAKING it) can never be theft"
Nup, take = to get into your posession. Ever heard the phrase "take a copy"? That means to get a copy into your posession. If it moves into your posession, it's taking, and if it's without right or permission, then it's theft.
As for your car thing, the building and driving it obviously isn't theft, but yes you can steal designs for a car (although as I haven't designed and built my own car, obviously you couldn't steal designs from me).
"That definately is talking about the legal issues and how the law is"
Wow, how wrong you are is shocking. I said "It might be a seperate crime, that makes no difference" - it makes no difference because I wasn't talking about the criminal aspect of it. I thought I'd repeated that enough, but obviously not. Basically, what that sentence actually means, is that within the context I was discussing, crime is irrelevant ("makes no difference" is a clue to that). The fact that the criminal aspect of it makes no difference to what I was talking about is a pretty good indication that I wasn't talking about the law.
"Which is as I have shown irellevant since the logic is wrong in your argumentation"
Err, no, what you have shown is that you don't understand contextual statements.
"Finally, making a copy is NEVER stealing, since you are creating something new"
Have you never created something? Do you have no grasp of how somethings value can be that other than the media it's stored on, or the bitstream that describes it? Have you never created something that you've valued more than the disc you've written it to, or the paper you've drawn it on? What we're talking about is the work that goes into such a creation, which no, you absolutely are not creating anew when you copy it.
I would try and explain further, but I really can't see you understanding something when you've failed to so far.
"That leads nowere since the language diesn't define what is illegal or not"
I wasn't talking about what's legal or not! My original post was regarding things that people will do when the law isn't there to stop them... what they will do when they can get away with it.
So let's look at what's just happened. I was discussing peoples actions within a lawless context, and the responses I got was telling me that what I was saying was wrong in a legal context. AS I was talking about a lawless, NOT legal context, that means that all words fall back to their dictionary, NOT LEGAL definitions, as per the context being discussed!
Does anybody here on slashdot understand what a context is???
Oh, and as for your 'passing on a book' example, you're totally mistaken, as theft is "without right or permission", not "without permission". If I pay for a book, I do believe I have the right to give it to whoever I want (except for a certain somebody who has a restraining order...)
"holding the copyright doesn't mean you "own" the work"
Legally, no... but jeez, come on, legally just means what your government/state/whatever will back. Are you really saying your moral objections are totally inline with the law? Something's wrong if it's illegal, and right otherwise? Do you not grant people personal rights? Do you know respect?
Sorry, but I'm a real actual person, I'm not a courthouse, I'm not a state, I'm a man. A persons works belongs to them, whether the law defends it or recognises it or not. You take me to a country with absolutely no copyright law, and I'll say the same thing. It's called thinking for yourself. This is a right that I grant a creator, and I have to say I'm not alone; many many people consider a creator the owner of his/her works.
What you're doing is claiming that stealing isn't stealing when the legal system has another name for it. You're using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law. Well if that's how low you need to be, fine, but to anyone else, I encourage personal standards, irrespective of who's sticking up for who.
It's easy to call me ignorant when you're ignoring what I've said, huh. I've already said I know the difference under the law. What I'm talking about is purely language, you know... the dictionary? Take = to get into one's posession, steal = as 'take', but without right or permission. If you wanna keep hiding behind the fact that the law doesn't call it stealing, fine, and probably a good thing it doesn't too, as it makes it sound worse than I think it is, but that doesn't change the fact that aquiring works (NOT copyright, NOT legal ownership, but the created music/software/whatever) - with aquiring meaning you now have in your posession (you can now play it, run it, whatever), without permission, fits the definition of what theft is, UNLESS you consider the works to be public domain, and not the creators.
So please stop arguing about the fact that they still hold the copyright, because I'm not talking about that, and I haven't claimed that I am.
It might be a seperate crime, that makes no difference, you're still taking something "without right or permission".
"Stealing" music would be falsifying the records to transfer the rights to it to yourself
And I supposed "stealing" a car would involve hacking into the government computers to change the cars legal owner to be yourself? No, it doesn't matter about the records, what matters is the fact you take it without permission. And neither does it matter whether you're leaving an exact copy, therefore not depriving the owner. The word "stealing" isn't defined as depriving somebody of something without permission, it's defined by the action of the taking.
Despite what you believe the word should or shouldn't mean, this is what the work actually means, as per its definition.
It's not a fear, but a cost I avoid unless there are savings that outway that cost. I don't understand this "functions are always the right thing to do, just to save some tab spaces" mentality that goes on here.
As for globals, no I use them a lot... I'm used to the flat, unprotected model, where you make code that doesn't need to be kept in seperate contexts to stop it overwriting what it's not meant to. You make up for it by writing code in a way that it doesn't need that.
In fact, if you look at early intel papers describing protected mode, it's actually described as a debugging tool, as a system without bugs doesn't need hardware protection, and not using the protection mechanisms results in faster code. This is true of many constructs used in code, such as stack frames. If you can write good enough code, you simply don't need them.
Is to do with a couple of things. Partly, my programming roots (low level assembly etc), I see function calling as a cost, so often inline what other people would ship out to functions. With an optimising, a function can be inlined by the compiler, saving on the call/ret overhead, but there are still sometimes other costs to do with passing values, moving stack frame etc, that can be avoided if you don't program in a way that requires it.
If a chunk of code is to be used in various places, then you have other things to way up when deciding whether you want to inline it or not, such as whether caching benefits of having it as a function outway the overhead of having it as a function.
Everything else comes down to code manageability. Functions having their own context is useful for debugging, but if you're on top of your system (esp if you don't have to worry about recursive/reentrant code), you don't need this layer of abstraction. There's also the layout issues of the source code itself; splitting stuff off into functions can make things neater and easier to follow, which is more important when working in a team.
So yes it can be a bad sign, but it can also just be a sign that the programmer thinks in a different way, structures problems/solutions in their mind in a different way, thus expresses it in a different way. Whether this is good or bad depends (relatively) on the outcome, not what's been taught as "correct".
I think we need to decide what refreshments will be available on the thursday. I vote that we're at least allowed 3(three) sausages if we choose the sausages 'n mash option, 2(two) just isn't enough.
The usage of the word was a blatent troll in the spirit of it's parent posts ignorance... me using the word was pretty childish, I just felt like being childish. The parent post inspired me that way.
When you underpay your workers, or overcharge your customers, they will, rightly or wrongly, steal from you if they can get away with it. Fact of life. What we have here is looters mentality. I can't afford all that I want, and I don't understand why that should mean I can't have it.
Ways to stop it: stop people from getting away with it. Difficult if you're got a small bunch of employees who can sneak stuff out from under your nose, but with millions of music downloaders all over the world? You're not gonna make a dent on it, whatever you do. You've gotta stop making people want to steal. Rightly or wrongly, that's what you gotta do.
"Oh, and btw, if the weather report says 'in 12 hours, a hurricane will hit your town' you can safely sit at home and eat popcorn. It's not going to hit you"
Unless they also say "the levvies will hold", in which case, you know you're in trouble
Why did religious nuts pick the world trade towers? Because they're symbols of america... and err, july 4th has a kinda symbolic attachment to "the american way" too, which is something many people, religious and otherwise, have a problem with. However, someone who believes that god plans/controls/whatevers everything, is a lot more likely to believe that it's a message, than someone who is more enlightened.
Err, the astronauts get a 100% say whether they go up or not. Think about it, if you thought your life was in serious unacceptable risk getting onto the shuttle and launching, all you have to do is not get onto the shuttle! They're not gonna be chained to the cockpit while NASA go "stop being a bunch of sissies".
If I'm wrong here please someone correct me - but I don't think anybody's ever been forced into going into space against their will.
Slashdot Mirror
"Why should we have one more barrier..."
Because the barrier often manifests itself between those people who give a damn, and those who don't.
As for the rich/poor thing, shouldn't we be looking at bringing them up, rather than dumbing the rest down?
"how am I possibly getting your CD or the original copy on the server "in my possession"? "
Because the CD squeezes down a magical wire and pops out your drive, duh, what ends up in your posession is not the media I store it on, but the information.
Unless you're telling me that you do not possess any information, in which case, I could see why you're arguing what you are.
"Hopefully, this is an admission that an act that involves creating a copy of something without even touching (or TAKING it) can never be theft"
Nup, take = to get into your posession. Ever heard the phrase "take a copy"? That means to get a copy into your posession. If it moves into your posession, it's taking, and if it's without right or permission, then it's theft.
As for your car thing, the building and driving it obviously isn't theft, but yes you can steal designs for a car (although as I haven't designed and built my own car, obviously you couldn't steal designs from me).
"That definately is talking about the legal issues and how the law is"
Wow, how wrong you are is shocking. I said "It might be a seperate crime, that makes no difference" - it makes no difference because I wasn't talking about the criminal aspect of it. I thought I'd repeated that enough, but obviously not. Basically, what that sentence actually means, is that within the context I was discussing, crime is irrelevant ("makes no difference" is a clue to that). The fact that the criminal aspect of it makes no difference to what I was talking about is a pretty good indication that I wasn't talking about the law.
"Which is as I have shown irellevant since the logic is wrong in your argumentation"
Err, no, what you have shown is that you don't understand contextual statements.
"Finally, making a copy is NEVER stealing, since you are creating something new"
Have you never created something? Do you have no grasp of how somethings value can be that other than the media it's stored on, or the bitstream that describes it? Have you never created something that you've valued more than the disc you've written it to, or the paper you've drawn it on? What we're talking about is the work that goes into such a creation, which no, you absolutely are not creating anew when you copy it.
I would try and explain further, but I really can't see you understanding something when you've failed to so far.
"That leads nowere since the language diesn't define what is illegal or not"
I wasn't talking about what's legal or not! My original post was regarding things that people will do when the law isn't there to stop them... what they will do when they can get away with it.
So let's look at what's just happened. I was discussing peoples actions within a lawless context, and the responses I got was telling me that what I was saying was wrong in a legal context. AS I was talking about a lawless, NOT legal context, that means that all words fall back to their dictionary, NOT LEGAL definitions, as per the context being discussed!
Does anybody here on slashdot understand what a context is???
Oh, and as for your 'passing on a book' example, you're totally mistaken, as theft is "without right or permission", not "without permission". If I pay for a book, I do believe I have the right to give it to whoever I want (except for a certain somebody who has a restraining order...)
"holding the copyright doesn't mean you "own" the work"
Legally, no... but jeez, come on, legally just means what your government/state/whatever will back. Are you really saying your moral objections are totally inline with the law? Something's wrong if it's illegal, and right otherwise? Do you not grant people personal rights? Do you know respect?
Sorry, but I'm a real actual person, I'm not a courthouse, I'm not a state, I'm a man. A persons works belongs to them, whether the law defends it or recognises it or not. You take me to a country with absolutely no copyright law, and I'll say the same thing. It's called thinking for yourself. This is a right that I grant a creator, and I have to say I'm not alone; many many people consider a creator the owner of his/her works.
What you're doing is claiming that stealing isn't stealing when the legal system has another name for it. You're using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law. Well if that's how low you need to be, fine, but to anyone else, I encourage personal standards, irrespective of who's sticking up for who.
It's easy to call me ignorant when you're ignoring what I've said, huh. I've already said I know the difference under the law. What I'm talking about is purely language, you know... the dictionary? Take = to get into one's posession, steal = as 'take', but without right or permission. If you wanna keep hiding behind the fact that the law doesn't call it stealing, fine, and probably a good thing it doesn't too, as it makes it sound worse than I think it is, but that doesn't change the fact that aquiring works (NOT copyright, NOT legal ownership, but the created music/software/whatever) - with aquiring meaning you now have in your posession (you can now play it, run it, whatever), without permission, fits the definition of what theft is, UNLESS you consider the works to be public domain, and not the creators.
So please stop arguing about the fact that they still hold the copyright, because I'm not talking about that, and I haven't claimed that I am.
Now calm down, it's clouding your judgement.
Batteries??? Mine's powered purely by my sense of satisfaction, ahhh
It might be a seperate crime, that makes no difference, you're still taking something "without right or permission".
"Stealing" music would be falsifying the records to transfer the rights to it to yourself
And I supposed "stealing" a car would involve hacking into the government computers to change the cars legal owner to be yourself? No, it doesn't matter about the records, what matters is the fact you take it without permission. And neither does it matter whether you're leaving an exact copy, therefore not depriving the owner. The word "stealing" isn't defined as depriving somebody of something without permission, it's defined by the action of the taking.
Despite what you believe the word should or shouldn't mean, this is what the work actually means, as per its definition.
It's not a fear, but a cost I avoid unless there are savings that outway that cost. I don't understand this "functions are always the right thing to do, just to save some tab spaces" mentality that goes on here.
As for globals, no I use them a lot... I'm used to the flat, unprotected model, where you make code that doesn't need to be kept in seperate contexts to stop it overwriting what it's not meant to. You make up for it by writing code in a way that it doesn't need that.
In fact, if you look at early intel papers describing protected mode, it's actually described as a debugging tool, as a system without bugs doesn't need hardware protection, and not using the protection mechanisms results in faster code. This is true of many constructs used in code, such as stack frames. If you can write good enough code, you simply don't need them.
Me too
Is to do with a couple of things. Partly, my programming roots (low level assembly etc), I see function calling as a cost, so often inline what other people would ship out to functions. With an optimising, a function can be inlined by the compiler, saving on the call/ret overhead, but there are still sometimes other costs to do with passing values, moving stack frame etc, that can be avoided if you don't program in a way that requires it.
If a chunk of code is to be used in various places, then you have other things to way up when deciding whether you want to inline it or not, such as whether caching benefits of having it as a function outway the overhead of having it as a function.
Everything else comes down to code manageability. Functions having their own context is useful for debugging, but if you're on top of your system (esp if you don't have to worry about recursive/reentrant code), you don't need this layer of abstraction. There's also the layout issues of the source code itself; splitting stuff off into functions can make things neater and easier to follow, which is more important when working in a team.
So yes it can be a bad sign, but it can also just be a sign that the programmer thinks in a different way, structures problems/solutions in their mind in a different way, thus expresses it in a different way. Whether this is good or bad depends (relatively) on the outcome, not what's been taught as "correct".
Steal, n: (1) To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
So, in countries where someones works (eg, music) is owned by them (ie, is their property), it fits the description.
And no, they are linked. People are more likely to download music without permission of the artist if they cannot afford to purchase it legally.
...oh yeah :-p
Nah, we had one of those at the end of last december.
I think we need to decide what refreshments will be available on the thursday. I vote that we're at least allowed 3(three) sausages if we choose the sausages 'n mash option, 2(two) just isn't enough.
Me too!(too)
My coding style is that a single function can go several levels/indents deep, too wide a tab space can really start eating up screen space.
Or, I supposed, these guys...
The usage of the word was a blatent troll in the spirit of it's parent posts ignorance... me using the word was pretty childish, I just felt like being childish. The parent post inspired me that way.
When you underpay your workers, or overcharge your customers, they will, rightly or wrongly, steal from you if they can get away with it. Fact of life. What we have here is looters mentality. I can't afford all that I want, and I don't understand why that should mean I can't have it.
Ways to stop it: stop people from getting away with it. Difficult if you're got a small bunch of employees who can sneak stuff out from under your nose, but with millions of music downloaders all over the world? You're not gonna make a dent on it, whatever you do. You've gotta stop making people want to steal. Rightly or wrongly, that's what you gotta do.
"Oh, and btw, if the weather report says 'in 12 hours, a hurricane will hit your town' you can safely sit at home and eat popcorn. It's not going to hit you"
Unless they also say "the levvies will hold", in which case, you know you're in trouble
"then why link it to July 4th?"
Why did religious nuts pick the world trade towers? Because they're symbols of america... and err, july 4th has a kinda symbolic attachment to "the american way" too, which is something many people, religious and otherwise, have a problem with. However, someone who believes that god plans/controls/whatevers everything, is a lot more likely to believe that it's a message, than someone who is more enlightened.
No one said it was
Err, the astronauts get a 100% say whether they go up or not. Think about it, if you thought your life was in serious unacceptable risk getting onto the shuttle and launching, all you have to do is not get onto the shuttle! They're not gonna be chained to the cockpit while NASA go "stop being a bunch of sissies".
If I'm wrong here please someone correct me - but I don't think anybody's ever been forced into going into space against their will.
...yeah, because AI programmers are really gonna quit their jobs and carreers to fix car window mechanisms.