Did you sign something saying you won't kill people, rape babies, or disobey the laws of your country? No?
Does that make it OK?
I hope you're saving your best argument for later, because if this is it, you're in sad shape.
No, I didn't sign any contract promising not to murder or rape. Those things are wrong whether they're legal or illegal; if I were living in a moon colony with only one other person, it'd still be as wrong for me to kill him as if he were my neighbor down the street in Metropolis, USA.
Nor did I sign anything promising to obey the laws of my country (or state, or city...), and again, that has no impact on whether it's OK. It's moral to drive 65 in a 60 zone when done safely. It's immoral to shoplift. It's moral to drink before turning 21. It's immoral to commit fraud. Again, the legality has nothing to do with the morality - making a moral act illegal doesn't make it wrong, and making an immoral act legal doesn't make it right.
Copyright infringement is moral, but illegal. Reneging on an agreement is immoral, even when it's legal, so if I had agreed not to infringe copyright, then for me to do so would be immoral. But of course, I never agreed to any such thing, and to claim that I'm agreeing to some nebulous "social contract" simply by listening to a song is ridiculous.
If taxation isn't redistribution of wealth, what is it?
That's not what you said. Just about every financial transaction redistributes wealth, but "socialist programs" has a different meaning and connotation - which is why you wrote it in the first place, right?
Which taxes are you taking the recycling fee out of that the college student isn't going to be paying those taxes? Most states derive revenue through sales, income and property taxes. The college student pays all three of those either directly or indirectly.
But the college student pays far less income tax, both in dollars and as a percentage of his income, than the CEO. That's what makes it a progressive tax.
well, if it's a copyrighted song, program, or movie, it hurts the original creator. Sharing commerical works devalues that work over time.
Devaluing the work, however, doesn't harm the creator. He doesn't own it, because no one can own information, so his net worth hasn't actually dropped (and even if it had, there are plenty of other situations where someone's property value drops but we don't consider it an actionable harm).
I could say the same thing about software under the GNU. Who does it hurt when I use it in a commerical application (without releasing the source?). The original sourcecode is still there to use for free. The free software police thinks differently, however.
Then I'd say you're right and the free software police are wrong.
Wow, someone learning to live within his means? Let's get some socialist programs in place so we can avoid that!
If you think taxation is a "socialist program", you might be beyond help, but let me clarify this anyway: my point is that computers should be within these people's means, and paying for recycling out of tax revenue is one way to move toward that goal.
You're not living up to the end of the social contract that you sign when you agree to take / listen / whatever someone else's work. Don't like it? Then don't participate.
I don't recall signing any social contract. Please show me a copy of this signature, or I shall have to file a claim with my social credit card company.
Let me ask how you feel about street performers. If you walk past someone downtown playing his guitar, are you obliged to give him money? Is there a "social contract" there, or does it not apply on sidewalks?
If you want to remain intellectually consistant you should also rail against the GPL as you should have the "right" to take GPL code and do whatever you want with it.
I'm not about to take some AC's advice on what I should rail against, but when it's on topic, I'll speak against the GPL to the extent that it furthers my goal of free information exchange.
Yes, I should have the right to do whatever I want with GPL code. (Yikes! Now the mods will be all over me.) And if I modify the Linux kernel (for example) and try to sell this modified version without source code, then everyone else should have the right to (1) redistribute it on their own terms, (2) disassemble or reverse engineer it, and (3) incorporate my changes into their own version of the kernel and redistribute that on their own terms.
I don't think anyone needs to be forced to distribute their software in a way that strangers can rebuild it, as long as there's nothing standing in those strangers' way when they want to reverse engineer it on their own. I have yet to encounter a problem that can be solved by applying the GPL but not by eliminating copyright.
This is just a bad analogy, if you are particularly beautiful, it is not the same as investing in a TV series, or studio time for a song, your individual time and talent for creating art.
So if I put my time and skilled effort into something, everyone else who enjoys it owes me money? I hope that's not what you're trying to say. That would imply you think it's immoral to walk past a street performer without tipping him, since he's clearly using his individual time and talent to create art.
However, not paying for music, cinema and art is simply stating that someone's hard work and investment isn't worth anything to you. However, if this was the case you wouldn't go out of your way to infringe upon their creation.
Incorrect. Not paying for music, cinema, or art is essentially stating that someone else's work isn't worth what they're asking for it. If I download a movie illegally instead of seeing it in the theater for $8.50, that simply means seeing the movie is worth less than $8.50 to me. Perhaps I'd have gone to the theater if the ticket price were $5.
I am not going to enter a debate on slashdot especially with narrowminded individuals who don't understand that infringing upon copyrights although just bits of data were painstakingly created by someone trying to support themselves and their families.
Then you'll be pleased to note that I'm not one of those people. I craft bits every day to support myself, and I have friends who put their hard work and skill into creating music and other art.
However, I don't think the mere fact that we spent time crafting bits entitles me, or my friends, to any money. I get paid because I've entered into an agreement with my employer that he'll pay me for writing code. If I wrote a pile of code and then went around asking people for money, I'd be a fool.
It is the same as someone stealing a hand crafted couch from you if you are a carpenter.
Not at all, but thanks for bringing up that common fallacy so we can dispense with it.
There's a vital difference between information and physical products, and it's dishonest to ignore that. If I spend 60 hours making a couch, and you steal it, then I have to spend another 60 hours in the shop if I want to have a couch. OTOH, if I spend 60 hours writing a program, and you download a copy illegally, you haven't wasted any of my time because I still have my own copy.
Returning to point #1, the main reason that I mis-trust pro-choice sources of information is that I find myself and people like me characterized in their literature as "wanting to deny women the right to choose." Because I know that the core issue for me is the life of the baby, I know that the characterization is simply wrong... which then colors my view of the rest of the information such sources provide. What would you think if you were in my shoes?
I know the feeling.
I'm sure you'll agree that plenty of pro-life literature describes people like me in terms no better than those. Killing babies, protecting sluts from the natural consequences of their fornication, etc. I've even seen claims that pro-choice is some kind of secret racist code, because some statistics show more abortions among minorities. Yet I know that the vital issues for me are simply a person's autonomy over the contents of their own body, and the idea that parenthood should always be a choice - parents who want children will do a better job raising them than parents who don't.
And there's the rub. Absolute autonomy over the contents of your own body, and absolute support for keeping a potential new baby alive, are incompatible goals, given the state of today's medical technology. They're both fine goals, though, and I can't fault you for coming down on the other side.
Your point about chimeras is not your strongest. A chimera is a single organism.
It could be argued that a pregnant woman is a single organism, especially at early stages of pregnancy (like the fertilized egg you want to call a person).
The RCC is not presented as a proxy for most people; it is clearly labeled as an example of a lot of people. Other examples exist.
The majority of Americans who believe abortion should stay legal also constitute a lot of people.
A 23-week preemie has none of the characteristics we associate with people [...] Calling a 23-week preemie a person dilutes the concept of personhood to the point where it's almost meaningless.
So let's give the poor parents the benefit of the doubt and allow them to kill it.
Yes, let's, if that's the only way to get it out of the body of a person who doesn't want it there. Your search and replace doesn't surprise me; I have no problem with the conclusion that a 23 week old fetus is not a person.
The woman's right to kick occupiers out of her body is legit. But it isn't absolute. Why should it be?
Because it's barbaric to force someone to make their body into a host for a parasite. Frankly, that's a form of torture on the same level as rape, if not worse.
My right to free speech is legit -- but bounded by the rights of others not to be trampled when I yell "Fire!" The woman's body stops where the baby's body begins.
Ah, but you see, everyone has a right not to be trampled in a stampede. No one--not even entities who we can all agree are "persons"--has a right to suck nutrients from anyone else's body, and no one's right to stay alive extends into invading someone else's body to sustain themselves. If I'm dying of kidney failure, I can't take your kidneys. If I need a blood transfusion, I can't force you to give me your blood. (Do you think the law should be changed to accomodate that?)
If the only way for an unwanted fetus to be removed is by killing it, that's an unfortunate but necessary price. When technology progresses to the point where developing fetuses can be removed from a woman's body, incubated outside, and given to people who want to raise them, then that will be a better alternative.. until that day, this is the best we have.
yet we still have people like the FSF saying that it is by fighting big companies for violations.
Organizations on "our side" can be just as misguided in their support of copyright law as anyone else. That said, however, they're using the current laws of society to pursue a goal (free software) as best they can. Changing copyright law might help us all reach that goal more quickly, but they have to work within today's legal framework if they want to get results today.
right, listening. This does not include downloading, which is something completly different.
You're right, it's a different word, but that's about where the difference ends. Let me rephrase my earlier post: "downloading without paying is no more harmful than not downloading without paying".
If you think that's incorrect, go ahead and explain why. How exactly does having a copy of a song on your hard drive harm anyone any more than not having that copy on your hard drive, given that you aren't paying any money whether it's there or not?
If the government offers "free" disposal then the taxpayer (= the consumer) pays for it. (Admittedly it may be non-computer-using taxpayers that shoulder some of the burden)
More importantly, the taxpayers who shoulder that burden are the ones who can best afford it, assuming it's funded by a progressive income tax rather than something like sales tax.
A college student making $12,000 a year has a lot less disposable income than a CEO making ten times as much, and if everyone is charged the same flat rate for recycling, the student is either going to recycle less (if the fee is charged at the recycling center), or buy a worse computer, or maybe skip buying a computer at all (if the fee is part of the PC's price).
They also have the right to protect their property.
Except information isn't property, and we all know it.
If people don't want to pay for something, they shouldn't take it anyway, for free.
OK. I'm going to walk down your street, and I want you to pay me $5 every time you look at me. Some people think I'm good looking, so I'm gonna try to cash in on it. If you don't want to pay, just don't look - if you don't want to pay for something, you shouldn't take it anyway, for free, right?
No?
All right then, how about this. I'm going to play my guitar outside your window, and I want you to pay me for it. If you don't want to pay, just don't listen. Put cotton in your ears, turn up your TV, whatever. Just don't take it for free without paying.
Still not buying it?
That's because there's nothing inherently wrong with enjoying something without paying for it, and we all know that too. Obviously the analogy isn't perfect, but the core principle remains: if you aren't going to pay for something (whether it's a song, a movie, or my shoddy guitar playing), it doesn't matter whether you enjoy it or forgo it - listening without paying is no more harmful to anyone than not listening without paying.
Here's a page with more information on the Pearson Foundation's handbook, with excerpts.
Look at these links: here and here and tell me where the misinformation is.
The first overstates the potential for post-abortion trauma - most women who have abortions have no psychological problems afterward. It's also misleading about abortion's effect on the risk of breast cancer: women who have had abortions are no more likely to have breast cancer than women who have never been pregnant. Abortion doesn't raise the risk above normal; bearing children lowers the risk below normal. Overall, the page appears pretty objective, though I wonder how objective the advice dispensed through their 800 number is.
The second links to this hilarious page, which claims that men "lose their manhood" after their SO has an abortion, and that abortion can lead to such terrible consequences in men as "fear of self", "fear of taking risks", "addiction to pornography", "masturbation", "feels cursed by God", and "depends upon things, money, achievements for success". Abortion, according to this site, also "robs a man of his ability to procreate."
OK, this stuff is just too good. Here's another quote: "Abortion robs the man's ability to create and enjoy pleasure. The aftermath of abortion for women lead to post-traumatic stress disorder. Should he remain in her life after the abortion, it is highly unlikely that she will allow him to enjoy anything."
I can't begin to guess what the author of this section was smoking. First off, what does that even mean, "enjoy anything"? Are they suggesting women who've had abortions go around sucking the fun out of everyone around them in general, or are they referring to some specific kind of enjoyment? What is their basis for this claim, which runs counter to my own experience?
And here: "Abortion robs a man of the ability to protect. When a woman becomes pregnant, she is very vulnerable and in need of protection. Yet, when she makes a choice without his input it destroys his ability to protect."
Yes, ladies, we are here to protect you. (Do you have stairs in your house?) So let us make the decisions. And don't even think about voting without our input.
Most abortion providers deny or minimize the medical risks of abortion: potential sterility, death from infection, etc.
You linked to a National Coalition of Abortion Providers page with the words "deny or minimize", but where's your evidence that there's anything wrong with the claims on that page? And what's your justification for jumping from that one page to "most abortion providers"?
Abortion providers have loudly fought against having to provide information about alternatives to abortion.
Perfectly understandable, since in most cases the laws they were fighting against would require them to provide this information to people who've already considered it and made up their minds, making it effectively nothing more than a waiting period. Organizations like Planned Parenthood already provide this information (and other services) to those who want it.
Abortion providers deny or minimize the problem of post-abortion depression.
As far as I can tell, abortion opponents exaggerate it.
A chimera -- and most mothers have been shown to carry small amounts of genetic material from their children -- is a single organism. It is genetically human. It is also genetically distinct. Therefore, it counts as one person.
One half of a chimera is genetically distinct from the other, is it not?
What I'm getting at is, how do you plan to distinguish a fetus/embryo/zygote, which cannot survive without being connected to a person's body (from which it is genetically distinct), from the genetically distinct parts of a chimera? Or even a tumor with mutated DNA?
As it turns out, however, most people do *not* consider it crazy. For example, the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church is that a fertilized egg is in fact a person. Though not Catholic, I agree with them on that limited point. It is measurable, scientifically based, and unbiased with respect to the wishes of others.
The RCC is not a proxy for "most people". And I would like to see the scientific basis you're claiming for this belief. The idea of personhood is a philosophical one, not a scientific one, so I have doubts about the legitimacy of this basis.
Can you give a good reason not to accept that definition?
Certainly. A fertilized egg has none of the characteristics we associate with people (except for the few you enumerated): it can't survive without nutrients taken directly from a host's body, it can't communicate any thoughts or feelings, and from the medical evidence, there's no reason to believe it can even have thoughts or feelings. None of the freedoms listed in the Bill of Rights, for example, even make sense when applied to a fertilized egg. Calling a fertilized egg a person dilutes the concept of personhood to the point where it's almost meaningless.
In other words, I'm appealing for a definition of person that is not subject to observer bias.
You haven't shown that any other definitions are subject to observer bias. If I draw a line at birth, implantation, or the first birthday, it's just as objective as the line you've drawn at fertilization.
All you've done is pose a few situations where someone might have or perform an abortion because of personal interest, but I think you're forgetting that the definition of personhood doesn't even need to be involved there. Someone with an absolute understanding of her right to choose will believe abortion is a legitimate option regardless of whether the fetus is a "person", because her choice comes first - she believes everyone has a right to kick occupiers out of their body, but no entity has a right to occupy anyone's body, whether they're a person, a parasite, or something in between.
UMTS or WCDMA is the best system for data transmission. I do not think The States are very hot on that. It is mainly us in Europe and Far East. I think US has said that 3G (third generation of mobile telephony) is going to be implemented via GSM and GPRS/EDGE.
Some providers here in the US (Cingular, T-Mobile) are going the GSM/EDGE route, but CDMA2000 is still the dominant technology, and it does just fine with 1xRTT, 1xEV-DO, and eventually 1xEV-DV.
As you clearly don't even know what moral rights are, what exactly are your qualifications to be taken seriously on this?
Wow, you're just brimming with insubstantial flames, aren't you?
I have a good idea of what moral rights are. I've heard various proposals, which all revolve around giving an artist the power to control how his work is used once it leaves his hands - preventing an author's characters from being used in other works he disapproves of, preventing a painting from being mishandled or destroyed, etc. And that's ridiculous. Ford doesn't control their cars once someone buys them; artists shouldn't have any more control over theirs.
The only "moral right" I've heard that makes any sense is giving proper credit when reproducing or incorporating someone else's work. I fully support that one, because to misrepresent someone else's work as your own is a form of fraud.
Fucking hypocritical artist-hating shit.
Congratulations, you've come up with an insult even stupider than "America-hating". It's easy to type the word "hypocritical", but obviously too hard for you to point out anything hypocritical I've actually said.
Newsflash: I create copyrightable works every day. I'm fully prepared to face the consequences of copyright reform, because I'm smart enough to use a business model that doesn't depend on collecting money from every single person who enjoys what I've created.
Indeed, the GPL uses copyright to limit what people can do with code. But those limits are only necessary to ensure that derived works can be freely used. Without copyright, those limits would be unnecessary because everything could be freely used.
Ask any independent filmmaker on a shoestring budget. Good movies can still be made without Hollywood budgets.
How does one professionally produce a song - that is, a high quality rendition and recording thereof - without money?
Ask anyone with the right software, microphones, and a few months' experience. Music production is perhaps the worst example of something that depends on copyright; technology has advanced so far that you really don't need a studio's support to make high quality recordings and mixes.
Either come up with a credible alternative way of funding the production of content, one that also protects the moral rights of artists, or shut-up.
Sorry, but "moral rights" are bunk. No one has a right to prevent anyone else from using or reproducing an idea, and that's exactly what copyrightable material is.
As for alternative means of funding: no problem. Let people who create music/art/etc be paid for their labor, just like people who design bridges or cut hair. An architect doesn't expect to collect royalties from everyone who crosses or looks at a bridge he designed, does he? Of course not; once the bridge is designed and built, his involvement with it is done. If he wants to get paid again, he must design another bridge.
You call that page counterfactual, but you've provided no evidence that it's anything but accurate (though you did use the magic/. buzzword "FUD", so kudos for that).
Do you deny that the Pearson Foundation wrote the manual referenced on that page? Do you deny that some of these "crisis pregnancy centers" spread misinformation and exist mainly to talk women out of having abortions?
The line that is least arbitrary and subject to abuse is this: a person is a genetically distinct, genetically human, functioning organism.
By that definition, a chimera (someone who has different genes in different parts of their body) would have to count as two people, right? Do they get two votes too?
Also, how do you define "functioning"? Is a fertilized egg a functioning organism, and if so, does it matter to you that most people would consider it crazy to call a fertilized egg a person?
Any other definition is subject to abuse of power by those who have vested interests.
"Vested interests", huh.. that sure sounds sinister and shadowy. Who exactly did you have in mind?
Verizon Wireless has 1xRTT nationwide, and 1xEV-DO in 30 markets (IIRC, they plan to offer EV-DO nationwide by the end of this year, but we'll see...). They claim "400-700 kbps, capable of reaching speeds up to 2 Mbps" for EV-DO. For $79.99 a month, you get unlimited use of both networks.
Suppose my wife and I have a medical test result which gives X% of a chance to have a child with autism -- no, that's too hard, since autism is a spectrum disease. Let's make it something genetically definite, like hermaphrodism -- are we then justified in deciding that "this life is not worth living", and killing off the baby?
Yes, you would be, but not necessarily because of that justification. It's always tricky to claim that something should or shouldn't be done because of the emotional effect it might have on a person in the future, especially when that person doesn't even exist yet.
Human beings are capable of adapting and thriving under difficult conditions. You can find plenty of people who are deaf, blind, or otherwise handicapped but who are still happy with their lives. Yet that doesn't change the fact that those conditions are hardships that must be overcome; parents shouldn't let their potential child's ability to adapt cloud their judgment, any more than they should let the possibility of their kid learning to live with one hand keep them from teaching him how to handle fireworks safely.
Also, we shouldn't forget that these conditions place a burden on the parents, who won't be able to adapt to it was easily as the child himself. If a couple doesn't think they'd be able to care for an autistic child, or pay for whatever therapy, medication, special schooling, etc. they might need, then I'd say they are perfectly justified in aborting it and trying again.
Morally, I'd say it doesn't. A fetus an hour before birth is no less able to survive on its own than a newborn an hour after birth.
However, birth is a very clear and easy place to draw the dividing. Some possible alternatives (with just as little moral relevance) would be conception, implantation, or the first birthday.
Many times, it's more important to get it "right" than to grab the nearest bright line. But frankly--and I'm 99% sure I'll get modded down for saying this--I don't think this is one of those cases. If a fetus that "should" be kept alive isn't, the world hasn't lost much - it has no life experience, it's made no impression on anyone other than its parents (who presumably are the ones choosing to destroy it), and there's more where that one came from. There is no worldwide shortage of fetuses or babies.
At least the author didn't compare Word Processors: MS's WordPad would have looked equally lame vs. OpenOffice's Write, which, again, is bundled with just about every Linux distro out there. Yes, you can download and install OOo on Windows, but it's not part of the Windows Distribution.
OTOH, consider that most people buy Windows pre-installed on their new PC, and many of those new PCs also come with Office pre-installed. In those cases, don't you think you could call Office "part of the distribution"?
Slashdot Mirror
Did you sign something saying you won't kill people, rape babies, or disobey the laws of your country? No?
Does that make it OK?
I hope you're saving your best argument for later, because if this is it, you're in sad shape.
No, I didn't sign any contract promising not to murder or rape. Those things are wrong whether they're legal or illegal; if I were living in a moon colony with only one other person, it'd still be as wrong for me to kill him as if he were my neighbor down the street in Metropolis, USA.
Nor did I sign anything promising to obey the laws of my country (or state, or city...), and again, that has no impact on whether it's OK. It's moral to drive 65 in a 60 zone when done safely. It's immoral to shoplift. It's moral to drink before turning 21. It's immoral to commit fraud. Again, the legality has nothing to do with the morality - making a moral act illegal doesn't make it wrong, and making an immoral act legal doesn't make it right.
Copyright infringement is moral, but illegal. Reneging on an agreement is immoral, even when it's legal, so if I had agreed not to infringe copyright, then for me to do so would be immoral. But of course, I never agreed to any such thing, and to claim that I'm agreeing to some nebulous "social contract" simply by listening to a song is ridiculous.
If taxation isn't redistribution of wealth, what is it?
That's not what you said. Just about every financial transaction redistributes wealth, but "socialist programs" has a different meaning and connotation - which is why you wrote it in the first place, right?
Which taxes are you taking the recycling fee out of that the college student isn't going to be paying those taxes? Most states derive revenue through sales, income and property taxes. The college student pays all three of those either directly or indirectly.
But the college student pays far less income tax, both in dollars and as a percentage of his income, than the CEO. That's what makes it a progressive tax.
well, if it's a copyrighted song, program, or movie, it hurts the original creator. Sharing commerical works devalues that work over time.
Devaluing the work, however, doesn't harm the creator. He doesn't own it, because no one can own information, so his net worth hasn't actually dropped (and even if it had, there are plenty of other situations where someone's property value drops but we don't consider it an actionable harm).
I could say the same thing about software under the GNU. Who does it hurt when I use it in a commerical application (without releasing the source?). The original sourcecode is still there to use for free. The free software police thinks differently, however.
Then I'd say you're right and the free software police are wrong.
Wow, someone learning to live within his means? Let's get some socialist programs in place so we can avoid that!
If you think taxation is a "socialist program", you might be beyond help, but let me clarify this anyway: my point is that computers should be within these people's means, and paying for recycling out of tax revenue is one way to move toward that goal.
You're not living up to the end of the social contract that you sign when you agree to take / listen / whatever someone else's work. Don't like it? Then don't participate.
I don't recall signing any social contract. Please show me a copy of this signature, or I shall have to file a claim with my social credit card company.
Let me ask how you feel about street performers. If you walk past someone downtown playing his guitar, are you obliged to give him money? Is there a "social contract" there, or does it not apply on sidewalks?
If you want to remain intellectually consistant you should also rail against the GPL as you should have the "right" to take GPL code and do whatever you want with it.
I'm not about to take some AC's advice on what I should rail against, but when it's on topic, I'll speak against the GPL to the extent that it furthers my goal of free information exchange.
Yes, I should have the right to do whatever I want with GPL code. (Yikes! Now the mods will be all over me.) And if I modify the Linux kernel (for example) and try to sell this modified version without source code, then everyone else should have the right to (1) redistribute it on their own terms, (2) disassemble or reverse engineer it, and (3) incorporate my changes into their own version of the kernel and redistribute that on their own terms.
I don't think anyone needs to be forced to distribute their software in a way that strangers can rebuild it, as long as there's nothing standing in those strangers' way when they want to reverse engineer it on their own. I have yet to encounter a problem that can be solved by applying the GPL but not by eliminating copyright.
This is just a bad analogy, if you are particularly beautiful, it is not the same as investing in a TV series, or studio time for a song, your individual time and talent for creating art.
So if I put my time and skilled effort into something, everyone else who enjoys it owes me money? I hope that's not what you're trying to say. That would imply you think it's immoral to walk past a street performer without tipping him, since he's clearly using his individual time and talent to create art.
However, not paying for music, cinema and art is simply stating that someone's hard work and investment isn't worth anything to you. However, if this was the case you wouldn't go out of your way to infringe upon their creation.
Incorrect. Not paying for music, cinema, or art is essentially stating that someone else's work isn't worth what they're asking for it. If I download a movie illegally instead of seeing it in the theater for $8.50, that simply means seeing the movie is worth less than $8.50 to me. Perhaps I'd have gone to the theater if the ticket price were $5.
I am not going to enter a debate on slashdot especially with narrowminded individuals who don't understand that infringing upon copyrights although just bits of data were painstakingly created by someone trying to support themselves and their families.
Then you'll be pleased to note that I'm not one of those people. I craft bits every day to support myself, and I have friends who put their hard work and skill into creating music and other art.
However, I don't think the mere fact that we spent time crafting bits entitles me, or my friends, to any money. I get paid because I've entered into an agreement with my employer that he'll pay me for writing code. If I wrote a pile of code and then went around asking people for money, I'd be a fool.
It is the same as someone stealing a hand crafted couch from you if you are a carpenter.
Not at all, but thanks for bringing up that common fallacy so we can dispense with it.
There's a vital difference between information and physical products, and it's dishonest to ignore that. If I spend 60 hours making a couch, and you steal it, then I have to spend another 60 hours in the shop if I want to have a couch. OTOH, if I spend 60 hours writing a program, and you download a copy illegally, you haven't wasted any of my time because I still have my own copy.
Returning to point #1, the main reason that I mis-trust pro-choice sources of information is that I find myself and people like me characterized in their literature as "wanting to deny women the right to choose." Because I know that the core issue for me is the life of the baby, I know that the characterization is simply wrong ... which then colors my view of the rest of the information such sources provide. What would you think if you were in my shoes?
I know the feeling.
I'm sure you'll agree that plenty of pro-life literature describes people like me in terms no better than those. Killing babies, protecting sluts from the natural consequences of their fornication, etc. I've even seen claims that pro-choice is some kind of secret racist code, because some statistics show more abortions among minorities. Yet I know that the vital issues for me are simply a person's autonomy over the contents of their own body, and the idea that parenthood should always be a choice - parents who want children will do a better job raising them than parents who don't.
And there's the rub. Absolute autonomy over the contents of your own body, and absolute support for keeping a potential new baby alive, are incompatible goals, given the state of today's medical technology. They're both fine goals, though, and I can't fault you for coming down on the other side.
Your point about chimeras is not your strongest. A chimera is a single organism.
It could be argued that a pregnant woman is a single organism, especially at early stages of pregnancy (like the fertilized egg you want to call a person).
The RCC is not presented as a proxy for most people; it is clearly labeled as an example of a lot of people. Other examples exist.
The majority of Americans who believe abortion should stay legal also constitute a lot of people.
A 23-week preemie has none of the characteristics we associate with people [...] Calling a 23-week preemie a person dilutes the concept of personhood to the point where it's almost meaningless.
So let's give the poor parents the benefit of the doubt and allow them to kill it.
Yes, let's, if that's the only way to get it out of the body of a person who doesn't want it there. Your search and replace doesn't surprise me; I have no problem with the conclusion that a 23 week old fetus is not a person.
The woman's right to kick occupiers out of her body is legit. But it isn't absolute. Why should it be?
Because it's barbaric to force someone to make their body into a host for a parasite. Frankly, that's a form of torture on the same level as rape, if not worse.
My right to free speech is legit -- but bounded by the rights of others not to be trampled when I yell "Fire!" The woman's body stops where the baby's body begins.
Ah, but you see, everyone has a right not to be trampled in a stampede. No one--not even entities who we can all agree are "persons"--has a right to suck nutrients from anyone else's body, and no one's right to stay alive extends into invading someone else's body to sustain themselves. If I'm dying of kidney failure, I can't take your kidneys. If I need a blood transfusion, I can't force you to give me your blood. (Do you think the law should be changed to accomodate that?)
If the only way for an unwanted fetus to be removed is by killing it, that's an unfortunate but necessary price. When technology progresses to the point where developing fetuses can be removed from a woman's body, incubated outside, and given to people who want to raise them, then that will be a better alternative.. until that day, this is the best we have.
yet we still have people like the FSF saying that it is by fighting big companies for violations.
Organizations on "our side" can be just as misguided in their support of copyright law as anyone else. That said, however, they're using the current laws of society to pursue a goal (free software) as best they can. Changing copyright law might help us all reach that goal more quickly, but they have to work within today's legal framework if they want to get results today.
right, listening. This does not include downloading, which is something completly different.
You're right, it's a different word, but that's about where the difference ends. Let me rephrase my earlier post: "downloading without paying is no more harmful than not downloading without paying".
If you think that's incorrect, go ahead and explain why. How exactly does having a copy of a song on your hard drive harm anyone any more than not having that copy on your hard drive, given that you aren't paying any money whether it's there or not?
If the government offers "free" disposal then the taxpayer (= the consumer) pays for it. (Admittedly it may be non-computer-using taxpayers that shoulder some of the burden)
More importantly, the taxpayers who shoulder that burden are the ones who can best afford it, assuming it's funded by a progressive income tax rather than something like sales tax.
A college student making $12,000 a year has a lot less disposable income than a CEO making ten times as much, and if everyone is charged the same flat rate for recycling, the student is either going to recycle less (if the fee is charged at the recycling center), or buy a worse computer, or maybe skip buying a computer at all (if the fee is part of the PC's price).
They also have the right to protect their property.
Except information isn't property, and we all know it.
If people don't want to pay for something, they shouldn't take it anyway, for free.
OK. I'm going to walk down your street, and I want you to pay me $5 every time you look at me. Some people think I'm good looking, so I'm gonna try to cash in on it. If you don't want to pay, just don't look - if you don't want to pay for something, you shouldn't take it anyway, for free, right?
No?
All right then, how about this. I'm going to play my guitar outside your window, and I want you to pay me for it. If you don't want to pay, just don't listen. Put cotton in your ears, turn up your TV, whatever. Just don't take it for free without paying.
Still not buying it?
That's because there's nothing inherently wrong with enjoying something without paying for it, and we all know that too. Obviously the analogy isn't perfect, but the core principle remains: if you aren't going to pay for something (whether it's a song, a movie, or my shoddy guitar playing), it doesn't matter whether you enjoy it or forgo it - listening without paying is no more harmful to anyone than not listening without paying.
Here's a page with more information on the Pearson Foundation's handbook, with excerpts.
Look at these links: here and here and tell me where the misinformation is.
The first overstates the potential for post-abortion trauma - most women who have abortions have no psychological problems afterward. It's also misleading about abortion's effect on the risk of breast cancer: women who have had abortions are no more likely to have breast cancer than women who have never been pregnant. Abortion doesn't raise the risk above normal; bearing children lowers the risk below normal. Overall, the page appears pretty objective, though I wonder how objective the advice dispensed through their 800 number is.
The second links to this hilarious page, which claims that men "lose their manhood" after their SO has an abortion, and that abortion can lead to such terrible consequences in men as "fear of self", "fear of taking risks", "addiction to pornography", "masturbation", "feels cursed by God", and "depends upon things, money, achievements for success". Abortion, according to this site, also "robs a man of his ability to procreate."
OK, this stuff is just too good. Here's another quote: "Abortion robs the man's ability to create and enjoy pleasure. The aftermath of abortion for women lead to post-traumatic stress disorder. Should he remain in her life after the abortion, it is highly unlikely that she will allow him to enjoy anything."
I can't begin to guess what the author of this section was smoking. First off, what does that even mean, "enjoy anything"? Are they suggesting women who've had abortions go around sucking the fun out of everyone around them in general, or are they referring to some specific kind of enjoyment? What is their basis for this claim, which runs counter to my own experience?
And here: "Abortion robs a man of the ability to protect. When a woman becomes pregnant, she is very vulnerable and in need of protection. Yet, when she makes a choice without his input it destroys his ability to protect."
Yes, ladies, we are here to protect you. (Do you have stairs in your house?) So let us make the decisions. And don't even think about voting without our input.
Most abortion providers deny or minimize the medical risks of abortion: potential sterility, death from infection, etc.
You linked to a National Coalition of Abortion Providers page with the words "deny or minimize", but where's your evidence that there's anything wrong with the claims on that page? And what's your justification for jumping from that one page to "most abortion providers"?
Abortion providers have loudly fought against having to provide information about alternatives to abortion.
Perfectly understandable, since in most cases the laws they were fighting against would require them to provide this information to people who've already considered it and made up their minds, making it effectively nothing more than a waiting period. Organizations like Planned Parenthood already provide this information (and other services) to those who want it.
Abortion providers deny or minimize the problem of post-abortion depression.
As far as I can tell, abortion opponents exaggerate it.
A chimera -- and most mothers have been shown to carry small amounts of genetic material from their children -- is a single organism. It is genetically human. It is also genetically distinct. Therefore, it counts as one person.
One half of a chimera is genetically distinct from the other, is it not?
What I'm getting at is, how do you plan to distinguish a fetus/embryo/zygote, which cannot survive without being connected to a person's body (from which it is genetically distinct), from the genetically distinct parts of a chimera? Or even a tumor with mutated DNA?
As it turns out, however, most people do *not* consider it crazy. For example, the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church is that a fertilized egg is in fact a person. Though not Catholic, I agree with them on that limited point. It is measurable, scientifically based, and unbiased with respect to the wishes of others.
The RCC is not a proxy for "most people". And I would like to see the scientific basis you're claiming for this belief. The idea of personhood is a philosophical one, not a scientific one, so I have doubts about the legitimacy of this basis.
Can you give a good reason not to accept that definition?
Certainly. A fertilized egg has none of the characteristics we associate with people (except for the few you enumerated): it can't survive without nutrients taken directly from a host's body, it can't communicate any thoughts or feelings, and from the medical evidence, there's no reason to believe it can even have thoughts or feelings. None of the freedoms listed in the Bill of Rights, for example, even make sense when applied to a fertilized egg. Calling a fertilized egg a person dilutes the concept of personhood to the point where it's almost meaningless.
In other words, I'm appealing for a definition of person that is not subject to observer bias.
You haven't shown that any other definitions are subject to observer bias. If I draw a line at birth, implantation, or the first birthday, it's just as objective as the line you've drawn at fertilization.
All you've done is pose a few situations where someone might have or perform an abortion because of personal interest, but I think you're forgetting that the definition of personhood doesn't even need to be involved there. Someone with an absolute understanding of her right to choose will believe abortion is a legitimate option regardless of whether the fetus is a "person", because her choice comes first - she believes everyone has a right to kick occupiers out of their body, but no entity has a right to occupy anyone's body, whether they're a person, a parasite, or something in between.
UMTS or WCDMA is the best system for data transmission. I do not think The States are very hot on that. It is mainly us in Europe and Far East. I think US has said that 3G (third generation of mobile telephony) is going to be implemented via GSM and GPRS/EDGE.
Some providers here in the US (Cingular, T-Mobile) are going the GSM/EDGE route, but CDMA2000 is still the dominant technology, and it does just fine with 1xRTT, 1xEV-DO, and eventually 1xEV-DV.
As you clearly don't even know what moral rights are, what exactly are your qualifications to be taken seriously on this?
Wow, you're just brimming with insubstantial flames, aren't you?
I have a good idea of what moral rights are. I've heard various proposals, which all revolve around giving an artist the power to control how his work is used once it leaves his hands - preventing an author's characters from being used in other works he disapproves of, preventing a painting from being mishandled or destroyed, etc. And that's ridiculous. Ford doesn't control their cars once someone buys them; artists shouldn't have any more control over theirs.
The only "moral right" I've heard that makes any sense is giving proper credit when reproducing or incorporating someone else's work. I fully support that one, because to misrepresent someone else's work as your own is a form of fraud.
Fucking hypocritical artist-hating shit.
Congratulations, you've come up with an insult even stupider than "America-hating". It's easy to type the word "hypocritical", but obviously too hard for you to point out anything hypocritical I've actually said.
Newsflash: I create copyrightable works every day. I'm fully prepared to face the consequences of copyright reform, because I'm smart enough to use a business model that doesn't depend on collecting money from every single person who enjoys what I've created.
Indeed, the GPL uses copyright to limit what people can do with code. But those limits are only necessary to ensure that derived works can be freely used. Without copyright, those limits would be unnecessary because everything could be freely used.
Check TPB again - they're coming back.
How does one fund a movie without copyrights?
Ask any independent filmmaker on a shoestring budget. Good movies can still be made without Hollywood budgets.
How does one professionally produce a song - that is, a high quality rendition and recording thereof - without money?
Ask anyone with the right software, microphones, and a few months' experience. Music production is perhaps the worst example of something that depends on copyright; technology has advanced so far that you really don't need a studio's support to make high quality recordings and mixes.
Either come up with a credible alternative way of funding the production of content, one that also protects the moral rights of artists, or shut-up.
Sorry, but "moral rights" are bunk. No one has a right to prevent anyone else from using or reproducing an idea, and that's exactly what copyrightable material is.
As for alternative means of funding: no problem. Let people who create music/art/etc be paid for their labor, just like people who design bridges or cut hair. An architect doesn't expect to collect royalties from everyone who crosses or looks at a bridge he designed, does he? Of course not; once the bridge is designed and built, his involvement with it is done. If he wants to get paid again, he must design another bridge.
You call that page counterfactual, but you've provided no evidence that it's anything but accurate (though you did use the magic /. buzzword "FUD", so kudos for that).
Do you deny that the Pearson Foundation wrote the manual referenced on that page? Do you deny that some of these "crisis pregnancy centers" spread misinformation and exist mainly to talk women out of having abortions?
The line that is least arbitrary and subject to abuse is this: a person is a genetically distinct, genetically human, functioning organism.
By that definition, a chimera (someone who has different genes in different parts of their body) would have to count as two people, right? Do they get two votes too?
Also, how do you define "functioning"? Is a fertilized egg a functioning organism, and if so, does it matter to you that most people would consider it crazy to call a fertilized egg a person?
Any other definition is subject to abuse of power by those who have vested interests.
"Vested interests", huh.. that sure sounds sinister and shadowy. Who exactly did you have in mind?
Verizon Wireless has 1xRTT nationwide, and 1xEV-DO in 30 markets (IIRC, they plan to offer EV-DO nationwide by the end of this year, but we'll see...). They claim "400-700 kbps, capable of reaching speeds up to 2 Mbps" for EV-DO. For $79.99 a month, you get unlimited use of both networks.
Suppose my wife and I have a medical test result which gives X% of a chance to have a child with autism -- no, that's too hard, since autism is a spectrum disease. Let's make it something genetically definite, like hermaphrodism -- are we then justified in deciding that "this life is not worth living", and killing off the baby?
Yes, you would be, but not necessarily because of that justification. It's always tricky to claim that something should or shouldn't be done because of the emotional effect it might have on a person in the future, especially when that person doesn't even exist yet.
Human beings are capable of adapting and thriving under difficult conditions. You can find plenty of people who are deaf, blind, or otherwise handicapped but who are still happy with their lives. Yet that doesn't change the fact that those conditions are hardships that must be overcome; parents shouldn't let their potential child's ability to adapt cloud their judgment, any more than they should let the possibility of their kid learning to live with one hand keep them from teaching him how to handle fireworks safely.
Also, we shouldn't forget that these conditions place a burden on the parents, who won't be able to adapt to it was easily as the child himself. If a couple doesn't think they'd be able to care for an autistic child, or pay for whatever therapy, medication, special schooling, etc. they might need, then I'd say they are perfectly justified in aborting it and trying again.
Morally, I'd say it doesn't. A fetus an hour before birth is no less able to survive on its own than a newborn an hour after birth.
However, birth is a very clear and easy place to draw the dividing. Some possible alternatives (with just as little moral relevance) would be conception, implantation, or the first birthday.
Many times, it's more important to get it "right" than to grab the nearest bright line. But frankly--and I'm 99% sure I'll get modded down for saying this--I don't think this is one of those cases. If a fetus that "should" be kept alive isn't, the world hasn't lost much - it has no life experience, it's made no impression on anyone other than its parents (who presumably are the ones choosing to destroy it), and there's more where that one came from. There is no worldwide shortage of fetuses or babies.
Hmm, OK. I guess Works wouldn't fare much better against OpenOffice than WordPad would.
At least the author didn't compare Word Processors: MS's WordPad would have looked equally lame vs. OpenOffice's Write, which, again, is bundled with just about every Linux distro out there. Yes, you can download and install OOo on Windows, but it's not part of the Windows Distribution.
OTOH, consider that most people buy Windows pre-installed on their new PC, and many of those new PCs also come with Office pre-installed. In those cases, don't you think you could call Office "part of the distribution"?