My point was it's not illegal in Germany to think the holocaust didn't happen. It's just a crime to express those values.
And you know what, over 10 million people died because of the Nazis. I think maybe this is one of those situations where you just don't let the hatred build up again.
Tom Point taken. I just believe that muzzling the expression of ideas, however stupid those ideas are, is the wrong way to go about it.
Oh, I wouldn't be going around affirming that "over 10 million people died because of the Nazi". It might be construed as "trivializing" these atrocities. I think the politically correct figure now is "over 11 million". (Cue obligatory Spinal Tap reference..., I kid, I kid)
Wow, quoting mass-murdering, Jew-hating Winston Churchill in your sig.
The RAF at Churchill's direction under the policy of "area bombing" murdered one million German civilians - a bestiality and violation of the customs of war never before or after matched.
He also wrote the following about the Jews:"And it may well be that this same astounding race may at the present time be in the actual process of producing another system of morals and philosophy, as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which, if not arrested would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible. It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of Antichrist were destined to originate among the same people...",
You seem to be consistent though since your beliefs truly have nothing to do with historical fact
Instead of this kind of thought crime nonsense we're discussing here, I say we take scum like you out and give THEM a little taste of the Holocaust.
That would be a huge waste of resources; there are bigger fish to fry like "climate-change deniers", "HIV-causes-AIDS deniers", "the-Jews-killed-Jesus deniers", and "freedom of speech deniers"... oh, that would be YOU, scratch that last one then.
My point was that as individuals we should not be able to choose which laws to obey and which ones to disobey.
The problem is individuals qua individuals are already unable to choose which laws to enact . The only choice an individual can make is to act one way or another. Whether that act is "lawful" or "unlawful" is entirely beyond his control.
What is this "downloading copyright(ed) material" that you speak of? All I have done is rearrange bits on my hard drive to emulate what others have done to theirs.
I can't drink and drive? Fuck you, bust me.
As long as you don't cause any damage to anyone, I don't care.
Why can't I randomly fire my handgun into the air in urban areas? Fuck you, bust me.
Ditto.
I can't drive 100mph? Fuck you, bust me.
Don't care.
Now, if you cause any harm to me or my property, then I'll fucking bust you. It's up to you.
I, for one, fear the military applications of this...not like it wasn't possible before, but perhaps this might give some people ideas that would ultimately be used to kill people...
Sorry to take this thread further offtopic, having had mod points at the time and all (and would have gladly modded your highly cogent parent post up). However... here goes.
We live in an imperfect world. One aspect of this imperfection is that creative people do not get rewardedin exact proportion to the value of their contributions to society.
I can appreciate the allure of a utilitarian approach in this very fuzzy area, but you have addressed the crux of the question by raising the notion of "value". In a utilitarian framework, how would one measure "value". One way would be to apply a Pareto-optimality test to the outcome of a change in a state of affairs. But the only way to be sure that "at least one party is better off and no-one is worse off" is if the state-change was voluntary on the part of all those involved in the exchange (damn those "externalities"--whether negative or positive). And "value" is subjective in any case.
In this sense the restriction of natural freedoms would by defnition be un-utilitarian. So I would opt for a rights/based approach and "let the chips fall where they may", so to speak.
Note how the business strategy is all about exclusive deals, about locking others out of content.
Agree. It's called "intellectual property rights" in the case of content producers BTW, "state franchise" in the case of telcos, "tarrifs" in the case of the farming/steel/auto industries. In economics all of this is called "rent-seeking". I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're talking about other businesses not engaging in any of the above. I thus propose the term "secondary rent-seeking" for this type of behavior, i.e. other companies trying to ride onto the state-enforced advantages other companies have already.
The problem I see here is that it creates a situation ripe for a natural monopoly to emerge. If you get exclusives with enough studios, you cripple your competition. I'd love to download movies to iTunes, but so far they've only been able to sign up Disney. So it's nearly useless to me.
I see you weren't kidding in your sig, but I hope you realize the irony of the fact that situation that you say is ripe for this "natural monoploy" you speak of is only made possible by the pre-existing coercive monopoly.
This is why we need copyright term limitation.
Why not get rid of it altogether?
Either we take steps to restrict the freedoms of business to make deals like this, OR we strengthen the commons by expanding the public domain OR we accept control by a single entity over the bulk of information we have available.
I wonder which of these three options you're plumping for. I'm for option 2 all the way.
I fear the military applications of this...not like it wasn't possible before, but perhaps this might give some people ideas that would ultimately be used to kill people.
I fear the/.-meme inducing virulence of this comment. Think about it--"I fear the military applications of this..." is the new obligatory "I, for one, welcome our new $ACTION overlords." And it can apply to virtually any slashdot story.
Example:
SCIENCE: MATERIAL TOUGHER THAN DIAMOND DEVELOPED
Obligatory...
I, for one, fear the military applications of this, not like it wasn't possible before, but perhaps this might give some people ideas that would ultimately be used to kill people.
"A physicist, a chemist and an economist are stranded on an island, with nothing to eat. A can of soup washes ashore. The physicist says, "Lets smash the can open with a rock." The chemist says, "Lets build a fire and heat the can first." The economist says, "Lets assume that we have a can-opener..." -Paul Samuelson
pseudoephedrine. A simple enough remedy for priapism, but since it is also used for crystal meth production, it is now highly restricted due to, ya know, the War on Drugs and all...
Somehow your rant is not as snappy as, for example:
Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have
to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You?
You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than
you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you
curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the
luxury of not knowing what I know: That Santiago's death,
while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while
grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.
You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you
don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You
need me there.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words
as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You
use 'em as a punchline.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself
to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very
freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I
provide it. I'd prefer you just said thank you and went on
your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and
stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you
think you're entitled to.
so why would you need to bridge it to 802.11? Just connect the HSDPA or UMTS receiving device via USB. After all, how much do you move around inside a car?
What if Microsoft patents its entire business model, products, etc.? Would that be a viable way of of getting the state to ENFORCE their monololy instead of trying to BREAK IT?
Anti-trust + Intelectual Property Rights = Doublethink
Haven't seen Dada21 recently on/., but I'd like to take issue with the summary, where it says "because the value of the precious metals contained in coins now exceeds their face value."
Pennies and nickels DO NOT contain "precious metals". We're talking about zinc and nickel, usually classified as "base metals"
This reminds me of a conversation I had in a previous life some 7000 years ago.
Og: Hey, I just got this crazy idea of connecting two round stones to the ends of a horizontal pole. It'll make it easier to haul stuff around.
Me: Sounds great, but who will do your harvest duties while you build it? And how do you expect to get any money out of it, people will just copy you. I myself thought of this great tune, sang it to my wife and she loved it. But I'd never sing it public, they'd just learn it themselves and where's the money in that?
Og: Ya, that's a good point. Forget about it then.
(and practically all scientific research reies substantially on state funding) ALWAYS leans in favor of the "do something" side of the question as opposed to the "do nothing" side.
Slashdot Mirror
And you know what, over 10 million people died because of the Nazis. I think maybe this is one of those situations where you just don't let the hatred build up again.
Tom Point taken. I just believe that muzzling the expression of ideas, however stupid those ideas are, is the wrong way to go about it.
Oh, I wouldn't be going around affirming that "over 10 million people died because of the Nazi". It might be construed as "trivializing" these atrocities. I think the politically correct figure now is "over 11 million". (Cue obligatory Spinal Tap reference..., I kid, I kid)
Just care about the truth, not what people believe. Since we can not prove anything about that. Who cares?
"What is truth?" --Pontius Pilate
Or did he really say that?
Wow, quoting mass-murdering, Jew-hating Winston Churchill in your sig.
The RAF at Churchill's direction under the policy of "area bombing" murdered one million German civilians - a bestiality and violation of the customs of war never before or after matched.
He also wrote the following about the Jews:"And it may well be that this same astounding race may at the present time be in the actual process of producing another system of morals and philosophy, as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which, if not arrested would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible. It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of Antichrist were destined to originate among the same people...",
You seem to be consistent though since your beliefs truly have nothing to do with historical fact
Instead of this kind of thought crime nonsense we're discussing here, I say we take scum like you out and give THEM a little taste of the Holocaust.
That would be a huge waste of resources; there are bigger fish to fry like "climate-change deniers", "HIV-causes-AIDS deniers", "the-Jews-killed-Jesus deniers", and "freedom of speech deniers"... oh, that would be YOU, scratch that last one then.
So if someone asked if you thought the holocaust happened you could just not answer if you didn't want to talk about it.
Or you could actually express your belief and get thrown in jail.
And BTW, congratulations on your 1337 "Supression of Free Speech" gaming skillz.
There, you must believe in the Holocaust.
Same goes for thoughtcrime.
My point was that as individuals we should not be able to choose which laws to obey and which ones to disobey.
The problem is individuals qua individuals are already unable to choose which laws to enact . The only choice an individual can make is to act one way or another. Whether that act is "lawful" or "unlawful" is entirely beyond his control.
What is this "downloading copyright(ed) material" that you speak of? All I have done is rearrange bits on my hard drive to emulate what others have done to theirs.
I can't drink and drive? Fuck you, bust me.
As long as you don't cause any damage to anyone, I don't care.
Why can't I randomly fire my handgun into the air in urban areas? Fuck you, bust me.
Ditto.
I can't drive 100mph? Fuck you, bust me.
Don't care.
Now, if you cause any harm to me or my property, then I'll fucking bust you. It's up to you.
I, for one, fear the military applications of this...not like it wasn't possible before, but perhaps this might give some people ideas that would ultimately be used to kill people...
Uh, nevermind, I just read TFS.
Sorry to take this thread further offtopic, having had mod points at the time and all (and would have gladly modded your highly cogent parent post up). However... here goes.
We live in an imperfect world. One aspect of this imperfection is that creative people do not get rewardedin exact proportion to the value of their contributions to society.
I can appreciate the allure of a utilitarian approach in this very fuzzy area, but you have addressed the crux of the question by raising the notion of "value". In a utilitarian framework, how would one measure "value". One way would be to apply a Pareto-optimality test to the outcome of a change in a state of affairs. But the only way to be sure that "at least one party is better off and no-one is worse off" is if the state-change was voluntary on the part of all those involved in the exchange (damn those "externalities"--whether negative or positive). And "value" is subjective in any case.
In this sense the restriction of natural freedoms would by defnition be un-utilitarian. So I would opt for a rights/based approach and "let the chips fall where they may", so to speak.
Note how the business strategy is all about exclusive deals, about locking others out of content.
Agree. It's called "intellectual property rights" in the case of content producers BTW, "state franchise" in the case of telcos, "tarrifs" in the case of the farming/steel/auto industries. In economics all of this is called "rent-seeking". I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're talking about other businesses not engaging in any of the above. I thus propose the term "secondary rent-seeking" for this type of behavior, i.e. other companies trying to ride onto the state-enforced advantages other companies have already.
The problem I see here is that it creates a situation ripe for a natural monopoly to emerge. If you get exclusives with enough studios, you cripple your competition. I'd love to download movies to iTunes, but so far they've only been able to sign up Disney. So it's nearly useless to me.
I see you weren't kidding in your sig, but I hope you realize the irony of the fact that situation that you say is ripe for this "natural monoploy" you speak of is only made possible by the pre-existing coercive monopoly.
This is why we need copyright term limitation.
Why not get rid of it altogether?
Either we take steps to restrict the freedoms of business to make deals like this, OR we strengthen the commons by expanding the public domain OR we accept control by a single entity over the bulk of information we have available.
I wonder which of these three options you're plumping for. I'm for option 2 all the way.
I fear the military applications of this...not like it wasn't possible before, but perhaps this might give some people ideas that would ultimately be used to kill people.
/.-meme inducing virulence of this comment. Think about it--"I fear the military applications of this..." is the new obligatory "I, for one, welcome our new $ACTION overlords." And it can apply to virtually any slashdot story.
I fear the
Example:
SCIENCE: MATERIAL TOUGHER THAN DIAMOND DEVELOPED
Obligatory...
I, for one, fear the military applications of this, not like it wasn't possible before, but perhaps this might give some people ideas that would ultimately be used to kill people.
So sorry, I guess your browser doesn't parse tags. In any case, Jessep's rant was far more entertaining than the parent post.
Reminds me of the old joke about economists:
"A physicist, a chemist and an economist are stranded on an island, with nothing to eat. A can of soup washes ashore. The physicist says, "Lets smash the can open with a rock." The chemist says, "Lets build a fire and heat the can first." The economist says, "Lets assume that we have a can-opener..." -Paul Samuelson
pseudoephedrine. A simple enough remedy for priapism, but since it is also used for crystal meth production, it is now highly restricted due to, ya know, the War on Drugs and all...
Somehow your rant is not as snappy as, for example:
Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.
You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me there.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I'd prefer you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to.
Mofo pops cap in YOU!
so why would you need to bridge it to 802.11? Just connect the HSDPA or UMTS receiving device via USB. After all, how much do you move around inside a car?
Just lacking the obligatory Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidetone/
What if Microsoft patents its entire business model, products, etc.? Would that be a viable way of of getting the state to ENFORCE their monololy instead of trying to BREAK IT?
Anti-trust + Intelectual Property Rights = Doublethink
Haven't seen Dada21 recently on /., but I'd like to take issue with the summary, where it says "because the value of the precious metals contained in coins now exceeds their face value."
Pennies and nickels DO NOT contain "precious metals". We're talking about zinc and nickel, usually classified as "base metals"
This reminds me of a conversation I had in a previous life some 7000 years ago.
Og: Hey, I just got this crazy idea of connecting two round stones to the ends of a horizontal pole. It'll make it easier to haul stuff around.
Me: Sounds great, but who will do your harvest duties while you build it? And how do you expect to get any money out of it, people will just copy you. I myself thought of this great tune, sang it to my wife and she loved it. But I'd never sing it public, they'd just learn it themselves and where's the money in that?
Og: Ya, that's a good point. Forget about it then.
(and practically all scientific research reies substantially on state funding) ALWAYS leans in favor of the "do something" side of the question as opposed to the "do nothing" side.