I get it! So, say you have about a billion nodes that all have the capability to be servers of any kind. And some of them are hosting web sites, and some are hosting databases, and some are hosting Gopher sites, and some are hosting ftp, etc. And a lot of them have load balancing, redundancy, and integrated failover. This would be one massive Cloud, right?
So, uh, how's that different from the Internet again?
Hm, I wonder if there's a freedom of speech casein there? Airports are in many ways public facilities, and photography is without question a form of artistic expression.
I don't follow, how does the electoral system prevent a corrupt metropolitan government from impacting the national election? In your example, with the electoral system they just need to control enough votes to swing the states popular vote to 51%
That's rather the point. The damage is limited to one state.
I'm taking a stab in the dark here, but perhaps GP meant in the broader sense: Fucking with things you don't really understand may have consequences you are equally ill-equipped to grasp?
I only wish I could, but what kind of geek would I be if I were able to just let it go...
Without getting into a quoting frenzy, here are my points of disagreement:
1. My reply was specifically to your comments; it was not to the article itself. Therefore, it was not offtopic. I label comments as offtopic when they are offtopic to the post I am replying to.
2. My comment was not a statement of law, it was a strongly worded statement of opinion. I did not say "downloading copyrighted content is illegal". I said it is "stealing"; which is a moral judgement. The law and morality often go into completely different directions (and this is generally a good thing - who in their right mind wants morality to be legislated?) On slashdot and elsewhere, do you read every firmly-stated opinion as a statement of legal fact? I'm going to assume not -- so why would this be different?
3. Games connection: my beliefs on this subject (and willingness to speak of them) predate my involvement in the gaming industry, which is why I'm comfortable in saying the influence would be a minor one if any at all.
4. RIAA - I've never defended them. The closest I've come is implying that I can understand why they are doing something, but you'll never see me defend their behavior. By way of comparison, I can understand why some murderers have killed -- but that's a far cry from defending them, believing that they were justified, or even thinking that they don't deserve justice. The ability to empathize does imply agreement or support.
First, apologies for the delay in my reply. Work has been hell for the last couple of days. But... on to the topic at hand:
My opinions are just that - my opinions. I guess I can understand where you think I have an ulterior motive, but I don't -- I'm just sounding off with my opinions when it's topically appropriate, the same as everyone else here.
Yes you have been open about that being your position, but you have not been open about your personal reasons for repeatedly espousing that incorrect statement of law at every juncture, when it is almost invariably offtopic.
My replies are without exception on-topic to the post I reply to. When they are not, I label them as "OT" in the subject. Further, I challenge you to find any instance in which I make an incorrect statement of law, keeping in mind that in order to do so, it must be a statement (that is, not a question) and posed as a factual interpretation of law. I suspect you won't have much luck, because I try to stick to what I know when I post.
The entire subject of the oral argument in Capitol v. Thomas [blogspot.com] is the distribution right...Yet you insist on using this post as a platform to repeat, over and over again, your misstatement of law regarding the reproduction right
I've done nothing of the sort. In an on-topic reply to your implication that the only reason for someone to post a disclaimer is that they are a RIAA shill, I cited my own personal beliefs to give an example of why someone might make that disclaimer while not being a shill.
You'll note I wasn't even really defending the poster - for all I know he really/is/ a RIAA shill (but I still suspect that he's not).
As far as incorrect statements of law: see above challenge. My posts are generally not about the law, unless it's in the form of a question or idea.
f you want to have a "reasonable" and "intelligent" dialogue you need to do 2 things:
Actually, I don't, but I'll try to answer these points anyway in the interest of hoping to come to an understanding.
1. disclose the real reason that you keep looking for a platform to spout your opinion on downloading, and
I don't look for platform to do anything. When it's appropriate to the topic at hand, I may choose to mention it - it is my opinion, and I'm entitled to do so. The closest thing I have to ulterior motive is my tangental involvement in the games industry, where the same casual attitude about downloading not being equal to stealing is killing indy game developers, and is moving the industry as a whole towards console games. But that's a lesser factor - for the most part, I reply as my own values indicate I should.
Either cite your authority for it, or admit you have none.
Cite my authority to hold an opinion and be vocal about it? Why should I have to do that? I'm not stating these things as points of law, I'm stating them as a product of my own value system. I need no more authority than anyone else to do that.
See, the way I look at things, there is no contradiction between being "emotional" and being "intelligent and reasonable", but there is a contradiction between "intelligent and reasonable" on the hand, and "intellectually dishonest" on the other.
So you're now calling me "intellectually dishonest" because it's unfathomable that my posts have no ulterior motive?
You've done a good job of diverting this away from my original point, which is that there are other reasons besides being a RIAA shill for someone to say "I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy, but..."
I rather thought we were on the same side here: that is, opposed to the way RIAA and counsel are abusing the legal system to extort money out of their victims. But unless I'm missing something, you are not able to draw that dividing line that allows one disapprove of RIAA tactic
I can understand why people do -- a futile attempt to have the content of their post actually read, without the poster being automatically disregarded as being a RIAA shill.
Which honest people don't worry themselves about. Honest people just say what's on their minds. Shills, however, are "bent on attempt[ing] to have the content of their post actually read" because they are being paid to have their content read.
Aren't you making the same judgments-without-proof here that OP was? Surely it's possible that those honest people are tired of getting modded troll, and so make a pre-emptive attempt to differentiate their stance from an association with or condoning of RIAA's actions.
Yeah, it's possible, just like it's possible you don't have an agenda either.
At first I laughed, because I thought you were joking - then it occurred to me that if you went to that much trouble, you probably weren't.
I've made my position clear all along - in fact, I spelled it out very specifically in the original reply to your comment. I'm not sure what gain there was in checking back through my older comments, but you will find that I've been very consistent for years: a) I think that downloading copyrighted content without permissions is stealing. b) When I even bother to mention it (rarely as it's not relevant to "a") I think that there is no excuse for what RIAA is doing and hope that their counsel is eventually subject to censure at minimum for going along with it. But again I stress these are two completely different things.
I do feel compelled to point out that the link you provided to demonstrate my so-called agenda points out a valid technical fact: in a peer to peer system: it's extremely difficult to download without also uploading. But why let facts get in the way of a bit of good old-fashioned innuendo?
I've been reading your blog and postings -- and even some briefs -- for a while now, and have always been impressed with the amount of thought and diligence that goes into your work. Based on that, I thought that this could be an interesting conversation.
I felt that I made an intelligent and reasonable set of arguments which would be responded to in kind; but instead I get an emotion-based reply that only served to prove the point I was originally trying to make. I suppose I should take some pleasure in that, but I find that I'm disappointed. From many here, I would have expected this; but not from you.
I can understand why people do -- a futile attempt to have the content of their post actually read, without the poster being automatically disregarded as being a RIAA shill.
Which honest people don't worry themselves about. Honest people just say what's on their minds. Shills, however, are "bent on attempt[ing] to have the content of their post actually read" because they are being paid to have their content read.
Aren't you making the same judgments-without-proof here that OP was? Surely it's possible that those honest people are tired of getting modded troll, and so make a pre-emptive attempt to differentiate their stance from an association with or condoning of RIAA's actions.
I think I have to step into the mouth of the lion here, and disagree.
Here's why. In my opinion, the RIAA are a bunch of thugs who are using the law and legal system like a club. I'm sure we agree on that: they seem to be intent on bullying as many people as possible into submission -- with little regard to whether or not these people have done what they're accused of or not.
This is not, however, mutually exclusive with my other opinion: downloading music files that you're not authorized to download is stealing. I'm not referring to the legal sense of the word, because it seems like there's still some ambiguity there. Instead, I mean strictly in the sense of "It is wrong to take things you have not paid for, if you have not been invited to do so by the people who made it." It's my further opinion that all the excuses in the world don't make this acceptable.
The problem becomes that here an slashdot, and most other technically-oriented sites, it is very difficult to get across the second - and/unrelated/ - opinion without people assuming you're a RIAA shill.
So you'll see disclaimers like "I'm not fan of the RIAA, but...". I don't bother making those disclaimers -- when I make posts ont his subject, I'm not talking about RIAA, but about downloading. However, I can understand why people do -- a futile attempt to have the content of their post actually read, without the poster being automatically disregarded as being a RIAA shill.
As for the Congress getting more blatantly in bed with **AA, keep it up and I suspect people will stop writing them checks too, ass well as ignoring them generally.
You seem to think that most people care. Until this type of thing gets picked up by mainstream media, there will only ever be a very small percentage of the population who is aware of the problem; and an even smaller percent who care enough to try to do something about it.
Fair use gives you the right to make backup copies, downloading the song from the internet is the same as making a backup copy.
Making a backup copy would imply making a copy from the source which you purchased, yes? Downloading an mp3 from a different source would seem to bear no relation to a backup copy...
That's the difference between science and religion. For science, new information enlarges our understanding of the world. For religion, new information only threatens sanctified prejudices.
It seems that the scientists in the different alzheimer's camps would beg to differ. Do you really think that's the only line of scientific study that suffers from this problem?
The sad truth is that scientists can be just as fanatical as any religious fanatic. This is/not/ the norm - but then, neither is the religion fanatic.
Punishing the telecoms for complying with the demands of federal officials will do nothing to address the fundamental problem: the federal officials felt within their rights to make the demands the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
So, uh, how's that different from the Internet again?
Hm, I wonder if there's a freedom of speech casein there? Airports are in many ways public facilities, and photography is without question a form of artistic expression.
Temperatures in hell will continue their plummet well below the freezing mark.
I don't follow, how does the electoral system prevent a corrupt metropolitan government from impacting the national election? In your example, with the electoral system they just need to control enough votes to swing the states popular vote to 51%
That's rather the point. The damage is limited to one state.
I'm taking a stab in the dark here, but perhaps GP meant in the broader sense: Fucking with things you don't really understand may have consequences you are equally ill-equipped to grasp?
That's nothing. When I tried it, it threw up an error and gave me its hands.
Go in peace, PowerOfGraySkull...
I only wish I could, but what kind of geek would I be if I were able to just let it go...
Without getting into a quoting frenzy, here are my points of disagreement:
1. My reply was specifically to your comments; it was not to the article itself. Therefore, it was not offtopic. I label comments as offtopic when they are offtopic to the post I am replying to.
2. My comment was not a statement of law, it was a strongly worded statement of opinion. I did not say "downloading copyrighted content is illegal". I said it is "stealing"; which is a moral judgement. The law and morality often go into completely different directions (and this is generally a good thing - who in their right mind wants morality to be legislated?) On slashdot and elsewhere, do you read every firmly-stated opinion as a statement of legal fact? I'm going to assume not -- so why would this be different?
3. Games connection: my beliefs on this subject (and willingness to speak of them) predate my involvement in the gaming industry, which is why I'm comfortable in saying the influence would be a minor one if any at all.
4. RIAA - I've never defended them. The closest I've come is implying that I can understand why they are doing something, but you'll never see me defend their behavior. By way of comparison, I can understand why some murderers have killed -- but that's a far cry from defending them, believing that they were justified, or even thinking that they don't deserve justice. The ability to empathize does imply agreement or support.
Yes sir, done and done!
Aw, damn.
Where's "+1 Taking one for the Team" when you need it...
You're quick. I'm sure GP thought you'd be left far behind...
Well, you know what they say about men with big hands ...
Big gloves.
variety of scripting languages, such as Java, ActiveX and even .NET objects.
None of those things listed is a scripting language...
My opinions are just that - my opinions. I guess I can understand where you think I have an ulterior motive, but I don't -- I'm just sounding off with my opinions when it's topically appropriate, the same as everyone else here.
Yes you have been open about that being your position, but you have not been open about your personal reasons for repeatedly espousing that incorrect statement of law at every juncture, when it is almost invariably offtopic.
My replies are without exception on-topic to the post I reply to. When they are not, I label them as "OT" in the subject. Further, I challenge you to find any instance in which I make an incorrect statement of law, keeping in mind that in order to do so, it must be a statement (that is, not a question) and posed as a factual interpretation of law. I suspect you won't have much luck, because I try to stick to what I know when I post.
The entire subject of the oral argument in Capitol v. Thomas [blogspot.com] is the distribution right...Yet you insist on using this post as a platform to repeat, over and over again, your misstatement of law regarding the reproduction right
I've done nothing of the sort. In an on-topic reply to your implication that the only reason for someone to post a disclaimer is that they are a RIAA shill, I cited my own personal beliefs to give an example of why someone might make that disclaimer while not being a shill. You'll note I wasn't even really defending the poster - for all I know he really /is/ a RIAA shill (but I still suspect that he's not).
As far as incorrect statements of law: see above challenge. My posts are generally not about the law, unless it's in the form of a question or idea.
f you want to have a "reasonable" and "intelligent" dialogue you need to do 2 things:
Actually, I don't, but I'll try to answer these points anyway in the interest of hoping to come to an understanding.
1. disclose the real reason that you keep looking for a platform to spout your opinion on downloading, and
I don't look for platform to do anything. When it's appropriate to the topic at hand, I may choose to mention it - it is my opinion, and I'm entitled to do so. The closest thing I have to ulterior motive is my tangental involvement in the games industry, where the same casual attitude about downloading not being equal to stealing is killing indy game developers, and is moving the industry as a whole towards console games. But that's a lesser factor - for the most part, I reply as my own values indicate I should.
Either cite your authority for it, or admit you have none.
Cite my authority to hold an opinion and be vocal about it? Why should I have to do that? I'm not stating these things as points of law, I'm stating them as a product of my own value system. I need no more authority than anyone else to do that.
See, the way I look at things, there is no contradiction between being "emotional" and being "intelligent and reasonable", but there is a contradiction between "intelligent and reasonable" on the hand, and "intellectually dishonest" on the other.
So you're now calling me "intellectually dishonest" because it's unfathomable that my posts have no ulterior motive?
You've done a good job of diverting this away from my original point, which is that there are other reasons besides being a RIAA shill for someone to say "I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy, but..."
I rather thought we were on the same side here: that is, opposed to the way RIAA and counsel are abusing the legal system to extort money out of their victims. But unless I'm missing something, you are not able to draw that dividing line that allows one disapprove of RIAA tactic
I can understand why people do -- a futile attempt to have the content of their post actually read, without the poster being automatically disregarded as being a RIAA shill.
Which honest people don't worry themselves about. Honest people just say what's on their minds. Shills, however, are "bent on attempt[ing] to have the content of their post actually read" because they are being paid to have their content read.
Aren't you making the same judgments-without-proof here that OP was? Surely it's possible that those honest people are tired of getting modded troll, and so make a pre-emptive attempt to differentiate their stance from an association with or condoning of RIAA's actions.
Yeah, it's possible, just like it's possible you don't have an agenda either.
At first I laughed, because I thought you were joking - then it occurred to me that if you went to that much trouble, you probably weren't.
I've made my position clear all along - in fact, I spelled it out very specifically in the original reply to your comment. I'm not sure what gain there was in checking back through my older comments, but you will find that I've been very consistent for years: a) I think that downloading copyrighted content without permissions is stealing. b) When I even bother to mention it (rarely as it's not relevant to "a") I think that there is no excuse for what RIAA is doing and hope that their counsel is eventually subject to censure at minimum for going along with it. But again I stress these are two completely different things.
I do feel compelled to point out that the link you provided to demonstrate my so-called agenda points out a valid technical fact: in a peer to peer system: it's extremely difficult to download without also uploading. But why let facts get in the way of a bit of good old-fashioned innuendo?
I've been reading your blog and postings -- and even some briefs -- for a while now, and have always been impressed with the amount of thought and diligence that goes into your work. Based on that, I thought that this could be an interesting conversation.
I felt that I made an intelligent and reasonable set of arguments which would be responded to in kind; but instead I get an emotion-based reply that only served to prove the point I was originally trying to make. I suppose I should take some pleasure in that, but I find that I'm disappointed. From many here, I would have expected this; but not from you.
I can understand why people do -- a futile attempt to have the content of their post actually read, without the poster being automatically disregarded as being a RIAA shill.
Which honest people don't worry themselves about. Honest people just say what's on their minds. Shills, however, are "bent on attempt[ing] to have the content of their post actually read" because they are being paid to have their content read.
Aren't you making the same judgments-without-proof here that OP was? Surely it's possible that those honest people are tired of getting modded troll, and so make a pre-emptive attempt to differentiate their stance from an association with or condoning of RIAA's actions.
Since an MP3 is not a perfect reproduction of the original content, can even a rip made for yourself be considered a valid backup?
I think I have to step into the mouth of the lion here, and disagree.
Here's why. In my opinion, the RIAA are a bunch of thugs who are using the law and legal system like a club. I'm sure we agree on that: they seem to be intent on bullying as many people as possible into submission -- with little regard to whether or not these people have done what they're accused of or not.
This is not, however, mutually exclusive with my other opinion: downloading music files that you're not authorized to download is stealing. I'm not referring to the legal sense of the word, because it seems like there's still some ambiguity there. Instead, I mean strictly in the sense of "It is wrong to take things you have not paid for, if you have not been invited to do so by the people who made it." It's my further opinion that all the excuses in the world don't make this acceptable.
The problem becomes that here an slashdot, and most other technically-oriented sites, it is very difficult to get across the second - and /unrelated/ - opinion without people assuming you're a RIAA shill.
So you'll see disclaimers like "I'm not fan of the RIAA, but...". I don't bother making those disclaimers -- when I make posts ont his subject, I'm not talking about RIAA, but about downloading. However, I can understand why people do -- a futile attempt to have the content of their post actually read, without the poster being automatically disregarded as being a RIAA shill.
As for the Congress getting more blatantly in bed with **AA, keep it up and I suspect people will stop writing them checks too, ass well as ignoring them generally.
You seem to think that most people care. Until this type of thing gets picked up by mainstream media, there will only ever be a very small percentage of the population who is aware of the problem; and an even smaller percent who care enough to try to do something about it.
Fair use gives you the right to make backup copies, downloading the song from the internet is the same as making a backup copy.
Making a backup copy would imply making a copy from the source which you purchased, yes? Downloading an mp3 from a different source would seem to bear no relation to a backup copy...
Sounds like getting to the office is quite the adventure
1.4 miles and you can't walk?
That's the difference between science and religion. For science, new information enlarges our understanding of the world. For religion, new information only threatens sanctified prejudices.
It seems that the scientists in the different alzheimer's camps would beg to differ. Do you really think that's the only line of scientific study that suffers from this problem?
The sad truth is that scientists can be just as fanatical as any religious fanatic. This is /not/ the norm - but then, neither is the religion fanatic.
Jiffy. The word is jiffy.
Punishing the telecoms for complying with the demands of federal officials will do nothing to address the fundamental problem: the federal officials felt within their rights to make the demands the first place.
Hah - true, that.