"It's technically defined as going over the posted limit, set by the responsible authorities, and the understanding is that this is BAD ALL THE TIME.. right? WRONGO!"
Just as an aside, in the province in which I live, the publically-owned, largest car insurance company decided a few years ago not to penalize drivers on their insurance for exceeding the speed limit as, the argument rightly goes, speeding does not directly cause accidents.
And, they still manage to keep their insurance prices low, without this cash-grab. (E.g., any pre-1990 vehicle can probably get no-fault insurance and registration for under $600 Canadian, some vehicles much less--my old Bel Air cost $310 per year five years ago). I suppose this is but one of the benefits of having a socialist government owning a car insurance corporation.
What causes accidents is stuff that they still penalize you for, e.g., driving too fast for road conditions, reckless driving, stunting, etc.
You'll still get ticketed by the cops for speeding (since they still have quotas to meet), but at least one arm of our government has begun to realize that crusing at 140 in a 100 zone, on a sunny, dry day, on an open road doesn't equate to driving recklessly and being any more of a danger than a person going the speed limit.
"It is a good thing that something similar to this never will happen in Europe!"
At least in Europe (though I may be uninformed), they don't withhold evidence against the man in a secret trial and hold him on a so-called "security certificate", claiming the holocaust-denier to be as much of a threat to national security as a terrorist, and then deport him to his home country for something that I would presume isn't even an extraditable crime! I mean, hate speech is bad, but is it bad enough to deport someone for it? [http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/zundel/%5D
That'd have to be one fucked-up authoritarian country to suspend due process like that. You'd think they could have at least had an open trial, as in most first-world countries. The US, you ask? Nope! Blame Canada, this time.
And to think I used to think Canada was a generally free and open country. You know, one that has due process in its court system.
I'd best keep my mouth shut, though -- they might start thinking that it is hate speech to claim that deporting and suspending the due process rights of a hate speaker might not have been the most appropriate thing to do. -- Throw him in jail, or perhaps in a nuthouse. But consider him a much of a threat as a terrorist, and try him in secret? I don't think so.*
* Disclaimer: I share no personal beliefs with the accused, for which he is being prosecuted. I do, however, hold the belief that no action is too heinous for it not to be held in an open, transparent court, in which the defendant is allowed to both know and challenge the evidence against him. If the evidence is truly damning enough to consider a man as dangerous as a terrorist, any properly functioning court of law will justly convict the defendant and give him an appropriate sentence.
I feel safer already. Bob Terrorist can send coded messages just about any way he wants to get around this (the apocryphal "coded eBay auction" stories, PGP or any number of other encryption standards, smoke signals, fucking microfiche under a stamp), but the feds can listen to mom swapping corn muffin recipes."
On the plus side, I guess those terrorists that use corn-muffin-code for communication are doomed.
All in all, though, I think this measure can only waste time weeding out the duller terrorists--i.e., those that use plain language (even recipe-code) for their communications, on a system about which it is very publicly announced that G-men are allowed to wiretap. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to know to stay the hell away from that if you're planning something big.
Yet, it's hardly these dullards that I'm terrified of. All that'll remain after these plain-language interceptions are the smarter and, thus, far more dangerous terrorists. In your words, "I feel safer already".
"I cannot remember any slashdot article reading "HTTP user guilty of piracy"... "It's like saying "Porsche driver guilty of manslaughter"
Indeed. Furthermore, they could at least arrange the grammar of the headline to actually denote that he used BitTorrent in the act of piracy, not just that he was simply a BitTorrent user. E.g., "Nerdlinger uses BitTorrent to pirate movies", or something to that effect.
I mean, it's probably a good bet that a few murderers in the world have, in the past, tried BitTorrent once or twice. But that wouldn't justify headlining an article "BitTorrent user murders stepmother".
In conclusion, I shall repeat the phrase that is given far too little emphasis in the education of most people, journalists undoubtedly included: "Correlation does not equal causation". --Just because somebody uses X to do act Y doesn't entail that there is any direct relation between X and Ywhatsoever.
"That's probably the dumbest thing I've heard all day. When I go through the alphabet, i don't say the letter "G" with a hard sound. Gmail is the letter "G", then the word "mail"."
You know, we could solve this by using the German pronunciation of "G": "geh". -- However, I kind of suspect that not many people would be comfortable verbally admitting that they have an address at "gaymail.com".
I bet English-speaking Germans really get a kick out of that one.
- "If you're a minor, you've got no say in the matter. If you're an adult, why the hell should you care?"
- "If you're not a slave, why should you care about slavery? Dangerous logic my friend."
- "So, are you suggesting that the minors should have a say in the matter?... You, my friend, are using slippery slope logic."
Umm, I think accusations of slippery slope fallacies are thrown around far too easily. It all, of course, depends on whether the slope is actually slippery.
As an ad hoc example, let's say a random politician votes to suspend the civil liberties of a certain group of citizens. However, let's also say that an opposition leader voices his concerns over how the poorly worded bill, if enacted, will technically suspend the civil liberties of all citizens.
Surely, the original proponent will cry "Slippery slope! You're so wrong... that's such a slippery slope you've made, idiot!".
However, if the opposition was actually right about the matter, has he committed a fallacy? No. At least not according to most logicians and the logic texts that they write.
"It seems as if you're holding out for perfection, not willing to upgrade from ext3 to anything else unless you find The Perfect Filesystem. I think that's kinda silly; better to get 90% of what you need now, than to wait another 2-4 years, surely?"...
Especially considering that in about 1-2 years, he'll once again complain that no filesystem has every single new feature that he wants, and use that fact to justify keeping his ext3 filesystem yet again. And so on, and so on, until the white suits from the nuthouse finally take him away.
"Just because the media likes to report stories about people doing bad things to other people doesn't mean it is happening more often."
Damn right. One could easily imagine that if humanity ever evolved to such an extent that there were only one murder per year, the media would cover the story the entire year, until the next one. They'd even have movies, documentaries, "reality" shows, and special reports on how humanity has been especially murderous this year. All for ratings. Or, rather, for advertising income, which is determined by ratings.
Seriously. People want to be entertained (and, to a lesser extent, enlightened), so the media provides them with whatever sources are available. Proportionality, in this case, is a meaningless concept.
"Realize that our current government is headed by aspiring nationalistic theocrats, and the "War on Terror" and the "War on Porn" don't seem like such disparate goals."
Indeed, what we should be looking for is what seems common to both terrorism, drug-use, and porn, from the eyes of theocratic authoritarians.
What is common, from their eyes, seems to be, simply, that all are equally "shocking" to them.
I.e., sit a theocratic conservative in front of a television and show them the following:
(a) a news report detailing how 20 civilian Iraqis were killed in an American effort to subdue 2 enemy combatants. (b) a news report detailing how two potheads got high and climbed a tree leading to one needing hospitalization for falling on his ass. (c) a learning channel special detailing the various forms of human sexual behaviour. (d) a news report detailing the latest attempt, successful or not, by someone trying to carry out a terrorist act.
By and large, we shall see, such people will be extremely shocked by (d), very (if not equally) shocked by (c) and (b), and mildly (if at all) shocked by (a).
Thus follows attempts by such people to outlaw, anything that can potentially be used in a terrorist act, anything that can potentially be used in enhancing sexual pleasure beyond the missionary position, and anything that can potentially get people high; wars on terror, porn, and drugs.
Sensible human beings, on the other hand, are concerned with only the former, and not particularly because it is "terror", but because it is a human rights violation, plain and simple. That is, it in insofar as an action harms or negates another's life or well-being (i.e., their basic human rights) that it is clearly wrong. Thus, the killing of people (e.g., through terrorism) is wrong.
However, does another couple's sexual activity, in any way, whatsoever, affect anyone else? The distinction between this and terrorism can never be understated, nor can any minimally-rational human fail to recognize such a distinction. The answer: IT DOES NOT. Does the neighbor's son smoking a spliff in his garage harm anyone else. Unlikely, unless he tries to raid my fridge for snacks. Harsher drugs may justifiably be prevented if they lead to violence, but marijuana is among the lesser. Lesser, even, than alcohol.
So, the key is (and this is the principle behind any moderately correct theory of justice): only those actions which harm or potentially harm the rights of others are justifiably prevented by others. AND, even then, to be fair, such right-violating actions should be prevented in proportion with which they actually violate rights. I.e., stop terrorism, stop violence-causing drugs (e.g., crystal meth), but leave benign sexual practices alone.
"Technically, 'he ain't got it' is just as wrong as 'he doesn't has it', considering that 'ain't' means 'am not'. The only difference between your examples is that one error (he ain't) is widely accepted in every-day speech and one (doesn't has) isn't."
How about something like: "Aren't I supposed to go to school?"
This is perfectly standard English, though "aren't" is a contraction of "are not". So, the sentence, when changed into a statement rather than a question, says: "I are not supposed to go to school".
Strange, at first glance. However, contractions don't have to do precisely what one might say they're supposed to do. The evolution of language need not be absolutely precise.
Still, language does precisely what it's supposed to do--convey meaning. So, meaning is use, and language evolves, regardless of how prescriptivists would have it.
"The vendor gave up all rights to constrain the customer when s/he sold the item (and yes, you sold it despite what that flimsly little piece of paper inside the shrinkwrap may say)."
Damn right! The way I think of it is that unless I actually sign a contract limiting my rights, then there is no legitimately enforecable way of denying me those rights.
Or, even if this signing shall take too long, the fucking least that these brain farmers could do is to demand from the retailers that they inform the buyer that the purchase of said item contractually obligates the buyer to abide by certain rules--i.e., a damned verbal contract, at least. Anything less is pathetic authoritarianism. Seriously.
E.g., if their shrink-wrap contracts are supposedly binding as is, then what if they included a clause that I tithe 500 shillings a month to the most revered gods of the IP industry, and that my shaking fist be cut off if I refuse? If I am legally bound to piss away my rights for the unspoken "contracts" of shrinkwrappery, then what would make this latter contract any different?
I mean, if my agreement is completely unnecessary in legitimately revoking my rights, then the latter should be equally enforceable. But am I so damned stupid that I should think such a thing to be completely fucking ridiculous?
"Many Google acolytes like to point out that Google already grabs much of the web in its entirety, which is copyrighted by default."
"This statement is far too general. Could not the same claim be made of any sytem that categorizes books and journals so a potential user locates them - like a library card catalog?"
Perhaps the above person was referring to how google seems to cache damn-near all of the text of the web (including pdf-files). I mean, I could access just google and get more than half of all the textual information I normally look for (excluding recent crap). Furthermore, it is surely in their own financial interests for this to be so, because if they were unable to store full-texts and only have a handful of keywords (as in a card-catalogue), people would only be able to find a handful of the most topical websites that they search for, and not the plethora that google provides. Surely the google empire wouldn't be quite so large if that were the case.
Library card-catalogues, on the other hand, do not cache full-texts. If they did, authors' guilds might be raising a similar stink over the issue. However, given that card-catalogues (or, even libraries as a whole, one might say) are not online, there is less chance for widespread IP infringement, as, even though a library lends out books for free, it takes a considerable bit of a long time to locate for a book, borrow it, and photocopy it all (if one were so inclined) and only one person can do so with that copy of the book at one time.
Surely the level of ease in doing such a thing online (i.e., almost instant ease) is what panics that author's guild.
Anyhow, you are definitely right in critiquing the above claim. That is, the claim that "Google already grabs much of the web in its entirety, which is copyrighted by default" asserts that there is no difference between caching full-texts of physical, offline books and caching crap on the web which is already on the web and available instantly to everyone anyway.
There certainly is a difference--people publish shit on the web intending for anyone to be able to view it. People publish books intending for people to either buy the book or go to a library to check out a copy, which the library has bought, and which is unavailable to others until returned.
"In this time of high gas prices, plus since it is so cool out, I don't use the A/C in my truck. It wastes gas, and it is perfectly cool enough out with my windows rolled down, and I enjoy the breeze as I drive. It pisses me off to see so many other drivers (not all of them, but definitely the majority) not doing this, driving with the windows up and the A/C running. They are wasting fuel. They are wasting oil."
I may be wrong about this (of course), but I was always under the impression that the extra drag created by the wind blowing through open windows pretty much made any difference in fuel economy negligible vis-à-vis having the windows rolled up and using the A/C.
"I think 11 months is a reasonable sentence for the first offense of someone who committed a serious crime, but not a violent one."
From TFA: "one of many Bad Things(tm) that he had been up to: calling in bomb threats to schools"
I suppose bomb threats are not necessarily "violent" crimes, but I'd be damned surprised if I were the only one surprised that he hadn't been shipped off to Gitmo Bay or some such place for performing an arguably "terrorist" act, viz., calling in bomb threats. Stuff like that seems to be especially frowned upon these days.
Yeah, I know what you mean. I mean, if the content providers are left unchecked to enact their own measures of preventing piracy, next thing you know they'll syphon $19.95 off your credit card for every suspicious title you try to play and/or shoot out some sort of laser beam into your eyes that blinds you temporarily (the second shot being permanent).
Only some combination of the above two things and/or criminal sanctions are about the only way piracy will actually stop.
If only there were a way to actually get a substantial number of people to boycott those companies that cross the laser line. The problem is, simply, that not enough people give a damn and will be willing to pay for the privilege of being hassled by big business, at least enough to keep those businesses financially afloat.
Assuming that their statistics result from site monitoring (as on http://netapplications.com/, the surveyor's website, one of the services they offer is website monitoring), there would be no overlap, as the site monitoring would simply reflect what percentage dual-(or more)-browser users used either given browser.
I.e., it would simply reflect how many times the site was accessed from any particular brand of browser, and it could not account for whether users used one or more browsers (it would, of course, reflect what percentage such people used each of their browsers, but it could not tell whether those percentages resulted from one or more different users).
"We are now offering the MS Linux Introductory CD at a special introductory price of only $249.99 (plus shipping and handling), if you order before it ships."
Am I to assume that the word "introductory" now means "unduly expensive"?
I thought one of the major benefits of running linux is that it isn't introductory.
Or, maybe it's part of their plan to fool technology-ignorant CEOs into running Windows in their companies with: "As you can see, this so-called "linux" will cost you $249.99 per workstation for a primitive, "introductory" product, while our oh-so-advanced (and far prettier) Windows Longhorn can be had for only three easy payments of $49.95!"
I suppose I should have said they were unduly expensive.
Anyway, in terms of configurability, scalability, etc., hardware routers win hands-down. And, many people either have an old 486/pentium box lying around or can get one for even less than $89.
Also, the main advantage I find in having a computer as a router is that I can easily set it up for packet scheduling (QoS) and bandwidth limiting, something that is unduly expensive when bought in a hardware router.
Indeed, I find it surprising that so many find it hard to differentiate between the loss of actual assets and the loss of "potential" profits.
Whereas the actual loss in the former case is of a definite amount, e.g., $100.00, the loss in the latter case will range anywhere from, say, $0.00 to $100.00. The sole variable that determines the latter amount is whether the supposed "thief" would have actually purchased the product or not. If he/she wouldn't have purchased the product anyway, the actual loss of potential profits is equal to a "loss" of $0.00.
Civil courts should be attempting, as a litmus test of actual thievery, to determine whether or not the supposed thief would have bought the product if it hadn't been so readily available. Again, if the person wouldn't have bought it, the loss is equal to zero, such that any court-enforced recompensation ought to equal the actual loss, which is $0.00 (regardless of whether the person is criminally guilty of copyright infringement, which is likely true). Copyright infringement and the depriving of assets are entirely separate concepts. I.e., they are not at all identical, such that one can be guilty of either without being of the other.
Slashdot Mirror
"It's technically defined as going over the posted limit, set by the responsible authorities, and the understanding is that this is BAD ALL THE TIME.. right? WRONGO!"
Just as an aside, in the province in which I live, the publically-owned, largest car insurance company decided a few years ago not to penalize drivers on their insurance for exceeding the speed limit as, the argument rightly goes, speeding does not directly cause accidents.
And, they still manage to keep their insurance prices low, without this cash-grab. (E.g., any pre-1990 vehicle can probably get no-fault insurance and registration for under $600 Canadian, some vehicles much less--my old Bel Air cost $310 per year five years ago). I suppose this is but one of the benefits of having a socialist government owning a car insurance corporation.
What causes accidents is stuff that they still penalize you for, e.g., driving too fast for road conditions, reckless driving, stunting, etc.
You'll still get ticketed by the cops for speeding (since they still have quotas to meet), but at least one arm of our government has begun to realize that crusing at 140 in a 100 zone, on a sunny, dry day, on an open road doesn't equate to driving recklessly and being any more of a danger than a person going the speed limit.
"It is a good thing that something similar to this never will happen in Europe!"
At least in Europe (though I may be uninformed), they don't withhold evidence against the man in a secret trial and hold him on a so-called "security certificate", claiming the holocaust-denier to be as much of a threat to national security as a terrorist, and then deport him to his home country for something that I would presume isn't even an extraditable crime! I mean, hate speech is bad, but is it bad enough to deport someone for it? [http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/zundel/%5D
That'd have to be one fucked-up authoritarian country to suspend due process like that. You'd think they could have at least had an open trial, as in most first-world countries. The US, you ask? Nope! Blame Canada, this time.
And to think I used to think Canada was a generally free and open country. You know, one that has due process in its court system.
I'd best keep my mouth shut, though -- they might start thinking that it is hate speech to claim that deporting and suspending the due process rights of a hate speaker might not have been the most appropriate thing to do. -- Throw him in jail, or perhaps in a nuthouse. But consider him a much of a threat as a terrorist, and try him in secret? I don't think so.*
* Disclaimer: I share no personal beliefs with the accused, for which he is being prosecuted. I do, however, hold the belief that no action is too heinous for it not to be held in an open, transparent court, in which the defendant is allowed to both know and challenge the evidence against him. If the evidence is truly damning enough to consider a man as dangerous as a terrorist, any properly functioning court of law will justly convict the defendant and give him an appropriate sentence.
I feel safer already. Bob Terrorist can send coded messages just about any way he wants to get around this (the apocryphal "coded eBay auction" stories, PGP or any number of other encryption standards, smoke signals, fucking microfiche under a stamp), but the feds can listen to mom swapping corn muffin recipes."
On the plus side, I guess those terrorists that use corn-muffin-code for communication are doomed.
All in all, though, I think this measure can only waste time weeding out the duller terrorists--i.e., those that use plain language (even recipe-code) for their communications, on a system about which it is very publicly announced that G-men are allowed to wiretap. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to know to stay the hell away from that if you're planning something big.
Yet, it's hardly these dullards that I'm terrified of. All that'll remain after these plain-language interceptions are the smarter and, thus, far more dangerous terrorists. In your words, "I feel safer already".
"I cannot remember any slashdot article reading "HTTP user guilty of piracy" ... "It's like saying "Porsche driver guilty of manslaughter"
Indeed. Furthermore, they could at least arrange the grammar of the headline to actually denote that he used BitTorrent in the act of piracy, not just that he was simply a BitTorrent user. E.g., "Nerdlinger uses BitTorrent to pirate movies", or something to that effect.
I mean, it's probably a good bet that a few murderers in the world have, in the past, tried BitTorrent once or twice. But that wouldn't justify headlining an article "BitTorrent user murders stepmother".
In conclusion, I shall repeat the phrase that is given far too little emphasis in the education of most people, journalists undoubtedly included: "Correlation does not equal causation". --Just because somebody uses X to do act Y doesn't entail that there is any direct relation between X and Y whatsoever.
"considering that it's not being scratched by the freakin' air, you have to do "something" to it to scratch it."
Do sandstorms count as air?
"That's probably the dumbest thing I've heard all day. When I go through the alphabet, i don't say the letter "G" with a hard sound. Gmail is the letter "G", then the word "mail"."
You know, we could solve this by using the German pronunciation of "G": "geh". -- However, I kind of suspect that not many people would be comfortable verbally admitting that they have an address at "gaymail.com".
I bet English-speaking Germans really get a kick out of that one.
Unintentionally queer connotations: 1. - Google: 0.
- "If you're a minor, you've got no say in the matter. If you're an adult, why the hell should you care?"
- "If you're not a slave, why should you care about slavery? Dangerous logic my friend."
- "So, are you suggesting that the minors should have a say in the matter?... You, my friend, are using slippery slope logic."
Umm, I think accusations of slippery slope fallacies are thrown around far too easily. It all, of course, depends on whether the slope is actually slippery.
As an ad hoc example, let's say a random politician votes to suspend the civil liberties of a certain group of citizens. However, let's also say that an opposition leader voices his concerns over how the poorly worded bill, if enacted, will technically suspend the civil liberties of all citizens.
Surely, the original proponent will cry "Slippery slope! You're so wrong... that's such a slippery slope you've made, idiot!".
However, if the opposition was actually right about the matter, has he committed a fallacy? No. At least not according to most logicians and the logic texts that they write.
In conclusion, use of the slippery slope can be valid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope)
"It seems as if you're holding out for perfection, not willing to upgrade from ext3 to anything else unless you find The Perfect Filesystem. I think that's kinda silly; better to get 90% of what you need now, than to wait another 2-4 years, surely?"...
Especially considering that in about 1-2 years, he'll once again complain that no filesystem has every single new feature that he wants, and use that fact to justify keeping his ext3 filesystem yet again. And so on, and so on, until the white suits from the nuthouse finally take him away.
Ext3 Forever!
"Just because the media likes to report stories about people doing bad things to other people doesn't mean it is happening more often."
Damn right. One could easily imagine that if humanity ever evolved to such an extent that there were only one murder per year, the media would cover the story the entire year, until the next one. They'd even have movies, documentaries, "reality" shows, and special reports on how humanity has been especially murderous this year. All for ratings. Or, rather, for advertising income, which is determined by ratings.
Seriously. People want to be entertained (and, to a lesser extent, enlightened), so the media provides them with whatever sources are available. Proportionality, in this case, is a meaningless concept.
"Realize that our current government is headed by aspiring nationalistic theocrats, and the "War on Terror" and the "War on Porn" don't seem like such disparate goals."
Indeed, what we should be looking for is what seems common to both terrorism, drug-use, and porn, from the eyes of theocratic authoritarians.
What is common, from their eyes, seems to be, simply, that all are equally "shocking" to them.
I.e., sit a theocratic conservative in front of a television and show them the following:
(a) a news report detailing how 20 civilian Iraqis were killed in an American effort to subdue 2 enemy combatants.
(b) a news report detailing how two potheads got high and climbed a tree leading to one needing hospitalization for falling on his ass.
(c) a learning channel special detailing the various forms of human sexual behaviour.
(d) a news report detailing the latest attempt, successful or not, by someone trying to carry out a terrorist act.
By and large, we shall see, such people will be extremely shocked by (d), very (if not equally) shocked by (c) and (b), and mildly (if at all) shocked by (a).
Thus follows attempts by such people to outlaw, anything that can potentially be used in a terrorist act, anything that can potentially be used in enhancing sexual pleasure beyond the missionary position, and anything that can potentially get people high; wars on terror, porn, and drugs.
Sensible human beings, on the other hand, are concerned with only the former, and not particularly because it is "terror", but because it is a human rights violation, plain and simple. That is, it in insofar as an action harms or negates another's life or well-being (i.e., their basic human rights) that it is clearly wrong. Thus, the killing of people (e.g., through terrorism) is wrong.
However, does another couple's sexual activity, in any way, whatsoever, affect anyone else? The distinction between this and terrorism can never be understated, nor can any minimally-rational human fail to recognize such a distinction. The answer: IT DOES NOT. Does the neighbor's son smoking a spliff in his garage harm anyone else. Unlikely, unless he tries to raid my fridge for snacks. Harsher drugs may justifiably be prevented if they lead to violence, but marijuana is among the lesser. Lesser, even, than alcohol.
So, the key is (and this is the principle behind any moderately correct theory of justice):
only those actions which harm or potentially harm the rights of others are justifiably prevented by others. AND, even then, to be fair, such right-violating actions should be prevented in proportion with which they actually violate rights. I.e., stop terrorism, stop violence-causing drugs (e.g., crystal meth), but leave benign sexual practices alone.
"Technically, 'he ain't got it' is just as wrong as 'he doesn't has it', considering that 'ain't' means 'am not'. The only difference between your examples is that one error (he ain't) is widely accepted in every-day speech and one (doesn't has) isn't."
How about something like: "Aren't I supposed to go to school?"
This is perfectly standard English, though "aren't" is a contraction of "are not". So, the sentence, when changed into a statement rather than a question, says: "I are not supposed to go to school".
Strange, at first glance. However, contractions don't have to do precisely what one might say they're supposed to do. The evolution of language need not be absolutely precise.
Still, language does precisely what it's supposed to do--convey meaning. So, meaning is use, and language evolves, regardless of how prescriptivists would have it.
"The vendor gave up all rights to constrain the customer when s/he sold the item (and yes, you sold it despite what that flimsly little piece of paper inside the shrinkwrap may say)."
Damn right! The way I think of it is that unless I actually sign a contract limiting my rights, then there is no legitimately enforecable way of denying me those rights.
Or, even if this signing shall take too long, the fucking least that these brain farmers could do is to demand from the retailers that they inform the buyer that the purchase of said item contractually obligates the buyer to abide by certain rules--i.e., a damned verbal contract, at least. Anything less is pathetic authoritarianism. Seriously.
E.g., if their shrink-wrap contracts are supposedly binding as is, then what if they included a clause that I tithe 500 shillings a month to the most revered gods of the IP industry, and that my shaking fist be cut off if I refuse? If I am legally bound to piss away my rights for the unspoken "contracts" of shrinkwrappery, then what would make this latter contract any different?
I mean, if my agreement is completely unnecessary in legitimately revoking my rights, then the latter should be equally enforceable. But am I so damned stupid that I should think such a thing to be completely fucking ridiculous?
Bloody hell.
"Many Google acolytes like to point out that Google already grabs much of the web in its entirety, which is copyrighted by default."
"This statement is far too general. Could not the same claim be made of any sytem that categorizes books and journals so a potential user locates them - like a library card catalog?"
Perhaps the above person was referring to how google seems to cache damn-near all of the text of the web (including pdf-files). I mean, I could access just google and get more than half of all the textual information I normally look for (excluding recent crap). Furthermore, it is surely in their own financial interests for this to be so, because if they were unable to store full-texts and only have a handful of keywords (as in a card-catalogue), people would only be able to find a handful of the most topical websites that they search for, and not the plethora that google provides. Surely the google empire wouldn't be quite so large if that were the case.
Library card-catalogues, on the other hand, do not cache full-texts. If they did, authors' guilds might be raising a similar stink over the issue. However, given that card-catalogues (or, even libraries as a whole, one might say) are not online, there is less chance for widespread IP infringement, as, even though a library lends out books for free, it takes a considerable bit of a long time to locate for a book, borrow it, and photocopy it all (if one were so inclined) and only one person can do so with that copy of the book at one time.
Surely the level of ease in doing such a thing online (i.e., almost instant ease) is what panics that author's guild.
Anyhow, you are definitely right in critiquing the above claim. That is, the claim that "Google already grabs much of the web in its entirety, which is copyrighted by default" asserts that there is no difference between caching full-texts of physical, offline books and caching crap on the web which is already on the web and available instantly to everyone anyway.
There certainly is a difference--people publish shit on the web intending for anyone to be able to view it. People publish books intending for people to either buy the book or go to a library to check out a copy, which the library has bought, and which is unavailable to others until returned.
"In this time of high gas prices, plus since it is so cool out, I don't use the A/C in my truck. It wastes gas, and it is perfectly cool enough out with my windows rolled down, and I enjoy the breeze as I drive. It pisses me off to see so many other drivers (not all of them, but definitely the majority) not doing this, driving with the windows up and the A/C running. They are wasting fuel. They are wasting oil."
I may be wrong about this (of course), but I was always under the impression that the extra drag created by the wind blowing through open windows pretty much made any difference in fuel economy negligible vis-à-vis having the windows rolled up and using the A/C.
"I think 11 months is a reasonable sentence for the first offense of someone who committed a serious crime, but not a violent one."
From TFA: "one of many Bad Things(tm) that he had been up to: calling in bomb threats to schools"
I suppose bomb threats are not necessarily "violent" crimes, but I'd be damned surprised if I were the only one surprised that he hadn't been shipped off to Gitmo Bay or some such place for performing an arguably "terrorist" act, viz., calling in bomb threats. Stuff like that seems to be especially frowned upon these days.
"This is as amazing a revelation as the "Caution: risk of electric shock, injury, and death" label on my toaster."
But, isn't there a presumption that your toaster will actually do some toasting?
It would seem that a product should at least provide a basic level of functionality to be conisdered a product.
"There are no guarantees in life, period."
Surely there are at least some guarantees in contract law. E.g., if I buy a stapler, isn't there a presumption that it will be able to staple?
"It's where they stash their weed."
Cue Rob Schneider in Saturday Night Live:
"You see that bulge over there?
Not a lot of people know this,
but you can put your weed in there."
">a self-destruct code for Blu-ray disc players
That's waaaay over the line.
Yeah, I know what you mean. I mean, if the content providers are left unchecked to enact their own measures of preventing piracy, next thing you know they'll syphon $19.95 off your credit card for every suspicious title you try to play and/or shoot out some sort of laser beam into your eyes that blinds you temporarily (the second shot being permanent).
Only some combination of the above two things and/or criminal sanctions are about the only way piracy will actually stop.
If only there were a way to actually get a substantial number of people to boycott those companies that cross the laser line. The problem is, simply, that not enough people give a damn and will be willing to pay for the privilege of being hassled by big business, at least enough to keep those businesses financially afloat.
Assuming that their statistics result from site monitoring (as on http://netapplications.com/, the surveyor's website, one of the services they offer is website monitoring), there would be no overlap, as the site monitoring would simply reflect what percentage dual-(or more)-browser users used either given browser.
I.e., it would simply reflect how many times the site was accessed from any particular brand of browser, and it could not account for whether users used one or more browsers (it would, of course, reflect what percentage such people used each of their browsers, but it could not tell whether those percentages resulted from one or more different users).
From the http://www.mslinux.org/ result:
"We are now offering the MS Linux Introductory CD at a special introductory price of only $249.99 (plus shipping and handling), if you order before it ships."
Am I to assume that the word "introductory" now means "unduly expensive"?
I thought one of the major benefits of running linux is that it isn't introductory.
Or, maybe it's part of their plan to fool technology-ignorant CEOs into running Windows in their companies with: "As you can see, this so-called "linux" will cost you $249.99 per workstation for a primitive, "introductory" product, while our oh-so-advanced (and far prettier) Windows Longhorn can be had for only three easy payments of $49.95!"
I suppose I should have said they were unduly expensive.
Anyway, in terms of configurability, scalability, etc., hardware routers win hands-down. And, many people either have an old 486/pentium box lying around or can get one for even less than $89.
Also, the main advantage I find in having a computer as a router is that I can easily set it up for packet scheduling (QoS) and bandwidth limiting, something that is unduly expensive when bought in a hardware router.
Indeed, I find it surprising that so many find it hard to differentiate between the loss of actual assets and the loss of "potential" profits.
Whereas the actual loss in the former case is of a definite amount, e.g., $100.00, the loss in the latter case will range anywhere from, say, $0.00 to $100.00. The sole variable that determines the latter amount is whether the supposed "thief" would have actually purchased the product or not. If he/she wouldn't have purchased the product anyway, the actual loss of potential profits is equal to a "loss" of $0.00.
Civil courts should be attempting, as a litmus test of actual thievery, to determine whether or not the supposed thief would have bought the product if it hadn't been so readily available. Again, if the person wouldn't have bought it, the loss is equal to zero, such that any court-enforced recompensation ought to equal the actual loss, which is $0.00 (regardless of whether the person is criminally guilty of copyright infringement, which is likely true). Copyright infringement and the depriving of assets are entirely separate concepts. I.e., they are not at all identical, such that one can be guilty of either without being of the other.