My mom claims the same type of peak exists when you're tired. She told me a story about her days on a late-night bowling team. She'd head over to the bowling alley after her 3-11 PM work shift. The first couple games she'd be awesome, then would rapidly become very bad.
our stature in the world seems to be declining along with our freedom
The funny thing is that there was a guy who was prescient enough to realize this was going to happen after 9/11. He said this:
"I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed," he said as the U.S. war on terrorism raged in Afghanistan. "The U.S. government will lead the American people in -- and the West in general -- into an unbearable hell and a choking life."
I think the legality and/or enforceability of this depends on what restrictions there are in copyright law regarding licensing. This is, of course, assuming that this new license is a copyright license and not a contract or something.
Moving on, if this is indeed legal, all I have to say is: fuck Wizards/Hasbro. The real purpose of this license is to place other RPG companies in subordination to Wizards. This is achieved through putting them on an upgrade treadmill. Each time a new license is released, the small companies have to spend a lot of time and money retooling their products to comply with the new rules. This effectively reduces their profit, meaning they will be less of a threat to Wizards.
I don't play tabletop RPGs, but I'm still really disgusted by this. Go capitalism!
Take a hint from the UK, from France, from the Netherlands... From SWEDEN! Fix your internet!
This is probably the tactic we American geeks should employ: educate your neighbors that the French are way ahead of us at something. Make sure to mention the fact that the Internet started here as a military program, and dammit we have to stay on top of these things.
If any of those slimy bastards try and insist that the free market is working, point them to this.
If you bring this point up, the standard reply is to just bleat for more deregulation. Never mind the fact that even though the US has been deregulating the fuck out of telecommunications, ISP choice and features are really shitty compared to more regulated countries. The answer is obviously to deregulate more! Yeah!
smaller more densely populated country, makes it easier and more economical to deploy fibre.
If this is true, then the areas of the US with high population density would have service comparable to Japan. But this isn't the case, and this shows that your reasoning is extremely flawed.
I have to wonder since when is this the governments concern? Copyright infringement has always been a civil matter.
Why is this modded up? According to the article, the only thing this will be used for is child porn.
Also, the typical response of "but it's only a matter of time until the RIAA starts using this" is counterproductive. Instead of being resentful, we should instead wait until some industry boss casually mentions it. We then respond in outrage, and paint them as people who want to subvert the resources we use for tracking down harmful criminals for profit.
Did you forget to capitalize that 'b', or do you actually pay $59 for 18 gigabits of transfer? My grandparents could run over that limit if they listened to Net radio while they checked their e-mail.
(Also, if Grandpa understood file types and helper applications better, he'd probably download more, um, videos. I've found a few laying around, saved to odd folders.)
[Ban knives from] the kitchen? No. The Nursery? Might be a good idea.
Oh wow, this is a good analogy: the average computer user unfortunately is much like a little kid. And I don't think saying that is condescending in the least.
I think of it this way: the average computer user is excited because they learned how to work the Internets on their machine. They're much like a kid who just learned how to ride a bike, but hasn't crashed hard enough (no pun intended) to be conscious of the dangers.
I am unclear just how the US is even vaguely capable of stopping China from doing anything much less from being successful.
Uh, China's economy is based on exporting cheap crap to rich countries. The US is a rich country with a huge population. Therefore, China's economic strength is tied to the US.
So yeah, there's no way the US could affect anything China does.
I thought the same thing, but in regard to another issue: civil rights.
Basically, the issue of "sympathy toward oppressed Tibetans vs. Chinese pride" sounds extremely similar to the era of the civil rights movement in the US, where the issue was "sympathy toward oppressed black people vs. Southern pride". In both cases the oppressors get all offended when you dare to question their practices.
And for folks who aren't familiar with how this story ends, well, there are still idiots in the South who cling to the idea that agitators and Yankees were meddling with their Utopia, and everything would have been fine if the White Citizens Councils and the KKK had taken care of everything. If similar resentment becomes ingrained in the Chinese people (or if their government manufactures enough of it), this has serious implications for human rights in that country.
I don't understand why this got modded up. To claim that these countries are all experiencing a similar "swing to authoritarianism" makes no sense, for several reasons.
First, these countries aren't part of any logical group. Seriously, including China in a political freedom-related trend with the US or France really boggles my mind.
Second, I really don't know how true it is to say that the US has seen a "swing" to authoritarianism. I'd say it's more like a slow creep, with the Federal government gradually gaining more power; the Bush Administration has simply abused this power much more than other recent ones.
---
Also, you seem to forget that what is considered "radical" is in relation to the norm. If these countries are (as you claim) living in an authoritarian environment, then it logically follows that a "return to rationality" will actually be seen as radical. Therefore, to return to rationality you should support someone who is seen as radical. QED.
Vigilantism is when "a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement" -New Oxford American Dictionary [...] All the Beyond.ca guys did was identify the thief.
So tracking down and identifying a suspect is not part of law enforcement?
I ask the above question rhetorically, in trying to show that I don't think it's very constructive to argue whether these guys were or weren't "vigilantes". Rather, I think the question should be "did they do anything improper?".
In looking at this question, I note that some parts of the law enforcement process are carried out by regular citizens. People who witness crimes report them to the police. Many places have laws that allow citizen's arrests.
So I think the question should really be: did these citizens go beyond what was allowed by law? I suggest looking at whether beyond.ca posters are respecting this man's rights, such as: presuming his innocence, not violating his privacy, etc.
using ["content"] as a noun to describe written and other works of authorship is worth avoiding. That usage adopts a specific attitude towards those works: that they are an interchangeable commodity whose purpose is to fill a box and make money. In effect, it treats the works themselves with disrespect.
I think my view is actually superior to rms on this matter. I find this significant because I usually feel his positions are thought out very thoroughly (regardless of whether I agree with them). That said, I think there should be a distinction regarding the use of "content" as a noun:
I think it's bad to use "content" like it's some abstract, general idea. For example, the headline of this article alerts me that there is some class of entities that "own" "content". When used like this, it does seem to imply that the creative works "owned" by these people are indeed similar, interchangeable, etc.
On the other hand, I don't see a problem with using this word as a noun when it refers to a part of, or element within, something. I feel these sentences illustrate OK use:
A programmer doesn't need to know the contents of a function to use it; she can usually get by just knowing its parameters and return type.
Benito was charismatic, but the content of his arguments didn't stand up to scrutiny.
I think this will be my last response. Your first reply to me was great, although since I was a little opaque originally, you went off in a bit of a different direction from what I meant.
This latest reply, however, is a neat little collection of fallacies. It would be a fun intellectual exercise to pick apart your whole post, but that would likely be a waste of time (for both of us), so I'll just give one example:
"Except that's not the way actual human beings use language in the reality based community."
Your claim that "normal people don't do it that way" is similar to an appeal to popularity or an appeal to common practice. Also, implying that I am out of touch with reality is an ad hominem.
I'll take issue a bit and say that religion and the "right" has been noted by politcal researchers using sound emperical methods (sic)
I'm sure your study is great, but I wasn't speaking empirically. Rather, my reply was drawing from (formal) logic.
To explain my original argument a bit better, note that I'm saying your claims are faulty because: you're applying a universal generalization to something without showing that this generalization is valid. To prove this generalization, you must show that, in all cases, "right=religious & left=secular". This is impossible to prove, so the claim is invalid. QED.
Well, hopefully it was less maddening than my class in Unix/C, where I enjoyed the insanity of a (nearly) 40-year-old operating system/language, coupled with the insanity of many typos.
My off the cuff definition would be the left equals humanistic, secular, and environmentally concerned, and the right equals pro religious and pro economic growth at all costs.
I'm going to assume you're an American, because this explains your analogy of secular:left::religious:right. Yes, we've had to live through the invasion of the Republican party by "Christian" fundamentalists. However, to generalize this to your above analogy is a logical fallacy.
Wow, the Bush Administration has picked some real winners for that ol' Attorney General position. I really hoped they would replace Gonzales with someone who has a little more integrity. Unfortunately for the nation, it seems they're more interested in lapdogs who will parrot the Administration's version of reality, no matter the cost.
Moving on to Mukasey specifically, this little fib isn't the only time he's tried to distort reality. Just a few days ago, he stated there had been "a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn't know precisely where it went."
The interesting thing about this comment is that it's impossible to know whether it's true. This supposed call was not referred to after 9/11, nor during the 9/11 Commission hearings, nor at any other time until last Thursday.
However, even if we give them the benefit of the doubt, his arguments that draw on this statement are lies. This is because he made this comment in support of increased surveillance, and also to support the despicable circumvention of the justice system with regard to telecom companies.
The lie is that "we knew about this call but we weren't able to do anything because only with this new, super-powered law can we do that". The surveillance laws at the time he says this call took place absolutely allowed the government to listen in on it. They didn't even need a warrant, as even under the older FISA law, warrants were not needed for calls that comes into the US from outside it.
He lied again when he voiced support for putting telecom companies above the law. Even though Mukasey was a federal judge, he claimed that the telco lawsuits would let the whole world know how our intelligence organizations operate.
Fellow Slashdotters, I hope you join me in saying: what the fuck?! We can't continue to let these clowns get away with shit like this. I admit I've been as lazy as most "concerned citizens" in the US seem to be lately, but seriously, I cannot allow my democracy to be flushed down the toilet by a bunch of arrogant fucks who think they can get away with whatever they want.
It is only the Islam religion that gets these kinds of consessions. Thats because they respond unreasonably and brutally.
Hmm, I suppose you kinda have to omit (for example) all those cold-blooded murders of abortion clinic workers which were most definitely not committed by Muslims. Because if you included them, it would really throw a wrench in your whole "Islam is teh ev1l!!!" world-view.
Slashdot Mirror
My mom claims the same type of peak exists when you're tired. She told me a story about her days on a late-night bowling team. She'd head over to the bowling alley after her 3-11 PM work shift. The first couple games she'd be awesome, then would rapidly become very bad.
our stature in the world seems to be declining along with our freedom
The funny thing is that there was a guy who was prescient enough to realize this was going to happen after 9/11. He said this:
"I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed," he said as the U.S. war on terrorism raged in Afghanistan. "The U.S. government will lead the American people in -- and the West in general -- into an unbearable hell and a choking life."
Who was this guy? Osama bin Laden!
IANAL either.
I think the legality and/or enforceability of this depends on what restrictions there are in copyright law regarding licensing. This is, of course, assuming that this new license is a copyright license and not a contract or something.
Moving on, if this is indeed legal, all I have to say is: fuck Wizards/Hasbro. The real purpose of this license is to place other RPG companies in subordination to Wizards. This is achieved through putting them on an upgrade treadmill. Each time a new license is released, the small companies have to spend a lot of time and money retooling their products to comply with the new rules. This effectively reduces their profit, meaning they will be less of a threat to Wizards.
I don't play tabletop RPGs, but I'm still really disgusted by this. Go capitalism!
This kind of "Look how much money we're not making" is stupid regardless of who is espousing it.
Except when I do it. Where are my millions? Where, I ask you??
Take a hint from the UK, from France, from the Netherlands... From SWEDEN! Fix your internet!
This is probably the tactic we American geeks should employ: educate your neighbors that the French are way ahead of us at something. Make sure to mention the fact that the Internet started here as a military program, and dammit we have to stay on top of these things.
If any of those slimy bastards try and insist that the free market is working, point them to this.
If you bring this point up, the standard reply is to just bleat for more deregulation. Never mind the fact that even though the US has been deregulating the fuck out of telecommunications, ISP choice and features are really shitty compared to more regulated countries. The answer is obviously to deregulate more! Yeah!
smaller more densely populated country, makes it easier and more economical to deploy fibre.
If this is true, then the areas of the US with high population density would have service comparable to Japan. But this isn't the case, and this shows that your reasoning is extremely flawed.
I have to wonder since when is this the governments concern? Copyright infringement has always been a civil matter.
Why is this modded up? According to the article, the only thing this will be used for is child porn.
Also, the typical response of "but it's only a matter of time until the RIAA starts using this" is counterproductive. Instead of being resentful, we should instead wait until some industry boss casually mentions it. We then respond in outrage, and paint them as people who want to subvert the resources we use for tracking down harmful criminals for profit.
Did you forget to capitalize that 'b', or do you actually pay $59 for 18 gigabits of transfer? My grandparents could run over that limit if they listened to Net radio while they checked their e-mail.
(Also, if Grandpa understood file types and helper applications better, he'd probably download more, um, videos. I've found a few laying around, saved to odd folders.)
Fun fact: even with the nerfiest language on the planet, you'll still have exploits.
[Ban knives from] the kitchen? No. The Nursery? Might be a good idea.
Oh wow, this is a good analogy: the average computer user unfortunately is much like a little kid. And I don't think saying that is condescending in the least.
I think of it this way: the average computer user is excited because they learned how to work the Internets on their machine. They're much like a kid who just learned how to ride a bike, but hasn't crashed hard enough (no pun intended) to be conscious of the dangers.
What kind of title is that?
Swedish?
They are hypocritical in calling us hypocrites.
I am unclear just how the US is even vaguely capable of stopping China from doing anything much less from being successful.
Uh, China's economy is based on exporting cheap crap to rich countries. The US is a rich country with a huge population. Therefore, China's economic strength is tied to the US.
So yeah, there's no way the US could affect anything China does.
I thought the same thing, but in regard to another issue: civil rights.
Basically, the issue of "sympathy toward oppressed Tibetans vs. Chinese pride" sounds extremely similar to the era of the civil rights movement in the US, where the issue was "sympathy toward oppressed black people vs. Southern pride". In both cases the oppressors get all offended when you dare to question their practices.
And for folks who aren't familiar with how this story ends, well, there are still idiots in the South who cling to the idea that agitators and Yankees were meddling with their Utopia, and everything would have been fine if the White Citizens Councils and the KKK had taken care of everything. If similar resentment becomes ingrained in the Chinese people (or if their government manufactures enough of it), this has serious implications for human rights in that country.
I don't understand why this got modded up. To claim that these countries are all experiencing a similar "swing to authoritarianism" makes no sense, for several reasons.
First, these countries aren't part of any logical group. Seriously, including China in a political freedom-related trend with the US or France really boggles my mind.
Second, I really don't know how true it is to say that the US has seen a "swing" to authoritarianism. I'd say it's more like a slow creep, with the Federal government gradually gaining more power; the Bush Administration has simply abused this power much more than other recent ones.
---
Also, you seem to forget that what is considered "radical" is in relation to the norm. If these countries are (as you claim) living in an authoritarian environment, then it logically follows that a "return to rationality" will actually be seen as radical. Therefore, to return to rationality you should support someone who is seen as radical. QED.
(Disclaimer: IANAL)
Vigilantism is when "a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement" -New Oxford American Dictionary [...] All the Beyond.ca guys did was identify the thief.
So tracking down and identifying a suspect is not part of law enforcement?
I ask the above question rhetorically, in trying to show that I don't think it's very constructive to argue whether these guys were or weren't "vigilantes". Rather, I think the question should be "did they do anything improper?".
In looking at this question, I note that some parts of the law enforcement process are carried out by regular citizens. People who witness crimes report them to the police. Many places have laws that allow citizen's arrests.
So I think the question should really be: did these citizens go beyond what was allowed by law? I suggest looking at whether beyond.ca posters are respecting this man's rights, such as: presuming his innocence, not violating his privacy, etc.
I think my view is actually superior to rms on this matter. I find this significant because I usually feel his positions are thought out very thoroughly (regardless of whether I agree with them). That said, I think there should be a distinction regarding the use of "content" as a noun:
I think it's bad to use "content" like it's some abstract, general idea. For example, the headline of this article alerts me that there is some class of entities that "own" "content". When used like this, it does seem to imply that the creative works "owned" by these people are indeed similar, interchangeable, etc.
On the other hand, I don't see a problem with using this word as a noun when it refers to a part of, or element within, something. I feel these sentences illustrate OK use:
I think this will be my last response. Your first reply to me was great, although since I was a little opaque originally, you went off in a bit of a different direction from what I meant.
This latest reply, however, is a neat little collection of fallacies. It would be a fun intellectual exercise to pick apart your whole post, but that would likely be a waste of time (for both of us), so I'll just give one example:
"Except that's not the way actual human beings use language in the reality based community."
Your claim that "normal people don't do it that way" is similar to an appeal to popularity or an appeal to common practice. Also, implying that I am out of touch with reality is an ad hominem.
I'll take issue a bit and say that religion and the "right" has been noted by politcal researchers using sound emperical methods (sic)
I'm sure your study is great, but I wasn't speaking empirically. Rather, my reply was drawing from (formal) logic.
To explain my original argument a bit better, note that I'm saying your claims are faulty because: you're applying a universal generalization to something without showing that this generalization is valid. To prove this generalization, you must show that, in all cases, "right=religious & left=secular". This is impossible to prove, so the claim is invalid. QED.
it's examples were completely bug ridden.
Well, hopefully it was less maddening than my class in Unix/C, where I enjoyed the insanity of a (nearly) 40-year-old operating system/language, coupled with the insanity of many typos.
how many rule #34 of rule #34 are needed to stack overflow reality?
For the average person, you usually don't even make it to the recursive case...
My off the cuff definition would be the left equals humanistic, secular, and environmentally concerned, and the right equals pro religious and pro economic growth at all costs.
I'm going to assume you're an American, because this explains your analogy of secular:left::religious:right. Yes, we've had to live through the invasion of the Republican party by "Christian" fundamentalists. However, to generalize this to your above analogy is a logical fallacy.
Wow, the Bush Administration has picked some real winners for that ol' Attorney General position. I really hoped they would replace Gonzales with someone who has a little more integrity. Unfortunately for the nation, it seems they're more interested in lapdogs who will parrot the Administration's version of reality, no matter the cost.
Moving on to Mukasey specifically, this little fib isn't the only time he's tried to distort reality. Just a few days ago, he stated there had been "a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn't know precisely where it went."
The interesting thing about this comment is that it's impossible to know whether it's true. This supposed call was not referred to after 9/11, nor during the 9/11 Commission hearings, nor at any other time until last Thursday.
However, even if we give them the benefit of the doubt, his arguments that draw on this statement are lies. This is because he made this comment in support of increased surveillance, and also to support the despicable circumvention of the justice system with regard to telecom companies.
The lie is that "we knew about this call but we weren't able to do anything because only with this new, super-powered law can we do that". The surveillance laws at the time he says this call took place absolutely allowed the government to listen in on it. They didn't even need a warrant, as even under the older FISA law, warrants were not needed for calls that comes into the US from outside it.
He lied again when he voiced support for putting telecom companies above the law. Even though Mukasey was a federal judge, he claimed that the telco lawsuits would let the whole world know how our intelligence organizations operate.
Fellow Slashdotters, I hope you join me in saying: what the fuck?! We can't continue to let these clowns get away with shit like this. I admit I've been as lazy as most "concerned citizens" in the US seem to be lately, but seriously, I cannot allow my democracy to be flushed down the toilet by a bunch of arrogant fucks who think they can get away with whatever they want.
It is only the Islam religion that gets these kinds of consessions. Thats because they respond unreasonably and brutally.
Hmm, I suppose you kinda have to omit (for example) all those cold-blooded murders of abortion clinic workers which were most definitely not committed by Muslims. Because if you included them, it would really throw a wrench in your whole "Islam is teh ev1l!!!" world-view.