The goal of the US system is not to uphold freedom. It has increasingly become a game played by the rich and powerful to see who can consolidate more power and influence under the pretense of freedom.
This has always been the case. Look up Andrew Jackson and the Trail of Tears. And then there's slavery, a rotten institution that only was banned after half of the states left and were forced to rejoin.
The US has always extolled lofty ideals, but has never actually done any of them.
Maybe for once, they can change the law to be for the better... Not likely of course, since if they do get the law change, the new law would probably end up screwing over authors. But still, one can hope.
Closed source, compiled binaries have no problem with the code being copied in any world.
There are just laws, and unjust laws. What separates the so-called "First World" from the so-called "Third World" may be the laws, but that which separates the free and the oppressed is the justness of the laws governing those people.
I don't think it's the majority's desire to do away with an unjust law. I think what most people want is to replace the unjust laws with just ones.
The differenciation lies between for-profit, and not-for-profit infringement. Limiting the former limits commercial rights. Limiting the latter limits personal rights. The "balance" to copyright legislation you desire lies smack in between these two.
Unfortunately, the media distribution industry wants to make money from both. They're not interested in personal versus commercial, they want money either way.
I suspect it had been the former rather than the latter. It may explain why we haven't seen an eruption out of Yellowstone in 640K years. Since the pressure building underneath Yellowstone vented 14K years ago through those holes, it very well might have bought us quite a bit of time--miniscule on a geological scale, but huge in human years. Of course, it'd be impossible to know exactly how much pressure had vented 14K years ago, and if that's enough to completely diffuse a Yellowstone eruption or if it'll delay the eruption by another 400K years.
However, it's unlikely that they precede an eruption event. If they did, they'd probably still be spewing magma and in increasing frequency, duration, and magnitude, as the next eruption nears. That they've lain dormant for the past 2000 years seems to indicate that they aren't become more active.
Or, perhaps that could very well be the site of the next supervolcano, while Yellowstone's just the remnants of an old one.
It's about scale, and on the same vein, energy. Humans aren't quite capable of harnessing energies on a global scale. In fact, a good number are quite unable to handle energies greater than what a car would produce. Thus, no human-created disasters can even begin to approach that level. Earthquakes and supervolcanos on the other hand, are of that scale, albeit on the low end.
Of course, destructive humans can potentially create disasters of that magnitude. But most humans are terribly good at self-preservation, to the point where they won't do such a thing no matter how tempting it might be.
Life will probably continue for a long time as long as the number of people dying and the number of people being created are at an equillibrium. But life as we know it can all disappear in the blink of an eye.
Humans will probably survive any natural disaster so long as the planet is still around. Humanity may not.
He'll use the "Think of the Childs" meme, and the jury will fall into line behind him immediately. We all know that once somebody pulls that out, they suddenly encounter no resistance.
No, the network belongs to the government, which is the City of San Francisco, which belongs, if only in theory, to the people thereof. It certainly doesn't belong to his boss.
This guy did the right thing. He did the ethical thing. If the passwords to the systems fell into the wrong hands because of his laxity, then he would be liable, if not legally, then morally, for any damage done because of his actions. And if procedure stated that he not give out the passwords to anybody but the Mayor (which it appears to have said, and which it appears he followed), then there's even more of an argument that he did the right thing by not giving out the password.
And sure, there are studies that say most people will do as they're told, even if the act isn't ethical or moral. It's not a legal defense, but it is a part of the human psyche. But by not following orders he doens't believe to be ethical, he's proved himself to be better than most people. So he's not a sheep. He stood up for what he believed was right. Is that a crime? Should he be punished for it, which he is now?
A star so close would be really, really bright. Jupiter is visible to the naked eye, about 1/10,000 of a light year away, and 1000 times smaller than the sun. A second sun about 1/2 of a light year away would be about 1/5 as bright as the sun. So a star so close by would probably be brighter than the full moon.
This is what amuses me about America. In one post, you argue without a hint of irony that a) rights are endowed by a creator, and not inventions of man; and b) you have the right to bear arms.
But more seriously, I would take exception to your argument that rights are not given by man. It is only by becoming civilised that we can share equal rights. No matter how loudly you shout about your rights, they only exist if others recognise and respect them.
You certainly can look at it that way. If I don't recognize your right to live, I can kill you. But that's the kind of behavior society is predicated upon to prevent. And this comes in the form of justice, punishment, or whatever else you might call it. You can call it a social right then, that the right to live is among those rights inherent by partaking in society.
The right to expression is the right to thought. We are born with a brain to think, and a mouth to say what we think. If we cannot express ourselves the way our brain desires, then we cannot have thought anymore.
So these inalienable rights aren't necessarily "rights" in that they can't be taken away. But they're the "rights" that without, we would cease to be human. So they're Creator-given in the sense that these are a necessity to the condition of humanity, without which, we might as well be robots, or dead.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has not only rights to free speech, but rights to housing, food, clothing and clean water. These are commodities. The right to express yourself politically (vote) is also critical; as is the right of equal access to public service in your country.
The right of expression I addressed above, but many of the others aren't rights of the populace at all, but the duty of any government ruling over a body of people to provide to the populace. There is a difference. You can say that if a government neglects that duty, then it is justified for the populace to replace that government. But these aren't rights, they're just conditions in which a ruling body can be replaced and a new one recognized.
As for broadband, while expression is a right that comes with the right to independent thought (as if that happens anyway) the transmission of that expression is not a right. I don't have to hear what you want to say. You're welcome to say it, but I am as free to leave as I am to stay.
Slashdot Mirror
It's like slashdotters are trying to one-up each other by posting increasingly outrageous bad fantasy stories.
The goal of the US system is not to uphold freedom. It has increasingly become a game played by the rich and powerful to see who can consolidate more power and influence under the pretense of freedom.
This has always been the case. Look up Andrew Jackson and the Trail of Tears. And then there's slavery, a rotten institution that only was banned after half of the states left and were forced to rejoin.
The US has always extolled lofty ideals, but has never actually done any of them.
It doesn't have to be warm water per se. It just needs to be warm, and have mostly water. With that in mind, I'll say: Point upwards.
Maybe for once, they can change the law to be for the better... Not likely of course, since if they do get the law change, the new law would probably end up screwing over authors. But still, one can hope.
Unless you throw chairs.
It gets even better: he lacks the * next to his name.
Someone who would do something like that has probably suffered a life of abuse them selves
Perhaps. Or perhaps not. You have to wonder if some people weren't just born that way.
To paraphrase: two guys are going to start streaming TV to their smart phones while everybody else attempts to do the same but ends up timing out.
Only if you're a teenage girl.
Nah, he's not actually going to serve the full 44 years.
They do special things to pedophiles in prison. Very special things.
Granted, he's technically not a pedophile, but "raping a minor" amounts to the same thing inside.
This is Europe we're talking about. Some of their buildings are probably two thousand years old.
Closed source, compiled binaries have no problem with the code being copied in any world.
There are just laws, and unjust laws. What separates the so-called "First World" from the so-called "Third World" may be the laws, but that which separates the free and the oppressed is the justness of the laws governing those people.
I don't think it's the majority's desire to do away with an unjust law. I think what most people want is to replace the unjust laws with just ones.
The differenciation lies between for-profit, and not-for-profit infringement. Limiting the former limits commercial rights. Limiting the latter limits personal rights. The "balance" to copyright legislation you desire lies smack in between these two.
Unfortunately, the media distribution industry wants to make money from both. They're not interested in personal versus commercial, they want money either way.
I doubt the geologist is at fault.
Yeah, but he one the one who caused a rift in the community.
*ducks*
I know! We can invade it! They have oil there, right?
I suspect it had been the former rather than the latter. It may explain why we haven't seen an eruption out of Yellowstone in 640K years. Since the pressure building underneath Yellowstone vented 14K years ago through those holes, it very well might have bought us quite a bit of time--miniscule on a geological scale, but huge in human years. Of course, it'd be impossible to know exactly how much pressure had vented 14K years ago, and if that's enough to completely diffuse a Yellowstone eruption or if it'll delay the eruption by another 400K years.
However, it's unlikely that they precede an eruption event. If they did, they'd probably still be spewing magma and in increasing frequency, duration, and magnitude, as the next eruption nears. That they've lain dormant for the past 2000 years seems to indicate that they aren't become more active.
Or, perhaps that could very well be the site of the next supervolcano, while Yellowstone's just the remnants of an old one.
It's about scale, and on the same vein, energy. Humans aren't quite capable of harnessing energies on a global scale. In fact, a good number are quite unable to handle energies greater than what a car would produce. Thus, no human-created disasters can even begin to approach that level. Earthquakes and supervolcanos on the other hand, are of that scale, albeit on the low end.
Of course, destructive humans can potentially create disasters of that magnitude. But most humans are terribly good at self-preservation, to the point where they won't do such a thing no matter how tempting it might be.
What you say is true until Cthulhu rises again.
Life will probably continue for a long time as long as the number of people dying and the number of people being created are at an equillibrium. But life as we know it can all disappear in the blink of an eye.
Humans will probably survive any natural disaster so long as the planet is still around. Humanity may not.
He'll use the "Think of the Childs" meme, and the jury will fall into line behind him immediately. We all know that once somebody pulls that out, they suddenly encounter no resistance.
No, the network belongs to the government, which is the City of San Francisco, which belongs, if only in theory, to the people thereof. It certainly doesn't belong to his boss.
This guy did the right thing. He did the ethical thing. If the passwords to the systems fell into the wrong hands because of his laxity, then he would be liable, if not legally, then morally, for any damage done because of his actions. And if procedure stated that he not give out the passwords to anybody but the Mayor (which it appears to have said, and which it appears he followed), then there's even more of an argument that he did the right thing by not giving out the password.
And sure, there are studies that say most people will do as they're told, even if the act isn't ethical or moral. It's not a legal defense, but it is a part of the human psyche. But by not following orders he doens't believe to be ethical, he's proved himself to be better than most people. So he's not a sheep. He stood up for what he believed was right. Is that a crime? Should he be punished for it, which he is now?
A star so close would be really, really bright. Jupiter is visible to the naked eye, about 1/10,000 of a light year away, and 1000 times smaller than the sun. A second sun about 1/2 of a light year away would be about 1/5 as bright as the sun. So a star so close by would probably be brighter than the full moon.
Infrared light is not sufficient to get you clean.
In fact, it has the opposite effect.
This is what amuses me about America. In one post, you argue without a hint of irony that a) rights are endowed by a creator, and not inventions of man; and b) you have the right to bear arms.
See my reply above.
But more seriously, I would take exception to your argument that rights are not given by man. It is only by becoming civilised that we can share equal rights. No matter how loudly you shout about your rights, they only exist if others recognise and respect them.
You certainly can look at it that way. If I don't recognize your right to live, I can kill you. But that's the kind of behavior society is predicated upon to prevent. And this comes in the form of justice, punishment, or whatever else you might call it. You can call it a social right then, that the right to live is among those rights inherent by partaking in society.
The right to expression is the right to thought. We are born with a brain to think, and a mouth to say what we think. If we cannot express ourselves the way our brain desires, then we cannot have thought anymore.
So these inalienable rights aren't necessarily "rights" in that they can't be taken away. But they're the "rights" that without, we would cease to be human. So they're Creator-given in the sense that these are a necessity to the condition of humanity, without which, we might as well be robots, or dead.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has not only rights to free speech, but rights to housing, food, clothing and clean water. These are commodities. The right to express yourself politically (vote) is also critical; as is the right of equal access to public service in your country.
The right of expression I addressed above, but many of the others aren't rights of the populace at all, but the duty of any government ruling over a body of people to provide to the populace. There is a difference. You can say that if a government neglects that duty, then it is justified for the populace to replace that government. But these aren't rights, they're just conditions in which a ruling body can be replaced and a new one recognized.
As for broadband, while expression is a right that comes with the right to independent thought (as if that happens anyway) the transmission of that expression is not a right. I don't have to hear what you want to say. You're welcome to say it, but I am as free to leave as I am to stay.
No, you're thinking of guns, or firearms. The right to arms extends to the other end of the spectrum, where, well, your arms are.
The right to bear arms is effectively the right to self defense. Without being armed, you can't really defend yourself, can you?