I don't think he's saying that but you have the whole internet at your disposal - it is almost guaranteed that there are sites dedicated to watching middle aged men in bathrooms if that's what floats your boat.
Please do not attempt to force people to live by all the laws/agreements/licenses they are expected to uphold unless first you can demonstrate being able to do this yourself.
I've never given card or my pin number to anyone else, not even my wife. We've both got cards that access the same accounts however. I trust my wife, but if my account is ever compromised I don't want to be in the position of having to lie and say that i've never given my pin to anyone, especially when they can then just show me a picture of my wife accessing my account with my pin number. I know someone who was put in that situation and it wasn't a lot of fun - from memory he mistyped the pin number 3 times and the machine ate his wife's card and he had to go in and get it and admit that he had been given the pin etc.
However I consider my wife to be an exception. She can empty my entire bank account if she wishes. It's not as if that's where I keep all my money anyway. She'll have a harder time getting at the stock, bonds and real estate.
Now that sounds like a relationship built on trust! Myself, I don't have any money/accounts/bonds/whatever that my wife can't get to. I'd rather live a lifetime of trust and be screwed over in the end than live a lifetime afraid of being screwed over...
husbands, wives and other people who trust each other will no longer be able to lend their partner an ATM card and ask them to go take out some cash
Doing that is almost certainly against your agreement with the bank. If you want someone else to access your account give them their own card (or tell the bank that their eyeballs are also valid for your account).
So if long-lost footage of Mike Smith of Omaha, Nebraska jerking off and drinking Schlitz in his basement suddenly resurfaces, by your logic, that would also be slashdot worthy?
Your interest in such an event doesn't constitute a lot of people caring about it, so no.
Slashdot is the proper forum for random people finding shit they thought was lost?
Really?
Bing Crosby is hardly a random person. And a sports event that a lot of people cared about is hardly 'shit'. They way he recorded it is also rather novel.
It doesn't really matter what a dick like you might think about it, it's something worth preserving because a lot of people at the time cared about it.
And it's news for nerds because it's amazing that a copy exists at all.
Why is it more reasonable? - It has exactly the same amount of evidence going for it as young Earth creationists have for their blind faith. The only reasonable answer to the question is "I don't know".
It's more reasonable because it doesn't fly directly in the face of what we know about the universe.
All the current scientific evidence points to the universe being somewhat more than 6000 years old, so to believe that it is 6000 years old and created in exactly the way that Genesis tells is unreasonable. 'more reasonable' still leaves a lot of room of course:)
I don't think he's separating them, just saying that they don't have to conflict with each other. The 'earth was created 6000 years ago' isn't the only creationist belief[1] out there, it's just that those nutjobs are the loudest and get upset every time a fossil is discovered. A more reasonable belief would be that God set the initial parameters of the universe to make things happen the way they do, with evolution of the species being the eventual result. I don't believe it myself but it sounds a lot more reasonable than taking Genesis as the literal word of God. It's not like Genesis could have explained the Big Bang Theory and Evolution in a way that would have made sense 2000 years ago anyway.
[1] i say belief, not theory, because it's not testable in any scientific sense - any evidence to the contrary is just handwaved away with 'but that's only because God made it look that way'
Radiation isn't the only problem. Uranium is toxic even without its radioactivity. I suspect that there are a bunch of other byproducts of a reactor explosion that are just as bad.
You've both got the analogy wrong. Copyright violation != theft. A more appropriate version of your analogy: If you put a note on the table that said "tell all your friends to come over here and look at this fruit", and one of them took a picture of the fruit and showed it to others then you might have a stronger case.
In that case it would be like if you were selling apples and someone walked in with a matter duplication device, duplicated one of your apples, then walked out with the duplicated apple. They haven't taken anything physical from you but they have deprived you of the income you would have gained from selling the apple.
It seems though that the main contention is around the word 'share', and if the sign on the apple store window said 'tell your friends to come and share these apples' then using a matter duplication device is well within the spirit of 'sharing'.
Concentrating on the word 'share' rather than what was meant by 'share this article with your friends' is probably not the right way of approaching this though.
After all, if I put a fruit bowl on a table with a note that said "Take one and have a nice day!", I could hardly turn around and sue you for banana-theft.
If you put a note on the table that said "tell all your friends to come over here and look at this fruit" and one of them stole a banana then you might have a stronger case, which I think better describes what's going on in TFA.
AFAICT, 'Share this' doesn't copy the entire article, it just copies the blurb and gets people to go visit the news site if they want to know more. IMO that is not an implicit or explicit license to copy anything. I think it's good that the judge isn't just handwaving away the idea that it might be, but I think common sense in this case says that the defendant is in the wrong if they have indeed copied a large chunk of data.
We have some 'Microsoft Certified Partner' glass things that Microsoft gave us to decorate our office with. They are about an inch thick or so. I assume that's what they are referring to.
The problem with Australia, if you can get here (kiwis let every one in) is we have so many more asshole cops that want to check your licence at every set of traffic lights
I've been driving for around 16 years now, and spend more time on the road than most people would. In all that time, aside from random breath tests (where they didn't ask to see my license anyway), i've been stopped around 3 times...
The first was for no obvious reason, the policeman asked if i'd been drinking, didn't bother doing a breath test, and sent me on my way despite the fact that my car was obviously not quite up to roadworthy (bald rear tyres for a start). Didn't even think about asking for my license.
The second was because I had an expired registration sticker on my car (company car). They asked me a few questions and sent me on my way. Didn't ask for my license.
The third was when I had a really bad headache and a car pulled up behind me with very bright headlights which made it worse. I accelerated away very hard and it turned out the guy behind me was a policeman. Pulled me over, asked to see my license, then sent me on my way. No fine or anything but I didn't actually break the law apart from possibly reckless driving.
Not to mention the obscene terror laws (that they use on anyone they want, no need for a search warrant in Australia), or the random pedestrian frisking and pockets searches.
I've only once been pulled aside by the police while a pedestrian. I looked vaguely like someone they were looking for who'd been up to some pretty serious no-good. They asked for some ID to check that I wasn't the person they were looking for and sent me on my way.
I know there are bad cops out there but it seems they only ever bother people with a "friend-of-a-friend" or "distant-relative-of-a-friend" relationship to people I know.
Or maybe you live in or around one of the major cities? I hear it's a bit worse there.
he more permanent freedom is a matter of time. At some point, lawmakers will be from the generation that also posts on forums, that downloaded mp3's when they were younger (or still do), and that watched 2 or 3 movies illegally when they were students.
I'm from that generation, more or less, and still think it's pretty rude to download stuff that you didn't pay for. I'm against supporting broken business models that don't let you store the media in the format that's most useful to you (eg on a media center) but that still doesn't mean that you get to download stuff illegally.
The smart thing to do would be to concentrate less on prevention - people are always going to copy stuff no matter what - and focus more on detection. Find the people who are downloading your stuff and get them, rather than making stuff harder for the rest of us.
And it doesn't matter what generation you are from. There will always be someone who's willing to take the media empires money to tow their agenda through the lawmaking process.
1. If it really becomes a problem for steve, he will block it at the hardware level in the next major version, or even in the next minor version.
I've never bothered jailbreaking my iPhone (3GS) so this would actually be really cool if it happened (assuming it's a hardware update that applies to all future iPhones but doesn't affect existing iPhones) - my iPhone which is now nearly 12 months old suddenly becomes much more valuable as the 'classic' hackable model:)
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think he's saying that but you have the whole internet at your disposal - it is almost guaranteed that there are sites dedicated to watching middle aged men in bathrooms if that's what floats your boat.
Please do not attempt to force people to live by all the laws/agreements/licenses they are expected to uphold unless first you can demonstrate being able to do this yourself.
I've never given card or my pin number to anyone else, not even my wife. We've both got cards that access the same accounts however. I trust my wife, but if my account is ever compromised I don't want to be in the position of having to lie and say that i've never given my pin to anyone, especially when they can then just show me a picture of my wife accessing my account with my pin number. I know someone who was put in that situation and it wasn't a lot of fun - from memory he mistyped the pin number 3 times and the machine ate his wife's card and he had to go in and get it and admit that he had been given the pin etc.
However I consider my wife to be an exception. She can empty my entire bank account if she wishes. It's not as if that's where I keep all my money anyway. She'll have a harder time getting at the stock, bonds and real estate.
Now that sounds like a relationship built on trust! Myself, I don't have any money/accounts/bonds/whatever that my wife can't get to. I'd rather live a lifetime of trust and be screwed over in the end than live a lifetime afraid of being screwed over...
Yup, here's your problem. Someone set this thing to "Evil".
I could see it, but I didn't know where it was.
husbands, wives and other people who trust each other will no longer be able to lend their partner an ATM card and ask them to go take out some cash
Doing that is almost certainly against your agreement with the bank. If you want someone else to access your account give them their own card (or tell the bank that their eyeballs are also valid for your account).
I don't like being tracked, especially when I'm on the way back from the head shop
Certainly you may pay cash instead, Citizen, but might I inquire what it is you are trying to hide?
It's amazing?
So if long-lost footage of Mike Smith of Omaha, Nebraska jerking off and drinking Schlitz in his basement suddenly resurfaces, by your logic, that would also be slashdot worthy?
Your interest in such an event doesn't constitute a lot of people caring about it, so no.
Slashdot is the proper forum for random people finding shit they thought was lost?
Really?
Bing Crosby is hardly a random person. And a sports event that a lot of people cared about is hardly 'shit'. They way he recorded it is also rather novel.
It doesn't really matter what a dick like you might think about it, it's something worth preserving because a lot of people at the time cared about it.
And it's news for nerds because it's amazing that a copy exists at all.
Why is it more reasonable? - It has exactly the same amount of evidence going for it as young Earth creationists have for their blind faith. The only reasonable answer to the question is "I don't know".
It's more reasonable because it doesn't fly directly in the face of what we know about the universe.
All the current scientific evidence points to the universe being somewhat more than 6000 years old, so to believe that it is 6000 years old and created in exactly the way that Genesis tells is unreasonable. 'more reasonable' still leaves a lot of room of course :)
I don't think he's separating them, just saying that they don't have to conflict with each other. The 'earth was created 6000 years ago' isn't the only creationist belief[1] out there, it's just that those nutjobs are the loudest and get upset every time a fossil is discovered. A more reasonable belief would be that God set the initial parameters of the universe to make things happen the way they do, with evolution of the species being the eventual result. I don't believe it myself but it sounds a lot more reasonable than taking Genesis as the literal word of God. It's not like Genesis could have explained the Big Bang Theory and Evolution in a way that would have made sense 2000 years ago anyway.
[1] i say belief, not theory, because it's not testable in any scientific sense - any evidence to the contrary is just handwaved away with 'but that's only because God made it look that way'
Radiation isn't the only problem. Uranium is toxic even without its radioactivity. I suspect that there are a bunch of other byproducts of a reactor explosion that are just as bad.
"Please put your item in your bag."
"I did."
"Please put your item in your bag."
(removes item. Puts back into bag)
"Please put your item in your bag."
Maybe you'd hurry up if it told you "you have 20 seconds to comply".
You've both got the analogy wrong. Copyright violation != theft. A more appropriate version of your analogy:
If you put a note on the table that said "tell all your friends to come over here and look at this fruit", and one of them took a picture of the fruit and showed it to others then you might have a stronger case.
In that case it would be like if you were selling apples and someone walked in with a matter duplication device, duplicated one of your apples, then walked out with the duplicated apple. They haven't taken anything physical from you but they have deprived you of the income you would have gained from selling the apple.
It seems though that the main contention is around the word 'share', and if the sign on the apple store window said 'tell your friends to come and share these apples' then using a matter duplication device is well within the spirit of 'sharing'.
Concentrating on the word 'share' rather than what was meant by 'share this article with your friends' is probably not the right way of approaching this though.
After all, if I put a fruit bowl on a table with a note that said "Take one and have a nice day!", I could hardly turn around and sue you for banana-theft.
If you put a note on the table that said "tell all your friends to come over here and look at this fruit" and one of them stole a banana then you might have a stronger case, which I think better describes what's going on in TFA.
AFAICT, 'Share this' doesn't copy the entire article, it just copies the blurb and gets people to go visit the news site if they want to know more. IMO that is not an implicit or explicit license to copy anything. I think it's good that the judge isn't just handwaving away the idea that it might be, but I think common sense in this case says that the defendant is in the wrong if they have indeed copied a large chunk of data.
And those even more in the know use a two-bit operating system like Windows :)
Yes, this story is pretty self-explaining... but I question what does indeed explains.
Perhaps it illustrates that even Linux can't make up for poor planning :)
It's just an expression. Like, "kick your butt" could involve no kicking whatsoever.
We have some 'Microsoft Certified Partner' glass things that Microsoft gave us to decorate our office with. They are about an inch thick or so. I assume that's what they are referring to.
The problem with Australia, if you can get here (kiwis let every one in) is we have so many more asshole cops that want to check your licence at every set of traffic lights
I've been driving for around 16 years now, and spend more time on the road than most people would. In all that time, aside from random breath tests (where they didn't ask to see my license anyway), i've been stopped around 3 times...
The first was for no obvious reason, the policeman asked if i'd been drinking, didn't bother doing a breath test, and sent me on my way despite the fact that my car was obviously not quite up to roadworthy (bald rear tyres for a start). Didn't even think about asking for my license.
The second was because I had an expired registration sticker on my car (company car). They asked me a few questions and sent me on my way. Didn't ask for my license.
The third was when I had a really bad headache and a car pulled up behind me with very bright headlights which made it worse. I accelerated away very hard and it turned out the guy behind me was a policeman. Pulled me over, asked to see my license, then sent me on my way. No fine or anything but I didn't actually break the law apart from possibly reckless driving.
Not to mention the obscene terror laws (that they use on anyone they want, no need for a search warrant in Australia), or the random pedestrian frisking and pockets searches.
I've only once been pulled aside by the police while a pedestrian. I looked vaguely like someone they were looking for who'd been up to some pretty serious no-good. They asked for some ID to check that I wasn't the person they were looking for and sent me on my way.
I know there are bad cops out there but it seems they only ever bother people with a "friend-of-a-friend" or "distant-relative-of-a-friend" relationship to people I know.
Or maybe you live in or around one of the major cities? I hear it's a bit worse there.
Less earthquakes too.
he more permanent freedom is a matter of time. At some point, lawmakers will be from the generation that also posts on forums, that downloaded mp3's when they were younger (or still do), and that watched 2 or 3 movies illegally when they were students.
I'm from that generation, more or less, and still think it's pretty rude to download stuff that you didn't pay for. I'm against supporting broken business models that don't let you store the media in the format that's most useful to you (eg on a media center) but that still doesn't mean that you get to download stuff illegally.
The smart thing to do would be to concentrate less on prevention - people are always going to copy stuff no matter what - and focus more on detection. Find the people who are downloading your stuff and get them, rather than making stuff harder for the rest of us.
And it doesn't matter what generation you are from. There will always be someone who's willing to take the media empires money to tow their agenda through the lawmaking process.
Fortunately, the life of my iPhone is insured for a surprisingly large amount.
1. If it really becomes a problem for steve, he will block it at the hardware level in the next major version, or even in the next minor version.
I've never bothered jailbreaking my iPhone (3GS) so this would actually be really cool if it happened (assuming it's a hardware update that applies to all future iPhones but doesn't affect existing iPhones) - my iPhone which is now nearly 12 months old suddenly becomes much more valuable as the 'classic' hackable model :)
He risked his life for your right to be an asshole.
And remember, a right not exercised is a right lost!
What if the universe IS god?!?!? -Lame
Deep. You should write to Readers Digest. They have a page for people like you :)