I intend to violate someone's copyright someday. In particular, I am going to go to a hospital that I suspect uses pirated Windows. Per you, they are 'recklessly endangering' life, and I am abetting them. Do your worst:)
1. We already allow insurance companies to perform complex calculations using family histories, lifestyle choices, income, living conditions etc. A whole industry is dedicated to the task of deciding as accurately as possible just who is likely to live long. I can already deduce with superb accuracy how long someone is likely to live. Conditions like heart disease, cancer, diabetes and hypertension can all be predicted rather well already. Genetics essentially is the icing on the cake, adding rare genetic conditions to the list of scannable factors. This is an incremental change, at best. Indeed, even with perfect genetic info, chance, will continue to play a major role. Hell, anyone can be hit by a car.
2. Perfect information about someone's future health might compromise the insurance system, but this is an institutional problem, not a moral one. (A weak analogy, I think, is webmaster vs. adblock. ) That two people, having vastly differing health prospects (one has undiagnosed Huntingtons, say) should pay similar premiums, is hardly an ethical judgment. It simply is how the industry operates now. Perhaps other ways exist? Life has existed before insurance, believe it or not. If indeed the function insurance fulfills is crucial under all situations, new ways of organizing it will emerge. We shouldn't seek to ossify technology just to protect status quo or a business model.
This was done by Microsoft, it was done in Bangalore and it is not obviously the greatest idea ever. Anyone want to bet how the comments are going to look?:)
you know what else Brazil and Thailand have in common? A boisterous tourism industry and hot girls. Seriously, what does youtube have to do with this story?
1. The Milgram experiment was interesting because it placed people in a situation where they know they have a certain moral obligation, then effortlessly overrode that obligation simply by playing with authority figures, the authority of science, and the like. Similarly Zimbardo showed us how people in suitable groups may sometimes do things any single man would be horrified at the mere prospect of. Wonderful, stimulating experiments. Now tell me what it is meant to show, the fact that you might get someone to torture a virtual image, without that moral sanction. That already exists - it's called Grand Theft Auto. Some people play it, some don't.
2. I am definitely not astonished that people react emotionally to virtual images of suffering. People also react emotionally to love stories and are scared by halloween slashers. At best you might demonstrate - as this seems to - that many people are quite able to impose agency upon non-agents. Again, we already know that. People often react with distress to someone kicking an Aibo dog.
3. In any case, I don't see how social scientists or philosophers would be fascinated by any results that might emerge from such simulated research. Certainly the next Hannah Arendt isn't going to be dazzled.
Imagine, we could build an entire network of cellphones, specifically for the purpuse of them not working, so you cant use the service to trigger off bombs!
of course it's valuable to terrorists. This way the evildoers will plant a cellphone activated bomb somewhere and - get this - it won't go off because there's no signal! Bush is a freaking genius, and sometimes I have the depressing feeling this board doesn't appreciate that.
it's all part of the secular progressive agenda to get Christianity, God and values out of our children's toys. First it was Target, then it was kmart, now it's Lego. You won't believe this:
Lego has now decided to not meet its targets for the upcoming holiday season. Now throughout American history Lego has failed to give children Christmas toys. There is nothing religious about that, the folks know this. It's just a part of our heritage. But the liberal Hollywood elite and the ACLU are waging a relentless war on traditional values. First it becomes illegal for you to pray in your schools, now they make Legos holiday gifts, next they'll make GI Joe smoke pot and Barbie have an abortion. This is what's happened in Western Europe and Canada, where if you can get religion out, then you can pass secular progressive programs, like euthanasia, promiscuity, and blasphemy. And the children suffer.
But now you can have your say. There is a poll on billoreilly.com: is correct to say that Toys R Us waging a war on American values and aiding the terrorists? It's your vote and you decide. We just report, and there's nothing ridiculous about that.
I'd love for youtube to start responding to DMCA takedown notices the way google does:
In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 videos(s) from this page. If you wish, you may view the video that the DMCA complaint was registered against here
Think about it...how could I possibly know *which* video infringes a copyright unless I can see it for myself, for educational purposes?
Of course it wouldn't be legal, but you can always dream:)
Wait...I am a slashdotter and all, but what IS so outrageously awful about your child knowing how to say 'fuck'? What about that sequence of air-puffs offends you so? Why is it a problem comparable to bulimia? Since when have anorexic models been banned from the airwaves anyway?
why are so many search strings complete (or non working) http adresses?
I end up searching for complete URL's all the time:
1. Some idiot/lazy site developers simply forget to wrap their links in appropriate html. Selecting, right clicking and googling in a new tab is a quick way of getting the link open in the background
2. often i want google's summary / cache / related pages etc
3. Random browser plugins often decide to autodownload a video to a temporary folder and open them when I type the url out. Or they might decide to open them in media player to stream. Googling gives me a nice link I can attempt to save to the hard drive, to a location I like.
Flag-burning and 'family values' sure, but stem cells? Does anyone honestly believe forcing to scientists to only use twenty odd mouse-cell infested cell lines (if they want federal funding) is just a wedge issue? Bush has vowed to issue his *first* veto if the new bill easing current restrictions goes through. You know, coz he's compassionate like that.
You can tell me destroying a few cells is a deep "ethical" problem if that pleases you, but it's silly to claim that restricting / allowing one of the more promising scientific technologies around simply doesn't matter.
1. It doesn't say WHICH state agency, which after all makes a significant difference.
2. Nor is there any sort of sourcing, just some sort of vague (and short!) mumblings about some unidentified student and what he told his mother his interviewer told him.
3. The bulk of the article is even worse, posing "ethical" questions about whether employers should look at publicly available information about a candidate. The way I see it, if you go around posting pictures to the web of you mooning cop-cars from your last drunk drive across the country, you deserve what you get. There almost certainly isn't a real legal question, at any rate.
The GPL has nothing to do with it, I think. I want to edit my personal copy of a movie in ways I choose. Not having the relevant technical skills, I hire someone to do it for me. I'm not reselling this modified copy to anyone for money or even handing out multiple copies for free. What I am doing is taking my copy of Star Wars and making it so Darth Vader has sex with Chewbacca (shudder). This is about fair use versus the director's right to have me watch his vision, whatever that means.
Granted, in this instance someone might need to circumvent DMCA to do these things, but again, nothing to do with GPL.
I agree. I only wanted to brush away the potential objection that you could trivially brush away all of copyright this way by making a very minor modification to a work, then selling it yourself. Not that you need any new legal machinery beyond our current understanding of original / copy / derivative etc to deal with that objection, I just wanted to stay well away from all that.
My point: I can always hire someone to modify my copy of Jurassic Park for me to make all the dinosaurs purple or something. Spielberg has no business complaining.
"I'm really getting tired of all these fanatic church-types pretending they don't have a fast forward button on their remote control."
Umm...they are doing precisely what you suggest. They're getting someone to remove the bits to fast forward through, so they can leave the DVD with their kids when they're not around. How churlish can you get?
"It's not the government's job to hide you whenever "God issues a test."
How is the government even involved? RTFA.
"Just because you reimburse the creator doesn't give you the right to change what he's saying."
You might wish to reconsider, especially with respect to making covers, mixes, parodies, spoofs, and so on. So long as I don't I don't attribute my modified message itself to you, why should *copyright* be involved?
How does that matter? *I* hire the middleman to remove the bits I specify. And how might you Google such a question anyway? It should be quite obvious that I'm talking about what the law ought to be, not what it is. Last I checked Google isn't the appropriate expert.
What this ruling does is to make it illegal to produce bowlderized copies of a work for people who want one, even if the original author is paid as well. That, I think, is absurd.
The proper way to respond to the morons of the world wrapping David in fig-leaf is to laugh at them, not to force them legally not to modify copies or hire someone to do it for them.
Wow. Much as I approve of this slap to the boobies-are-icky types, this is really another example of the ways copyright is going crazy. Why SHOULD a director have this so-called right to dictate that others view the precise film he made? I buy a book or film and read / watch what I choose. If I want to be able to automatically skip certain types of content, and someone is willing to sell me a means to do so, why is it anyone else's business? I mean, am I at least allowed to manually fast-forward through the naughty bits, or would that offend the MPAA's sensitivities as well? Why shouldn't someone auto fastforward for me if I'm willing?
Slashdot Mirror
...that a book aimed at increasing numeracy has horoscopes? What next? Feng Shui in geography texts?
I intend to violate someone's copyright someday. In particular, I am going to go to a hospital that I suspect uses pirated Windows. Per you, they are 'recklessly endangering' life, and I am abetting them. Do your worst :)
Jackass.
1. We already allow insurance companies to perform complex calculations using family histories, lifestyle choices, income, living conditions etc. A whole industry is dedicated to the task of deciding as accurately as possible just who is likely to live long. I can already deduce with superb accuracy how long someone is likely to live. Conditions like heart disease, cancer, diabetes and hypertension can all be predicted rather well already. Genetics essentially is the icing on the cake, adding rare genetic conditions to the list of scannable factors. This is an incremental change, at best. Indeed, even with perfect genetic info, chance, will continue to play a major role. Hell, anyone can be hit by a car.
2. Perfect information about someone's future health might compromise the insurance system, but this is an institutional problem, not a moral one. (A weak analogy, I think, is webmaster vs. adblock. ) That two people, having vastly differing health prospects (one has undiagnosed Huntingtons, say) should pay similar premiums, is hardly an ethical judgment. It simply is how the industry operates now. Perhaps other ways exist? Life has existed before insurance, believe it or not. If indeed the function insurance fulfills is crucial under all situations, new ways of organizing it will emerge. We shouldn't seek to ossify technology just to protect status quo or a business model.
This was done by Microsoft, it was done in Bangalore and it is not obviously the greatest idea ever. Anyone want to bet how the comments are going to look? :)
you know what else Brazil and Thailand have in common? A boisterous tourism industry and hot girls. Seriously, what does youtube have to do with this story?
1. The Milgram experiment was interesting because it placed people in a situation where they know they have a certain moral obligation, then effortlessly overrode that obligation simply by playing with authority figures, the authority of science, and the like. Similarly Zimbardo showed us how people in suitable groups may sometimes do things any single man would be horrified at the mere prospect of. Wonderful, stimulating experiments. Now tell me what it is meant to show, the fact that you might get someone to torture a virtual image, without that moral sanction. That already exists - it's called Grand Theft Auto. Some people play it, some don't.
2. I am definitely not astonished that people react emotionally to virtual images of suffering. People also react emotionally to love stories and are scared by halloween slashers. At best you might demonstrate - as this seems to - that many people are quite able to impose agency upon non-agents. Again, we already know that. People often react with distress to someone kicking an Aibo dog.
3. In any case, I don't see how social scientists or philosophers would be fascinated by any results that might emerge from such simulated research. Certainly the next Hannah Arendt isn't going to be dazzled.
Imagine, we could build an entire network of cellphones, specifically for the purpuse of them not working, so you cant use the service to trigger off bombs!
it's called "Cingular"
of course it's valuable to terrorists. This way the evildoers will plant a cellphone activated bomb somewhere and - get this - it won't go off because there's no signal! Bush is a freaking genius, and sometimes I have the depressing feeling this board doesn't appreciate that.
Bill O'Reilly released a statement:
it's all part of the secular progressive agenda to get Christianity, God and values out of our children's toys. First it was Target, then it was kmart, now it's Lego. You won't believe this:
Lego has now decided to not meet its targets for the upcoming holiday season . Now throughout American history Lego has failed to give children Christmas toys. There is nothing religious about that, the folks know this. It's just a part of our heritage. But the liberal Hollywood elite and the ACLU are waging a relentless war on traditional values. First it becomes illegal for you to pray in your schools, now they make Legos holiday gifts, next they'll make GI Joe smoke pot and Barbie have an abortion. This is what's happened in Western Europe and Canada, where if you can get religion out, then you can pass secular progressive programs, like euthanasia, promiscuity, and blasphemy. And the children suffer.
But now you can have your say. There is a poll on billoreilly.com: is correct to say that Toys R Us waging a war on American values and aiding the terrorists? It's your vote and you decide. We just report, and there's nothing ridiculous about that.
And that's the memo.
I'd love for youtube to start responding to DMCA takedown notices the way google does:
In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 videos(s) from this page. If you wish, you may view the video that the DMCA complaint was registered against here
Think about it...how could I possibly know *which* video infringes a copyright unless I can see it for myself, for educational purposes?
Of course it wouldn't be legal, but you can always dream :)
Wait...I am a slashdotter and all, but what IS so outrageously awful about your child knowing how to say 'fuck'? What about that sequence of air-puffs offends you so? Why is it a problem comparable to bulimia? Since when have anorexic models been banned from the airwaves anyway?
why are so many search strings complete (or non working) http adresses?
I end up searching for complete URL's all the time:
1. Some idiot/lazy site developers simply forget to wrap their links in appropriate html. Selecting, right clicking and googling in a new tab is a quick way of getting the link open in the background
2. often i want google's summary / cache / related pages etc
3. Random browser plugins often decide to autodownload a video to a temporary folder and open them when I type the url out. Or they might decide to open them in media player to stream. Googling gives me a nice link I can attempt to save to the hard drive, to a location I like.
Long have I wondered how to combine the awesome coolness of combating free software/porn with the law-abiding edginess of working for the Man.
Oh so long have I wondered!!
Man these people laid an egg. Even Slashdot feels comfortable calling it uncool :)
Yes, all the jobs should move back to the US, which fights no wars.
but...
No wars! We fight no wars!
You're fighting two as we speak, and possibly on your way to a third, while leading a "global war against terr... BOOM!
There. Now isn't that nice and peaceful?
Flag-burning and 'family values' sure, but stem cells? Does anyone honestly believe forcing to scientists to only use twenty odd mouse-cell infested cell lines (if they want federal funding) is just a wedge issue? Bush has vowed to issue his *first* veto if the new bill easing current restrictions goes through. You know, coz he's compassionate like that.
You can tell me destroying a few cells is a deep "ethical" problem if that pleases you, but it's silly to claim that restricting / allowing one of the more promising scientific technologies around simply doesn't matter.
1. It doesn't say WHICH state agency, which after all makes a significant difference.
2. Nor is there any sort of sourcing, just some sort of vague (and short!) mumblings about some unidentified student and what he told his mother his interviewer told him.
3. The bulk of the article is even worse, posing "ethical" questions about whether employers should look at publicly available information about a candidate. The way I see it, if you go around posting pictures to the web of you mooning cop-cars from your last drunk drive across the country, you deserve what you get. There almost certainly isn't a real legal question, at any rate.
But I patented a technique whereby companies with names starting with 'O' sue companies whose names start with 'E' over patents that are bullshit.
Send me 10,000 moneys now!
The GPL has nothing to do with it, I think. I want to edit my personal copy of a movie in ways I choose. Not having the relevant technical skills, I hire someone to do it for me. I'm not reselling this modified copy to anyone for money or even handing out multiple copies for free. What I am doing is taking my copy of Star Wars and making it so Darth Vader has sex with Chewbacca (shudder). This is about fair use versus the director's right to have me watch his vision, whatever that means. Granted, in this instance someone might need to circumvent DMCA to do these things, but again, nothing to do with GPL.
I agree. I only wanted to brush away the potential objection that you could trivially brush away all of copyright this way by making a very minor modification to a work, then selling it yourself. Not that you need any new legal machinery beyond our current understanding of original / copy / derivative etc to deal with that objection, I just wanted to stay well away from all that. My point: I can always hire someone to modify my copy of Jurassic Park for me to make all the dinosaurs purple or something. Spielberg has no business complaining.
"I'm really getting tired of all these fanatic church-types pretending they don't have a fast forward button on their remote control."
Umm...they are doing precisely what you suggest. They're getting someone to remove the bits to fast forward through, so they can leave the DVD with their kids when they're not around. How churlish can you get?
"It's not the government's job to hide you whenever "God issues a test."
How is the government even involved? RTFA.
"Just because you reimburse the creator doesn't give you the right to change what he's saying."
You might wish to reconsider, especially with respect to making covers, mixes, parodies, spoofs, and so on. So long as I don't I don't attribute my modified message itself to you, why should *copyright* be involved?
How does that matter? *I* hire the middleman to remove the bits I specify. And how might you Google such a question anyway? It should be quite obvious that I'm talking about what the law ought to be, not what it is. Last I checked Google isn't the appropriate expert.
What this ruling does is to make it illegal to produce bowlderized copies of a work for people who want one, even if the original author is paid as well. That, I think, is absurd.
The proper way to respond to the morons of the world wrapping David in fig-leaf is to laugh at them, not to force them legally not to modify copies or hire someone to do it for them.
Wow. Much as I approve of this slap to the boobies-are-icky types, this is really another example of the ways copyright is going crazy. Why SHOULD a director have this so-called right to dictate that others view the precise film he made? I buy a book or film and read / watch what I choose. If I want to be able to automatically skip certain types of content, and someone is willing to sell me a means to do so, why is it anyone else's business? I mean, am I at least allowed to manually fast-forward through the naughty bits, or would that offend the MPAA's sensitivities as well? Why shouldn't someone auto fastforward for me if I'm willing?
Fine. And he can send his kid's future college bills to you then?
Microsoft is rich and all, but couldn't Google stop a hostile takeover?