are you seriously trying to suggest that copyright infringement is _not_ murder? Communist!
Seriously though, no court in the world will convict you of theft for breaching copyright. Yes, yes, we know, violating copyright is against the law, but the law doesn't call it theft. Neither should we. Really, calling a copyright violator a thief is probably slander, and therefore punishable by law.
We (who don't call it theft) don't need to justify our position. If you are going to call it theft, please reference for us even one legal code that refers to copyright infringement as theft. Or lacking that, perhaps a moral or religious teaching to justify calling copyright violators theives (We may not agree with it, but it would at least provide a reason for you to say it). If you can't find even one reference in law or commonly accepted moral/religious teaching to justify calling copyright infringement theft, then perhaps you ought to stop. Think about it.
the name wine is a recursive acronym of Wine Is Not an Emulator. Check it out at winehq.org. It's refering to the fact that wine is not a PC emulator like bochs or vmware. Therefore you do not need to purchase or install an OS to run on it. So it was an appropriate comment, saying wine users are not MS customers, like a bochs or vmware user might be. Of course, wine is a windows emulator...that's the point, it is not genuine windows, is emulating windows, but WGA recognises it as genuine.
I tried gimp for windows, and not long after started dual booting linux as I had been told it was originally written for linux, and the GPL appealed to me. Also I help friends who are frustrated with windows use this same migration path. Not many, but some.
to get it to work properly, you need dcom98 as well, it can all be downloaded and installed with winetools http://www.von-thadden.de/Joachim/WineTools/ . Quite apart from software requirements, licencing requirements are to have a valid windows licence, which probably makes it legally part of the same product, even if the reality is that it is separate.
In Scandinavian countries, for example, they talk about condom use in school starting at a very young age. All of them have a prevalence rate of 0.1 % or less.
...to which you gave a good answer (except for the unnecessary insult), thanks for giving the example I asked for, it's a good one, and worth knowing.
The example of Uganda is a demonstration of an effective method of reducing HIV transmission in a country that already has a high level of infection. As far as I know, it has not been taught as morality, but hygiene. It is likely that many people in Uganda could not afford condoms. I agree that abstinence is not going to happen with the vast majority of people and is for the most part a waste of time to teach, but having a single partner is within many peoples capability and IS effective to prevent HIV.
Better to have a solution, condoms, which is widely used, even if it is only 95% effective, than some psuedo cure, alleged to be 100% effective, which is unusable in practice.
Do you have an exaple of a country reducing the rate of AIDS by promoting condoms?
So are you saying that the automatic and indescriminate deceptions practiced by advertisers are in some way justified, because we are all, ellegedly, dishonest from time to time and in some small way or other?
no, I didn't say that deception is justified. Also, dishonesty is dishonesty, it has no size.
Or are you just saying that we're in no position to criticise, tainted as we are by our collective failure to buy things as promised to shop salesmen?
Yes, actually, but individually not collectively. Fix up your own act first. If you say you're going to do something when you have no intention of doing it, you're every bit as unethical as a lying marketer. If you don't want to buy something, why can't you just say so? If you don't have the guts to say no to a purchase, and stick to that, you're not the type of person whose opinion I value.
The advertising industry has secured the public distrust by dint of long and dilligent efforts on their part.
In general I agree, but labeling all marketers or salemen as unethical is not right, no more than if I say "All customers are liars" because some customers have lied to me.
Don't try and tell me that we brought it upon ourselves by stealing paperclips from the stationary cupboard.
I didn't say that. But do you think stealing a few paperclips is ok? Is it more ethical for you to steal from someone else than for them to steal from you? Does stealing in small quantities indicate better ethics, or incompetence at stealing? Is an incompetent thief morally superior to a successful thief? What I objected to, if you would read my post, is when people make a blanket assumption that 'marketers' are liars. I don't justify people who lie or steal, whether they are marketers or not.
If the seller didn't want to change/manipulate your thoughts then why put up the sign at all?
Is changing someones thoughts always manipulation? If it's not done in a deceptive way, I don't think so. If I recommend firefox to someone, I am not manipulating them. If I recommend any product it is not manipulation. If I am getting paid to do it, it is still not manipulation so long as they know I am being paid. Just saying a word to someone is not manipulation even if it changes their thinking.
Nearly everything you own was probably marketed to you. Unless you (or someone who gave you something) made it, nearly everything you own, you got from a salesman (or woman).
As someone who has previously worked in retail, I was amazed at how many customers would routinely lie. I lost count of how may times someone would day something like "I'll come and get it tomorrow" and never come back.
Try having a look at stats on theft in your country. The amount of things stolen from the workplace is huge. Is there a pen or stationery on your desk now from work?
My point: Marketers (salespeople, company owners, polititians etc etc) are not usually more or less ethical than the general population. Only when it is done publicly or affects people personally do people get offended. When you lie to a saleman/marketer, I doubt you find it offensive.
No no no! It's now our responsiblity to share content over P2P to prevent terrorists from profiting from copyright works!!! It's in the national interest!
We are sometimes temporarily capable of rationality, but the other 99% of the time we're ruled by subconscious
Life is too complex to exert consious control over everything. That's what a subconsious is for. It's the nature of training to get you to the point of doing something well automatically. This is the case with walking, toilet training, reading and writing, driving, sports etc. Train the subconscious to do as much as posible well so the conscious is available to make necessary decisions. (You don't want to be consiously thinking about how to control a car and dealing with traffic. Subconscious to control the car, conscious to deal with traffic etc). The quality of your subconscious choices will be determined by how diligent you are to train your subconscious mind. Most people let the TV train their mind. Quality of input to the mind will determined quality of output. Input to the mind is first assessed (or available for assessment) by the conscious mind.
a couple of days ago I got a spam advertising spamming software and lists... only registered 0.7 with spamassassin. I was quite impressed (but didn't buy the list and software)
The ISP will recieve a subpoena to install a monitoring device, provided by the FBI. They will then gather information sufficient to get a warrant, and then proceed.
This doesn't hinder real, criminal investigations.
What about if a child reports abuse and evidence has to be gathered after the fact? Perhaps the child would have emails and the IP records would be very important evidence, useful only if stored.
It's not like children are abused through the internet. The person who abused them still has to actually meet the children and offline evidence about this is still there like it always was.
I've been told that here in Australia, only about 8% of child molestation trials end in conviction due to rules of evidence.(16% - about half winning an appeal) This is often due to the difficulty of gathering evidence, no witnesses except the child, not all molestation leaves physical damage etc. Evidence from ISP's could potentially be the difference in getting a conviction.
perhaps you didn't read my post, let me refresh your memory
She uses linux now.
not "might use linux someday", uses it, and has for the past year. She is clever, but you don't really need to be clever to use linux. Most people would be in the same situation with linux as they are with windows ie: they can browse the web, use email, write a letter etc, but they need help if something needs to be set up or fixed. My 61 year old (non-techie) mother has no trouble using linux when she visits me even though she uses windows at home. The issue for most people is not whether it's too hard to use, but how available is help. That's why my daughter uses linux (administered by me) and my mother uses windows (so the shop that sold the computer to her can do repairs etc as she lives to far away for me to do it)
When my child leaves school I want her to be able to get a job.
When my child leaves school, I want her to be able to own a business. She uses linux now. Please have your child submit her resume in open document format.
Slashdot Mirror
are you seriously trying to suggest that copyright infringement is _not_ murder? Communist!
Seriously though, no court in the world will convict you of theft for breaching copyright. Yes, yes, we know, violating copyright is against the law, but the law doesn't call it theft. Neither should we. Really, calling a copyright violator a thief is probably slander, and therefore punishable by law.
We (who don't call it theft) don't need to justify our position. If you are going to call it theft, please reference for us even one legal code that refers to copyright infringement as theft. Or lacking that, perhaps a moral or religious teaching to justify calling copyright violators theives (We may not agree with it, but it would at least provide a reason for you to say it). If you can't find even one reference in law or commonly accepted moral/religious teaching to justify calling copyright infringement theft, then perhaps you ought to stop. Think about it.
I agree, particularly when you consider that MS meant to exclude wine users with WGA
the name wine is a recursive acronym of Wine Is Not an Emulator. Check it out at winehq.org. It's refering to the fact that wine is not a PC emulator like bochs or vmware. Therefore you do not need to purchase or install an OS to run on it. So it was an appropriate comment, saying wine users are not MS customers, like a bochs or vmware user might be. Of course, wine is a windows emulator...that's the point, it is not genuine windows, is emulating windows, but WGA recognises it as genuine.
I tried gimp for windows, and not long after started dual booting linux as I had been told it was originally written for linux, and the GPL appealed to me. Also I help friends who are frustrated with windows use this same migration path. Not many, but some.
to get it to work properly, you need dcom98 as well, it can all be downloaded and installed with winetools http://www.von-thadden.de/Joachim/WineTools/ . Quite apart from software requirements, licencing requirements are to have a valid windows licence, which probably makes it legally part of the same product, even if the reality is that it is separate.
I suppose it could even be argued that since users can't access the logs, but can access, delete etc the cookies, that the cookies are better.
That's a stupid question.
No, it's a sensible question...
In Scandinavian countries, for example, they talk about condom use in school starting at a very young age. All of them have a prevalence rate of 0.1 % or less.
...to which you gave a good answer (except for the unnecessary insult), thanks for giving the example I asked for, it's a good one, and worth knowing.
The example of Uganda is a demonstration of an effective method of reducing HIV transmission in a country that already has a high level of infection. As far as I know, it has not been taught as morality, but hygiene. It is likely that many people in Uganda could not afford condoms. I agree that abstinence is not going to happen with the vast majority of people and is for the most part a waste of time to teach, but having a single partner is within many peoples capability and IS effective to prevent HIV.
Better to have a solution, condoms, which is widely used, even if it is only 95% effective, than some psuedo cure, alleged to be 100% effective, which is unusable in practice.
Do you have an exaple of a country reducing the rate of AIDS by promoting condoms?
Uganda recommends reduce casual sex and reduced HIV cases by 70%
You didn't see Jesus Christ preaching about sharing, did you.
It was the loaves and fishes thing that started it. And you thought they hate bittorrent.
So are you saying that the automatic and indescriminate deceptions practiced by advertisers are in some way justified, because we are all, ellegedly, dishonest from time to time and in some small way or other?
no, I didn't say that deception is justified. Also, dishonesty is dishonesty, it has no size.
Or are you just saying that we're in no position to criticise, tainted as we are by our collective failure to buy things as promised to shop salesmen?
Yes, actually, but individually not collectively. Fix up your own act first. If you say you're going to do something when you have no intention of doing it, you're every bit as unethical as a lying marketer. If you don't want to buy something, why can't you just say so? If you don't have the guts to say no to a purchase, and stick to that, you're not the type of person whose opinion I value.
The advertising industry has secured the public distrust by dint of long and dilligent efforts on their part.
In general I agree, but labeling all marketers or salemen as unethical is not right, no more than if I say "All customers are liars" because some customers have lied to me.
Don't try and tell me that we brought it upon ourselves by stealing paperclips from the stationary cupboard.
I didn't say that. But do you think stealing a few paperclips is ok? Is it more ethical for you to steal from someone else than for them to steal from you? Does stealing in small quantities indicate better ethics, or incompetence at stealing? Is an incompetent thief morally superior to a successful thief? What I objected to, if you would read my post, is when people make a blanket assumption that 'marketers' are liars. I don't justify people who lie or steal, whether they are marketers or not.
If the seller didn't want to change/manipulate your thoughts then why put up the sign at all?
Is changing someones thoughts always manipulation? If it's not done in a deceptive way, I don't think so. If I recommend firefox to someone, I am not manipulating them. If I recommend any product it is not manipulation. If I am getting paid to do it, it is still not manipulation so long as they know I am being paid. Just saying a word to someone is not manipulation even if it changes their thinking.
Nearly everything you own was probably marketed to you. Unless you (or someone who gave you something) made it, nearly everything you own, you got from a salesman (or woman).
As someone who has previously worked in retail, I was amazed at how many customers would routinely lie. I lost count of how may times someone would day something like "I'll come and get it tomorrow" and never come back.
Try having a look at stats on theft in your country. The amount of things stolen from the workplace is huge. Is there a pen or stationery on your desk now from work?
My point: Marketers (salespeople, company owners, polititians etc etc) are not usually more or less ethical than the general population. Only when it is done publicly or affects people personally do people get offended. When you lie to a saleman/marketer, I doubt you find it offensive.
10. Installers don't add software to the start menu
There is no start menu
19. People think I'm gay when I tell them I use linux
It's the bar you're hanging our in, not linux.
yeah, like the way he went on about bitkeeper when it obviously wasn't a prob... oh wait...
No no no! It's now our responsiblity to share content over P2P to prevent terrorists from profiting from copyright works!!! It's in the national interest!
We are sometimes temporarily capable of rationality, but the other 99% of the time we're ruled by subconscious
Life is too complex to exert consious control over everything. That's what a subconsious is for. It's the nature of training to get you to the point of doing something well automatically. This is the case with walking, toilet training, reading and writing, driving, sports etc. Train the subconscious to do as much as posible well so the conscious is available to make necessary decisions. (You don't want to be consiously thinking about how to control a car and dealing with traffic. Subconscious to control the car, conscious to deal with traffic etc). The quality of your subconscious choices will be determined by how diligent you are to train your subconscious mind. Most people let the TV train their mind. Quality of input to the mind will determined quality of output. Input to the mind is first assessed (or available for assessment) by the conscious mind.
a couple of days ago I got a spam advertising spamming software and lists... only registered 0.7 with spamassassin. I was quite impressed (but didn't buy the list and software)
The ISP will recieve a subpoena to install a monitoring device, provided by the FBI. They will then gather information sufficient to get a warrant, and then proceed.
This doesn't hinder real, criminal investigations.
What about if a child reports abuse and evidence has to be gathered after the fact? Perhaps the child would have emails and the IP records would be very important evidence, useful only if stored.
It's not like children are abused through the internet. The person who abused them still has to actually meet the children and offline evidence about this is still there like it always was.
I've been told that here in Australia, only about 8% of child molestation trials end in conviction due to rules of evidence.(16% - about half winning an appeal) This is often due to the difficulty of gathering evidence, no witnesses except the child, not all molestation leaves physical damage etc. Evidence from ISP's could potentially be the difference in getting a conviction.
Lets hope she is clever enough to use Linux.
perhaps you didn't read my post, let me refresh your memory
She uses linux now.
not "might use linux someday", uses it, and has for the past year. She is clever, but you don't really need to be clever to use linux. Most people would be in the same situation with linux as they are with windows ie: they can browse the web, use email, write a letter etc, but they need help if something needs to be set up or fixed. My 61 year old (non-techie) mother has no trouble using linux when she visits me even though she uses windows at home. The issue for most people is not whether it's too hard to use, but how available is help. That's why my daughter uses linux (administered by me) and my mother uses windows (so the shop that sold the computer to her can do repairs etc as she lives to far away for me to do it)
When my child leaves school I want her to be able to get a job. When my child leaves school, I want her to be able to own a business. She uses linux now. Please have your child submit her resume in open document format.