>I thought one of the first rules on the internet was that anything you put out there can fall into the wrong hands / become public?
So you belong to a bank that doesn't have a web interface to your account? I wasn't aware those existed anymore. Or are you OK with people being able to take your money?
Technically yes, but you can have a similar problem with a knife, sword, or torch...
The difference I'm trying to draw attention to is the training. Fully automatic weapon... without training it's very easy under normal circumstances to pull the trigger and spray over a much wider area than you intended. With explosives, you can't guarantee much of anything about your target and the surrounding area other than a mess.
> police forgot about the "protect and serve" motto a long time ago
I watched our courts here in California, and no they haven't. They explicitly use that motto still.
The trick is that we're always understood it as "protect and serve ME", where the court says it means "protect and serve the city". Thus there is no duty for police to protect an individual. (Which is why England is so crazy... the same logic holds there, that the police have no duty to protect you, but you aren't allowed to protect yourself either)
The trick is that "Assault rifle" is a meaningless term, or more to the point, a term whose meaning get warped to whoever is trying to ban anything scary at the moment.
Or some people who misunderstand "semi-automatic" is an "oh my god we should ban that thing", but they don't behave differently from revolvers.
If you're going to talk about limits, we should really talk about behaviors.
I don't mind banning heavy explosives, because special training and storage is required in order to keep them from indiscriminately killing hundreds of people by accident. With even the scariest semi-automatic weapon, you still have one click-one shot, so you just get what you're pointing at.
Towards the first definition: I can copy someone else's arrangement of bits, and all I'm doing is pushing electrons around... electrons that I paid to be able to manipulate. The fact that those electrons represent something doesn't matter apparently.
So, taking that approach to #2, plagiarism online can't exist either, since the ideas were never affected. The original post is still there, so my copying of it wouldn't cause any harm.
Since plagiarism does exist and is rightly forbidden, obviously the ideas present in the arrangements of electrons mean something, and exist as something on their own to be protected (ala Intellectual Property)
As I said before, we're not in court arguing cases, we're writing English. You know what the writer meant, the writer knew what he meant, and you both understood the same thing about the situation. The writing did it's job.
The sky is blue... no, it's cerulean mixed with tufts of white... well, the portion of sky covering x arc consists of the following spectrum of colors... (All three descriptions have their place, but normally when people describe the color of the sky they're not planning to spectrally analyze its composition) Any way you describe it, we know it's a nice day out, there's no need to get into pedantics.
This definition doesn't explicitly say that stealing removes an object from the owner's use, merely that you took something without permission. (ie, making a copy is taking a copy, and if you were not authorized to make that copy you are stealing it) 1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force
This definition fits nicely with the vernacular usage that you're decrying 2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
>associating something innocuous, copyright infringement, with something we all despise: theft.
Copyright infringement is not innocuous as far as I've ever heard... multimillion dollar lawsuits are fought over years when one company infringes another's copyrights. It's serious business We don't all despise theft either: If I'm starving, I feel just fine stealing bread. Stealing a candy bar from a billionaire just doesn't compare to stealing one from a child.
Let the word stand, and associate what they're doing: extortion, destroying people entire lives over a $1.99 song, etc.
We are not lawyers in court or writing court documents, the word steal has multiple meanings, and by context you can work out the point of the conversation:
This definition doesn't explicitly say that stealing removes an object from the owner's use, merely that you took something without permission. (ie, making a copy is taking a copy, and if you were not authorized to make that copy you are stealing it) >1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force
This definition fits nicely with the vernacular usage that you're decrying >2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
The difference is that the interstate commerce thing sounds ridiculous to "normal" people that are just trying to exchange ideas. When someone else gets something for free that you had to pay for, that fits enough of the definition of theft for people to be able to grasp onto.
By nitpicking about specific terms, you detract from the discussion about what really matters, and the real argument suffers: Sure RIAA has a right to investigate these things, but no cheating guys... (sorry if my use of the word cheating collides with a usage of the word you don't approve of) They shouldn't have the right to destroy a person's life with just an accusation that has no real basis. They should not be allowed to extort money from you simply because you can't afford to defend yourself. (The burden's are well beyond proportion to the alleged "crime" or tort)
Also, when you focus on the "theft" definition, you reduce the problem to one of two competing concerns: 1. Rich artists making millions off of presumably little work, so it's OK to "take from" them without compensation 2. Empathy with "If I did a song I'd want to get paid for it" Neither of them deals with the inherent unfairness of the copyright system, nor with RIAA's evil methods of dealing with it.
Once people get used to "Corporations are abusing unfair laws and abusing the court system in order to destroy people just like you", the nuances of terminology make much more sense to talk about.
I dunno, maybe because Apple showed the studios there was an market that was willing to pay, even though the DRM was easily hackable? And it got popular enough that people actually started learning what DRM was and that it was a bad thing?
Seatbelts used to be options in cars, not they are part of the package. Lack-of-DRM is now an option, hopefully it will soon be a part of the package as well.
(Sorry, best car analogy I could come up with on short notice)
> B. 99% of police in the US now use semi-automatic pistols
That's a funny one for me... semi-automatic sounds so SCARY, but really isn't much different from a revolver.
With a revolver you have, one click = one shot. With a semi-auto pistol you have, one click = one shot.
Only effective difference is reload time (and autoloaders close that gap with training), and rounds in a load (usually 6 for revolver, more for semi-autos)
>question of if there's a better way for you to keep track of tasks
We always end up devolving to emails. Using another system always requires extra work, and within most ticketing systems other fields are required to be set a certain way. Email is free form... just jot the note and move on.
You are offering up data for others to request and consume... you are a server as well as a client, which makes you a peer. (unless you're a pure leach)
It's already in evert broadband contract I've ever agreed to. (Never had DSL though) They all say something to the effect of "no servers", which would drastically affect your p2p usage.
But, in all practicality, you can't fully control your government, and you shouldn't even try to control the governed, so the only thing you really can control is the thing.
It can't be abused if it doesn't exist. It can be abused if some gov't weasels decide they can get around whatever checks are in place (no matter how good they are)... and even if they are caught, the damage is done.
>The content I wanted to see (the article) is spread out over three pages, and each page only contains approx. 10% of the content I want to see.
So, They are only giving you 30% of the content total? You missed out on more than 2/3 of the article? Ouch.
> Do they actually think they're adding value?
If those extra ad-views are generating enough revenue to allow them to continue publishing the articles and pay the authors, then the answer would be yes, they think they are.
At least they're nice enough to still have a "Print this page" link which bypasses much of that.
Bomb fatality is all about energy, and people are really good at absorbing energy. Bombs lose a good chunk of their after a few layers of "meat based shielding".
> While the guy who installed Linux in his laptop and actually has useful business to do within the borders is gonna get detained
Which means he won't be on the plane when it explodes.
See, the gov't does care
Slashdot Mirror
>I thought one of the first rules on the internet was that anything you put out there can fall into the wrong hands / become public?
So you belong to a bank that doesn't have a web interface to your account? I wasn't aware those existed anymore.
Or are you OK with people being able to take your money?
Technically yes, but you can have a similar problem with a knife, sword, or torch...
The difference I'm trying to draw attention to is the training.
Fully automatic weapon... without training it's very easy under normal circumstances to pull the trigger and spray over a much wider area than you intended.
With explosives, you can't guarantee much of anything about your target and the surrounding area other than a mess.
> police forgot about the "protect and serve" motto a long time ago
I watched our courts here in California, and no they haven't. They explicitly use that motto still.
The trick is that we're always understood it as "protect and serve ME", where the court says it means "protect and serve the city". Thus there is no duty for police to protect an individual. (Which is why England is so crazy... the same logic holds there, that the police have no duty to protect you, but you aren't allowed to protect yourself either)
The trick is that "Assault rifle" is a meaningless term, or more to the point, a term whose meaning get warped to whoever is trying to ban anything scary at the moment.
Or some people who misunderstand "semi-automatic" is an "oh my god we should ban that thing", but they don't behave differently from revolvers.
If you're going to talk about limits, we should really talk about behaviors.
I don't mind banning heavy explosives, because special training and storage is required in order to keep them from indiscriminately killing hundreds of people by accident.
With even the scariest semi-automatic weapon, you still have one click-one shot, so you just get what you're pointing at.
It depends on perspective.
...
Towards the first definition:
I can copy someone else's arrangement of bits, and all I'm doing is pushing electrons around... electrons that I paid to be able to manipulate. The fact that those electrons represent something doesn't matter apparently.
So, taking that approach to #2, plagiarism online can't exist either, since the ideas were never affected. The original post is still there, so my copying of it wouldn't cause any harm.
Since plagiarism does exist and is rightly forbidden, obviously the ideas present in the arrangements of electrons mean something, and exist as something on their own to be protected (ala Intellectual Property)
As I said before, we're not in court arguing cases, we're writing English.
You know what the writer meant, the writer knew what he meant, and you both understood the same thing about the situation.
The writing did it's job.
The sky is blue... no, it's cerulean mixed with tufts of white... well, the portion of sky covering x arc consists of the following spectrum of colors
(All three descriptions have their place, but normally when people describe the color of the sky they're not planning to spectrally analyze its composition)
Any way you describe it, we know it's a nice day out, there's no need to get into pedantics.
>If it doesn't matter, then why use the wrong term?
> It's because it DOES matter
No, it's because the word "steal" carries enough meaning to fit with what is being talked about.
(from another post)
From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal
This definition doesn't explicitly say that stealing removes an object from the owner's use, merely that you took something without permission.
(ie, making a copy is taking a copy, and if you were not authorized to make that copy you are stealing it)
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force
This definition fits nicely with the vernacular usage that you're decrying
2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
>associating something innocuous, copyright infringement, with something we all despise: theft.
Copyright infringement is not innocuous as far as I've ever heard... multimillion dollar lawsuits are fought over years when one company infringes another's copyrights. It's serious business
We don't all despise theft either: If I'm starving, I feel just fine stealing bread. Stealing a candy bar from a billionaire just doesn't compare to stealing one from a child.
Let the word stand, and associate what they're doing: extortion, destroying people entire lives over a $1.99 song, etc.
We are not lawyers in court or writing court documents, the word steal has multiple meanings, and by context you can work out the point of the conversation:
From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal
This definition doesn't explicitly say that stealing removes an object from the owner's use, merely that you took something without permission.
(ie, making a copy is taking a copy, and if you were not authorized to make that copy you are stealing it)
>1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force
This definition fits nicely with the vernacular usage that you're decrying
>2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
The difference is that the interstate commerce thing sounds ridiculous to "normal" people that are just trying to exchange ideas.
When someone else gets something for free that you had to pay for, that fits enough of the definition of theft for people to be able to grasp onto.
By nitpicking about specific terms, you detract from the discussion about what really matters, and the real argument suffers: Sure RIAA has a right to investigate these things, but no cheating guys... (sorry if my use of the word cheating collides with a usage of the word you don't approve of) They shouldn't have the right to destroy a person's life with just an accusation that has no real basis. They should not be allowed to extort money from you simply because you can't afford to defend yourself. (The burden's are well beyond proportion to the alleged "crime" or tort)
Also, when you focus on the "theft" definition, you reduce the problem to one of two competing concerns:
1. Rich artists making millions off of presumably little work, so it's OK to "take from" them without compensation
2. Empathy with "If I did a song I'd want to get paid for it"
Neither of them deals with the inherent unfairness of the copyright system, nor with RIAA's evil methods of dealing with it.
Once people get used to "Corporations are abusing unfair laws and abusing the court system in order to destroy people just like you", the nuances of terminology make much more sense to talk about.
I really hope this means they have more personal details about us on laptops! That would be fun
Do you really think that if you got everyone on the planet to say "infringing copyright" instead of "theft" it would change anything?
I dunno, maybe because Apple showed the studios there was an market that was willing to pay, even though the DRM was easily hackable?
And it got popular enough that people actually started learning what DRM was and that it was a bad thing?
Seatbelts used to be options in cars, not they are part of the package.
Lack-of-DRM is now an option, hopefully it will soon be a part of the package as well.
(Sorry, best car analogy I could come up with on short notice)
> B. 99% of police in the US now use semi-automatic pistols
That's a funny one for me... semi-automatic sounds so SCARY, but really isn't much different from a revolver.
With a revolver you have, one click = one shot.
With a semi-auto pistol you have, one click = one shot.
Only effective difference is reload time (and autoloaders close that gap with training), and rounds in a load (usually 6 for revolver, more for semi-autos)
>question of if there's a better way for you to keep track of tasks
We always end up devolving to emails.
Using another system always requires extra work, and within most ticketing systems other fields are required to be set a certain way.
Email is free form... just jot the note and move on.
You are offering up data for others to request and consume... you are a server as well as a client, which makes you a peer.
(unless you're a pure leach)
It's already in evert broadband contract I've ever agreed to. (Never had DSL though)
They all say something to the effect of "no servers", which would drastically affect your p2p usage.
In most of the cases, yes.
There is usually a clause disallowing you from running a "server", and that's half of what peer to peer is.
> having a baby
A baby is a life... they got one. Bad example =-)
But your wireless goes somewhere doesn't it?
Go wireless to evade snooping?
But, in all practicality, you can't fully control your government, and you shouldn't even try to control the governed, so the only thing you really can control is the thing.
It can't be abused if it doesn't exist.
It can be abused if some gov't weasels decide they can get around whatever checks are in place (no matter how good they are)... and even if they are caught, the damage is done.
>are encouraged to enjoy it without risking the lives of others.
Yeah, one of the most surreal experiences I had was in Montana.
Background: I'm from California...
So the chance to drive down the street drinking a beer, with a loaded gun next to me... man that just felt strange.
Amazingly I didn't kill anyone. Go figure.
Doesn't Germany also require you to pass an actual skills test to get your license?
Might that not have something to do with it as well?
not just a basic, "you didn't kill anyone today. good job" test because we don't want people to think we're oppressing anyone
>The content I wanted to see (the article) is spread out over three pages, and each page only contains approx. 10% of the content I want to see.
So, They are only giving you 30% of the content total? You missed out on more than 2/3 of the article? Ouch.
> Do they actually think they're adding value?
If those extra ad-views are generating enough revenue to allow them to continue publishing the articles and pay the authors, then the answer would be yes, they think they are.
At least they're nice enough to still have a "Print this page" link which bypasses much of that.
Bomb fatality is all about energy, and people are really good at absorbing energy. Bombs lose a good chunk of their after a few layers of "meat based shielding".
> While the guy who installed Linux in his laptop and actually has useful business to do within the borders is gonna get detained Which means he won't be on the plane when it explodes. See, the gov't does care
> and in worst case scenario they only need one channel per each consumer's device
Seems like a pretty bad worst case. How many cable boxes max hang off the distro points? What is the bandwidth like between those and the head ends?