[Re: Parents can't supervise kids 100% of the time] Then they should not have had children.
Oh come on, that's an extremely oversimplistic stand. What about all those single-parents out there? Do they not exist in your world? Is there no good cause for a divorce in your world? Victims of spousal abuse? Should both the child and the innocent parent suffer the consequences of the other parent's infidelity?
The world is not a 'safe' place.
I didn't claim it was - I'm simply saying there there should be at least a few "safe" sanctuaries that are safe. There should at least be a few channels that parents can allow their children to watch, and be confident of the type of content they'll be exposed to, without hovering over them like Big Brother.
But hey, I suppose in your world, there every family has precisely 2 parents, and can survive adequately on a single income, the parent in charge of the kid has nothing better to do than stalk his/her own child, right? Who's doing the housework during all this, anyway?
If you don't want your kids to hear "bad words" on TV, then don't drop them in front of it and treat it like a babysitter.
The problem is two-fold. First, it is unreasonable to expect parents to be supervising their child 100% of the time. Allowing them to watch some programming on a channel that bills itself as "educational" while Mommy (<PC>or Daddy</PC>) does some laundry or the dishes should be a safe activity, particularly when the parent is paying for said programming.
Secondly, offensive language can pop up without any warning. One second, your kid is watching a drama about forensics cops ("Sounds educational!"), and next thing you know, they're talking down a perp who's cursing up a storm. As a taxpayer who partially funded that programming, on a channel that bills itself as "educational," I think the parent has a right to be upset.
If we follow your argument, then no channel should be safe. You seem to believe that a parent shouldn't let the child watch any TV at all without the parent hovering over the kid like a hawk, with the remote in-hand, ready to change the channel at the slightest sign of anything that doesn't fit the parents' belief set. Don't you think that's a little unreasonable? How is a kid supposed to learn about things the parents might not like? What if the parents are racists, and don't like their kid visiting web sites that document the civil war, or the holocaust?
I would much rather that my congressman/woman actually found out how I (and those around me) feel about the issues (no, DON'T raise my taxes you moron), instead of assuming that we support the party line just because they got elected.
The practice of "voting the party line" is far more complex than you seem to understand. Candidates have an obligation to their party, largely because it is their party that helped get them elected. You appear to understimate the huge number of voters out there whose thought process each election goes something like, "OK, time to vote, let's see, who's the Republican candidate in my area? Bob Kunkel? Okey dokey. *check*"
Also, it is very expensive to run a campaign. The individual people themselves typically can't pay for the whole thing, so the party takes care of paying for radio ads and lawn signs for its members. Your party helped pay to get you elected. Obviously, you have an obligation to help the party support its platform, when they win.
The party leader makes promises to get elected. If he/she can't count on the support of their party when they win, how can they possibly expect to follow through on their promises? The people who voted for him/her based on those promises have been cheated, have they not?
Finally, it is the duty of government to protect the rights of minorities from the will of the majority. Say, for example, you are elected in a riding (that's the Canadian word for it, I'm not sure what USAmericans call them) that is 99% white. A vote comes up in congress proposing to institute a separate, higher, minimum wage for whites. $7.15/hr for whites, $6.45/hr for everyone else. Your constituents flood your office with calls telling you they want you to vote for the new law, which blatantly strips minority of equality rights. Your party's position is that they oppose the racist law. Your party leader asks all party members to vote against the law.
How would you vote?
My point is, it's not as simple as you seem to believe it is.
Nice photos. I was bummed when I learned you edited them all with Photoshop, though.
Thanks. Nothing major. Some minor cropping, because they were originally slides and the lab tends to botch slide scans by including a bit of the border, or scanning them slightly askew. I generally just slightly boost the saturation to try and bring them closer to the way they look on the original slides, and slightly adjust the levels, so the stuff in the shadows isn't completely lost.
Basically, I use Photoshop to try to bring the digital images closer to how the original slides look.
Beethoven and Van Gogh are two examples of artists who DID NOT benefit from copyright. They made money based on patronage
Yes, that was exactly my point. Copyright didn't exist back then because copying was extremely difficult and rare. Only with the advent of mass-copying devices has the issue of Copyright come to the forefront.
Beethoven didn't have to worry about people downloading his concerts on Kazaa. He knew that if people wanted to hear his work, they'd have to pay at the door and come in and listen. You can rest assured that they had security staff at the doors making sure people didn't sneak in without paying (medieval copy-protection?).
Don't you get it? You're saying "Copyright is a new idea that they didn't have in the olden days, and they did just fine." I'm saying, "The reason Copyright is a new idea is because copying itself is a new thing!"
my favorite bands are mostly non-mainstream and most of them have to have day jobs to support their art... many produce only one or a small number of albums
Well, I don't know what to tell you. Pat yourself on the back for being such a special, unique, and non-conforming person. It just so happens that the bands I like do make a living at their art, and because of that, they're able to do it full-time and produce a lot more of it. And no, they're not what you'd call "mainstream" artists either. I don't think I've ever heard Underworld, Crystal Method, Fluke, or Delerium on the radio, but loyal fans like me who actually pay for their music enable them to do it full-time.
Imagine if Beethoven or Van Gogh had been unable to earn a living creating their art. Which of their symphonies and masterpieces would they not have had time to create? How much richer and more vibrant is the art world today because they were able to earn a living at it and do it full-time?
Copyright is a fairly recent invention, you're right, but only because copying itself is a fairly recent invention. Back when the constitution was drafted, everything had to be hand-copied. Piracy and "infringement" were non-issues, because of the tremendous tediousness in doing so. Nowadays, thanks to Kazaa and photocopiers, it is trivially easy and cheap to copy just about any art without permission.
even at what I consider obscene prices
CD prices are not obscene. They are a friggin' bargain. $15 for an hour's worth of high-fidelity, digitally mastered music that you can listen to over and over, for thousands of hours. And when you finally get bored of it, you can sell it for a few bucks and recoup at least some of your cost. What other form of entertainment provides such bang-for-the-buck? Movies? Opera? Ballet? Concerts? Pro-sporting events? Nope. No one should complain about CD prices. They are a steal.
Murder, manslaughter... I mean, it's all killing people. And its definitely wrong. So they must be the same thing, right? Let's all be thankful that the law sees fit to distinguish between things that have different ethical dimensions, even if you don't.
Killing a man in cold blood and killing a man in self-defense are two different things. In the latter case, the person who did the killing, while likely very shaken-up, can take comfort in knowing they didn't do anything wrong. If they hadn't done what they did, they likely would have been killed themselves. It's the ethics of it all. You can justify taking a life in some circumstances. Sometimes, "it was the right thing to do."
Under what circumstances is it acceptable for me to download a copy of Photoshop CS without paying for it? When can that action be defended as "the right thing to do?"
And don't come back and tell me, "when you've already bought a copy and your CD got scratched," because that's not "without paying for it." In that case, you've already paid for it. You know exactly what I'm talking about.
I don't usually respond to Anonymous Cowards like yourself, but I'll make an exception this time.
Because noone has ever painted a painting, wrote a song, or even made a film without financial compensation.
People who resort to sarcasm to make a point usually do so because they are unable to otherwise formulate a serious rebuttal. That said, I'll simply pose a question to you:
Wouldn't it suck if your favorite band only ever released one album, because they all had to have day jobs, being unable to make a living selling their music?
Being 14, I don't think that restricting content or information from getting through is a good way of doing things.
Really? You don't think that there are some things that would seriously mess with your head? There are some images and content which are especially disturbing to young people, and can permanently affect their development. Actually, there are some things which can even mess up adults. Did you happen to see the video of Nick Berg being beheaded, for example? That's messed up. That image is burned into my memory, and I really wish I could forget I ever saw it. Imagine what that video would do to an 8 year old. That's a little too young to try and explain why there are people out there who hate strangers so much that they'd cut off their heads and dangle it defiantly in front of a camera.
Society has aspects to it that are generally hidden from the population at large, and for good reason. Coming face-to-face with graphic violence and raw death has an effect on people, whether you know it yet or not (you mention you're only 14). It can colour your development, and taint the way you look at things, and not in a good way.
Take the US for example. They're one of the few developed nations that still condones executing criminals. Yet, this action is undertaken in closely-guarded privacy. You can learn all the gory details of how the execution is effected, but you are not allowed to actually see the execution. Don't you find that odd? Why wouldn't the government allow networks to broadcast executions? Why wouldn't they hold them in public?
It's because they know that if people actually had to see someone being executed in cold blood, then their appetite for the death penalty would wane extremely rapidly. But, when you never have to see it (indeed, you can't see it, even if you want to), we never actually know the cold and clinical details of the act itself. It's dehumanizing. If you were to witness 5 uniformed men strapping an unwilling prisoner onto a gurney and quietly and ceremoneously pumping him full of lethal drugs, you might start to question the value of life. You might start to wonder if anyone would really miss that kid that's been bullying you. You might become the next Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy.
Personally, I think any society that has the death penalty should carry out the sentences in public. Indeed, anyone who votes should be required to view at least a few executions per year. If a society is going to force death on its criminals, it should at least have the stomach to watch the state administering the punishment that they implicitly approve of.
Copyright infringement is different than 'taking without paying,' or 'stealing'
Raising the pedantic semantics of the word "steal" is a desperate red-herring raised by those unable to justify their actions. The truth is that the people "infringing" software and music off the 'net have shaky ethics in ALL aspects of their lives. However, the inherent (or at least, perceived) anonymity of the Internet empowers them to actually go ahead and act on their impulses.
Downloading music/software/fonts/clipart/e-books/whatever without paying for them is WRONG. It is "taking something you don't deserve, without paying for it," whether you like to admit it or not. Someone invested effort in creating that work, and is requesting that you compensate them in exchange for you benefitting from the time and energy they expended. By "infringing" that work, you are basically thumbing your nose at that person. You're saying, "You've created something which has a value that I recognize (by virtue of the fact that I do indeed want it), however, I don't wish to abide by the terms of your implicit offer. Since I don't even know who you are, and it is highly unlikely that I will ever get caught, I will simply download a copy of it without paying."
The key to this whole thing is the perceived anonymity granted by the Internet. These same morally-bankrupt thieves typically wouldn't sneak onto a bus without paying, jump the fence and get into a concert without paying, or sneak in the back door of a movie theatre without paying, yet they'll boldly download gigs and gigs of software, music, and whatever else, that they haven't paid for and aren't entitled to.
The reason is they know they might get caught sneaking onto a bus, or into a concert or movie theatre. People actually see their face in those instances, and they might have to explain why they are a thieving, cheating prick. But when you can take those things in private, with nobody watching, they do it anyway, and come up with all sorts of ridiculous arguments to justify their actions. They have modded XBoxes and PS2's, and a rack full of CD-Rs of games they never bought. They watch 600 channels of TV on a black market cable box with a stolen, hacked HU card, stealing satellite signals.
Oops, crap, I used the "S" word. I was doing so well too, trying to play by your silly little rules of "calling it anything but what it really is." Piracy. Stealing. Theft. You can clean it up and call it "infringing" or "backups" or "sharing" if you want, but deep down, you know it's wrong. It's taking something without paying for it. You know that if everyone acted as you do, then nothing new and creative would be created anymore.
Sleep well, theif, knowing that thankfully, the honest folks like myself are picking up the slack and funding your freeloading debauchery.
Take your line of thinking to its logical conclusion, in which everyone "infringes" (I know people like you hate the word "steal").
Can you describe for me what kind of movies would be showing at the local theatre in such a world? No? Why not? Would that be because all of the theatres would have closed?
What critics "acclaimed" Gigli? Ebert and Roeper gave it two thumbs down.
Even Ben Affleck himself poked some self-deprecating fun at that stinker when he hosted SNL.
I understand the point you were trying to make, but you've completely failed at demonstrating that Hollywood portrays bad movies as gems. Hollywood produces hundreds of mainstream, big-budget movies each year. They can't all be "Saving Private Ryan" (which was, incidentally, critically acclaimed - two thumbs up from Ebert and Roeper).
Incidentally, "Dodgeball" wasn't all that good. It wasn't nearly as good as either "Old School" or "Zoolander", both of which were also merely mediocre.
If you're trying to justify your illegal actions (that of downloading movies, which you already admitted to), well, I guess you'll have to do better than "Hollywood made a terrible movie (true) and said it was fantastic (a lie - no respected critics made such a review)"
The links to terrorism are absolute and irrefutable. Saddam paid Arab terrorists to murder Israelis.
So, paying someone to commit terrorism is terrorism itself? Surely you'll agree then, that the US is guilty of funding terrorism? Witness the US support of Isreal's repeated and ongoing attacks on Palestinian civilians.
Saddam gave Abu Nidal safe harbor inside Iraq during the 1990's.
Allowing a terrorist to take refuge is terrorism itself? Once again, the US has harboured and sheltered individuals which other nations/cultures openly denounced as terrorists. For example, Salomon Rushdie.
The US has also secretely sponsored covert military operations aimed at toppling governments and influencing foreign policy, through threats, assassinations, and other methods. See Panama, Iran-contra, the ongoing Cuban embargo, and unfriendly foreign nationals mysteriously being assassinated.
Come on - are you really going to deny that the US has assassinated "troublesome" foreign nationals? Not a single one, you're telling me?
The US is just as guilty as "terrorism" as any other nation out there. Moreso, actually. Partially because of the string of power-drunk, corrupt regimes that have helmed the country, and partially because of the morally-relativistic nature of the word "terrorism" itself.
I know no one will likely ever see this post, but I wanted to address a point you made.
Iraq was a threat, in my opinion, because it possessed weapons it was not allowed to have,
But how did that make it a threat to the US? While it is possible that it did indeed posess weapons it wasn't allowed to have, none of those weapons were capable of reaching anywhere near the US. Thus, it was no threat at all to the US.
had demonstrated in the past a clear willingness to use them against [the US]
Only against the US airplanes that were flying overhead, daily, in Iraqi airspace! Are you telling me that if China started flying spyplanes over Washington and New York, that the US wouldn't open fire? And if they did, would that give China the right to declare that the US has demonstrated "open hostility" and a "willingness to use weapons" against China? Don't you see how silly that is?
[Iraq] had established contacts with networks of international terrorists both willing and able to strike at our essentially undefended homeland.
Iraq was not the only country with terrorist ties, not by a long shot. Moreover, other hostile nations have engaged in far more threatening anti-US "chatter", and posess far more dangerous weapons. Pakistan, Syria, Libya, and North Korea, to name but a few examples. Finally, there were/are equally or more vicious tyrants out there than Saddam.
Ever notice the only people who ever say that are from the USA?
I'm sorry, but what you're saying is the equivalent of someone from a non-EU Eastern European country not being allowed to say they're "European", because they don't belong to the EU.
USAmericans call themselves "Americans" because, as I mentioned in my original post, their country doesn't really have a real name. "United States of America" is an awkward name. It's like people from the former USSR. What did *they* say they were? Did they say the were "USSR-ian"? Or did they try to lay claim to the generalization "Asian," and demand that the Chinese stop calling themselves "Asian," too?
America is the short form of United States of America.
No. "America" is a pair of continents, globally referred to as the "western world." It can be subcategorized into the continents "North America" and "South America." Everyone on either of these continents is entitled to call themselves "American," as are people from the continental United States. However, the United States is wrong to try and lay exclusive ownership of the adjective (note: not a nationality) "American."
Interestingly enough, it is wrong of US citizens born and raised in Hawaii to refer to themselves as "American." Chew on that for a bit.;)
Temperature is one of those things where, in America, if someone says, "It's 75 degrees outside," you have an immediate idea of what that feels like. But if someone in Mexico says, "It's 22 degrees outside," I have no idea what that means to me.
First of all, Mexico is part of "America." I think you meant to say, "In the USA", which is the best you can do <FLAMEBAIT>considering your country doesn't even have a real name. I mean, "United States of America?" How is that a country name? "Spain" is a name. "Mexico" is a name. "Group of Asian Regions", or "United States of America", or "Confederation of European Provinces" are not country names.<FLAMEBAIT> But I digress.
Secondly, Canada is also part of "America" ("North" America, to be exact), and around here, temperature is always in Celcius. My experience is the exact opposite of yours. When I hear it is 22 degrees out, that's perfect, comfortable temperature for the spring. But 75 degrees Farenheit? WTF is that? Is that hot? Do I need a coat? How about 65? Is 80 degrees sweltering, or still comfy?
On a more serious note, up here in Canada (not the "Broad Confederation of Provinces of America" - note, real name!), we also include factors like the humidex (in the summer) and windchill (in the winter) to indicate that while the thermometer might only say its 25 out, the fact that the humidity is 100% will make it feel like it's 30 degrees. Do they do similar adjustments in the USA?
American culture glorifies movies stars, singers, and professional athletes.
Not by a longshot, my friend. American media loves airing celibrities' dirty laundry. Michael Jackson, O.J. Simpson, Britney's "scandalous" admission of pre-marital sex, the Bush twins' caught drinking, Matthew Perry's coke habit, Clinton and Lewinsky, Kobe and whoever. Americans love to see their celebrities at their worst.
As for "worshipping beauty," what culture doesn't? And why shouldn't they? Beauty belies health, indicating a verile partner, full of vitality. It attracts ideal mates. Heck, you can blame that one on Mother Nature, if you want. It's how we're programmed.
It's ok for one child to call another child a "geek" or a "nerd."
I disagree. I mean, obviously, I disagree with the sentiment itself, but I also disagree that American society considers it "OK" to label people "geeks" or "nerds" in a derogatory way. I don't know where you get that idea, but I don't recall ever seeing such a depiction in the media, or mainstream culture accepting such labeling. It is universally accepted that such actions amount to bullying, and I see them discouraged virtually at every instance.
It's ok to make fun of the kids who participate in the national spelling bee every year.
Once again, I deny your assertion. Not only have I never seen anyone making fun of the kids in the national spelling bee, I've never seen anyone defend anyone who does so, nor have I seen any TV shows depicting such derision as "acceptable", let alone "funny.'
Basically, I'm saying your whole first paragraph is complete bollocks. It makes for shocking, controversial fodder for thought, in a Michael-Moorish kind of way, but it's just plain not true. Of course, there are a few exceptions - I'm sure there are tiny pockets of individuals who may believe as you assert. However, there are also pockets of racists and anti-semetics out there, but no one claims that American culture embraces their views as mainstream.
It's so hard to find American workers with technical skills,
Uh, really? Have you looked around lately? I suggest you come up to Ottawa, Ontario, Canada and witness the "drought" of technical talent. There are scores of extremely intelligent people in this city, practically begging for work since the high-tech meltdown. It's an employer's market. The only reason driving the increase in offshoring is cost - certainly not a shortage of local talent. Simply a shortage of local talent willing to work for next-to-nothing.
Companies dealing in intellectual property have never before faced this level of onslaught of piracy and infringement. This isn't something that happened overnight - it's been building up for years (although in recent years, it has accelerated greatly). While a lot of people criticise the methods they're employing to try and protect their assets, few can offer insightful solutions that have solid financial reasoning behind them. We all just seem to assume that if you offered your property for $1/track, that piracy would vanish. Well, they took us up on that challenge, and piracy hasn't vanished.
These people/companies are getting desperate. Sure, I don't think DRM is a silver bullet either, but it is at least slowing the problem until they can figure out a better, long-term solution.
The real thing we should be worrying about in all this is the laws they're passing in the meantime, like the DMCA. While the companies themselves will evolve through this, the rights-stripping provisions enshrined in legislation will be much, much harder to phase out. Laws are rarely repealed, and THAT is what should concern us.
Governments merly have the opprotunity to recognize or ignore these "truths"
What the heck are you talking about? The courts have the "opportunity" to rule on the scope and interpretation of the "truths" contained in laws handed down by the government. The government doesn't "recognize" any truths, it merely codifies rights into law.
I.E. "we believe these truths to be self evident"
Are you off your rocker? First of all, the actual quote is, "we hold these truths to be self-evident," not "believe." And that quote is from Dr. Martin Luther King, not the "government."
It is? Cripes buddy, if your email reader can't handle HTML... I don't know what to tell you. It's friggin' 2004. TIME TO GET A NEW MAIL READER. I mean Jebus... my cell phone, PDA... just about everything can handle SGMLs nowadays... and you're telling me I can't use it in my email? Geez, what should I tell my boss? "Some guy on Slashdot said we shouldn't be using HTML in our emails anymore, boss. You send a memo to the employees, I'll let all of our clients know that from now on, we'll be ignoring any correspondance from them in which they choose to use HTML."
Geez buddy, pull your head out of your ass. Next, you're gonna tell me images don't belong in Usenet, and plugins don't belong on the web. Methinks you need to evolve just a little bit.
And you forgot the most egregious error of all, word attachments.
Do you actually live and work in the real world? We use Word at our office. Occassionally, we need to send documents to each other, or to our clients. These are not just simple text documents - they are design specs, product proposals, and other docs that contain images, graphs, charts, and other multimedia content. Why shouldn't we just email them the document, if we know that everyone in the circle has Word?
Why don't you tell me some other things that are "unacceptable" for us to be using?
8 bucks for a movie?? Where do you live and can I move there? try $15-20 if you live in a major city
I call hogwash. Name the city. I challenge you to provide a link to a website where I can buy a movie ticket that costs $15 (the low point of your claim). Imax doesn't count. You can choose any theatre in any city, for any movie at any showtime. I challenge you to find one that is $15. They don't exist.
I'm in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, and up until a few months ago, movie ticket prices had climbed to $13 CDN for regular admission ($9.50 USD). However, the theatres pulled back a bit, and now, I can get a movie ticket for about $9 CDN ($6.50 USD).
the current level of piracy is showing that people do NOT value what's currently being released and how it's being released (they're literally valueing it at $0).
I don't think that's true - they value them enough to still spend 2 hours of their life watching it, so that's not "nothing."
I think what we're seeing here is kids don't value their time. Kids don't want to pay to see websites or TV, but they don't mind watching some ads if that's what it takes to keep the content free. Kids don't typically have a lot of money, but they view their time as limitless, mostly because of their sheer youth (i.e., abundance of time). As people get older, however, their buying power (usually) increases, and they start to realize that their time is in fact precious.
So they're not valuing the movie as "worthless," they'd simply rather pay for it with their time (which they perceive to have an abundance of) rather than with money (which they usually have comparatively less of).
Wow. I don't think you really understand what "monopoly" means. There are plenty of different companies out there making and distributing movies, all competing with each other. Paramount, Universal, Warner Brothers, Disney... these are all major, major companies that are completely independant of one another.
CDs, same thing. Lots of different labels out there competing for your entertainment buck. If by "monopoloy," you were referring to the RIAA, well, the RIAA is an association that represents the interests of all music labels, so it would make sense that there is only one, but they most certainly do not control (or even own) the content itself. They are no more a monopoly than the Screen Actors Guild is a monopoly, or the Professional Engineer Association is a monopoly.
Before you go labeling all these independent, capitalist, free market companies "Monopolies," I strongly suggest you take a look at a couple REAL monopolies. Why don't you start with OPEC?
Slashdot Mirror
[Re: Parents can't supervise kids 100% of the time] Then they should not have had children.
Oh come on, that's an extremely oversimplistic stand. What about all those single-parents out there? Do they not exist in your world? Is there no good cause for a divorce in your world? Victims of spousal abuse? Should both the child and the innocent parent suffer the consequences of the other parent's infidelity?
The world is not a 'safe' place.
I didn't claim it was - I'm simply saying there there should be at least a few "safe" sanctuaries that are safe. There should at least be a few channels that parents can allow their children to watch, and be confident of the type of content they'll be exposed to, without hovering over them like Big Brother.
But hey, I suppose in your world, there every family has precisely 2 parents, and can survive adequately on a single income, the parent in charge of the kid has nothing better to do than stalk his/her own child, right? Who's doing the housework during all this, anyway?
If you don't want your kids to hear "bad words" on TV, then don't drop them in front of it and treat it like a babysitter.
The problem is two-fold. First, it is unreasonable to expect parents to be supervising their child 100% of the time. Allowing them to watch some programming on a channel that bills itself as "educational" while Mommy (<PC>or Daddy</PC>) does some laundry or the dishes should be a safe activity, particularly when the parent is paying for said programming.
Secondly, offensive language can pop up without any warning. One second, your kid is watching a drama about forensics cops ("Sounds educational!"), and next thing you know, they're talking down a perp who's cursing up a storm. As a taxpayer who partially funded that programming, on a channel that bills itself as "educational," I think the parent has a right to be upset.
If we follow your argument, then no channel should be safe. You seem to believe that a parent shouldn't let the child watch any TV at all without the parent hovering over the kid like a hawk, with the remote in-hand, ready to change the channel at the slightest sign of anything that doesn't fit the parents' belief set. Don't you think that's a little unreasonable? How is a kid supposed to learn about things the parents might not like? What if the parents are racists, and don't like their kid visiting web sites that document the civil war, or the holocaust?
Funny, too, that pointing out security flaws is how they get fixed.
<SARCASM>Yeah, 'cause Code Red's not still out there beating on hundreds of thousands of servers.</SARCASM>
I would much rather that my congressman/woman actually found out how I (and those around me) feel about the issues (no, DON'T raise my taxes you moron), instead of assuming that we support the party line just because they got elected.
The practice of "voting the party line" is far more complex than you seem to understand. Candidates have an obligation to their party, largely because it is their party that helped get them elected. You appear to understimate the huge number of voters out there whose thought process each election goes something like, "OK, time to vote, let's see, who's the Republican candidate in my area? Bob Kunkel? Okey dokey. *check*"
Also, it is very expensive to run a campaign. The individual people themselves typically can't pay for the whole thing, so the party takes care of paying for radio ads and lawn signs for its members. Your party helped pay to get you elected. Obviously, you have an obligation to help the party support its platform, when they win.
The party leader makes promises to get elected. If he/she can't count on the support of their party when they win, how can they possibly expect to follow through on their promises? The people who voted for him/her based on those promises have been cheated, have they not?
Finally, it is the duty of government to protect the rights of minorities from the will of the majority. Say, for example, you are elected in a riding (that's the Canadian word for it, I'm not sure what USAmericans call them) that is 99% white. A vote comes up in congress proposing to institute a separate, higher, minimum wage for whites. $7.15/hr for whites, $6.45/hr for everyone else. Your constituents flood your office with calls telling you they want you to vote for the new law, which blatantly strips minority of equality rights. Your party's position is that they oppose the racist law. Your party leader asks all party members to vote against the law.
How would you vote?
My point is, it's not as simple as you seem to believe it is.
Nice photos. I was bummed when I learned you edited them all with Photoshop, though.
Thanks. Nothing major. Some minor cropping, because they were originally slides and the lab tends to botch slide scans by including a bit of the border, or scanning them slightly askew. I generally just slightly boost the saturation to try and bring them closer to the way they look on the original slides, and slightly adjust the levels, so the stuff in the shadows isn't completely lost.
Basically, I use Photoshop to try to bring the digital images closer to how the original slides look.
Beethoven and Van Gogh are two examples of artists who DID NOT benefit from copyright. They made money based on patronage
Yes, that was exactly my point. Copyright didn't exist back then because copying was extremely difficult and rare. Only with the advent of mass-copying devices has the issue of Copyright come to the forefront.
Beethoven didn't have to worry about people downloading his concerts on Kazaa. He knew that if people wanted to hear his work, they'd have to pay at the door and come in and listen. You can rest assured that they had security staff at the doors making sure people didn't sneak in without paying (medieval copy-protection?).
Don't you get it? You're saying "Copyright is a new idea that they didn't have in the olden days, and they did just fine." I'm saying, "The reason Copyright is a new idea is because copying itself is a new thing!"
my favorite bands are mostly non-mainstream and most of them have to have day jobs to support their art... many produce only one or a small number of albums
Well, I don't know what to tell you. Pat yourself on the back for being such a special, unique, and non-conforming person. It just so happens that the bands I like do make a living at their art, and because of that, they're able to do it full-time and produce a lot more of it. And no, they're not what you'd call "mainstream" artists either. I don't think I've ever heard Underworld, Crystal Method, Fluke, or Delerium on the radio, but loyal fans like me who actually pay for their music enable them to do it full-time.
Imagine if Beethoven or Van Gogh had been unable to earn a living creating their art. Which of their symphonies and masterpieces would they not have had time to create? How much richer and more vibrant is the art world today because they were able to earn a living at it and do it full-time?
Copyright is a fairly recent invention, you're right, but only because copying itself is a fairly recent invention. Back when the constitution was drafted, everything had to be hand-copied. Piracy and "infringement" were non-issues, because of the tremendous tediousness in doing so. Nowadays, thanks to Kazaa and photocopiers, it is trivially easy and cheap to copy just about any art without permission.
even at what I consider obscene prices
CD prices are not obscene. They are a friggin' bargain. $15 for an hour's worth of high-fidelity, digitally mastered music that you can listen to over and over, for thousands of hours. And when you finally get bored of it, you can sell it for a few bucks and recoup at least some of your cost. What other form of entertainment provides such bang-for-the-buck? Movies? Opera? Ballet? Concerts? Pro-sporting events? Nope. No one should complain about CD prices. They are a steal.
Murder, manslaughter... I mean, it's all killing people. And its definitely wrong. So they must be the same thing, right? Let's all be thankful that the law sees fit to distinguish between things that have different ethical dimensions, even if you don't.
Killing a man in cold blood and killing a man in self-defense are two different things. In the latter case, the person who did the killing, while likely very shaken-up, can take comfort in knowing they didn't do anything wrong. If they hadn't done what they did, they likely would have been killed themselves. It's the ethics of it all. You can justify taking a life in some circumstances. Sometimes, "it was the right thing to do."
Under what circumstances is it acceptable for me to download a copy of Photoshop CS without paying for it? When can that action be defended as "the right thing to do?"
And don't come back and tell me, "when you've already bought a copy and your CD got scratched," because that's not "without paying for it." In that case, you've already paid for it. You know exactly what I'm talking about.
I don't usually respond to Anonymous Cowards like yourself, but I'll make an exception this time.
Because noone has ever painted a painting, wrote a song, or even made a film without financial compensation.
People who resort to sarcasm to make a point usually do so because they are unable to otherwise formulate a serious rebuttal. That said, I'll simply pose a question to you:
Wouldn't it suck if your favorite band only ever released one album, because they all had to have day jobs, being unable to make a living selling their music?
Being 14, I don't think that restricting content or information from getting through is a good way of doing things.
Really? You don't think that there are some things that would seriously mess with your head? There are some images and content which are especially disturbing to young people, and can permanently affect their development. Actually, there are some things which can even mess up adults. Did you happen to see the video of Nick Berg being beheaded, for example? That's messed up. That image is burned into my memory, and I really wish I could forget I ever saw it. Imagine what that video would do to an 8 year old. That's a little too young to try and explain why there are people out there who hate strangers so much that they'd cut off their heads and dangle it defiantly in front of a camera.
Society has aspects to it that are generally hidden from the population at large, and for good reason. Coming face-to-face with graphic violence and raw death has an effect on people, whether you know it yet or not (you mention you're only 14). It can colour your development, and taint the way you look at things, and not in a good way.
Take the US for example. They're one of the few developed nations that still condones executing criminals. Yet, this action is undertaken in closely-guarded privacy. You can learn all the gory details of how the execution is effected, but you are not allowed to actually see the execution. Don't you find that odd? Why wouldn't the government allow networks to broadcast executions? Why wouldn't they hold them in public?
It's because they know that if people actually had to see someone being executed in cold blood, then their appetite for the death penalty would wane extremely rapidly. But, when you never have to see it (indeed, you can't see it, even if you want to), we never actually know the cold and clinical details of the act itself. It's dehumanizing. If you were to witness 5 uniformed men strapping an unwilling prisoner onto a gurney and quietly and ceremoneously pumping him full of lethal drugs, you might start to question the value of life. You might start to wonder if anyone would really miss that kid that's been bullying you. You might become the next Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy.
Personally, I think any society that has the death penalty should carry out the sentences in public. Indeed, anyone who votes should be required to view at least a few executions per year. If a society is going to force death on its criminals, it should at least have the stomach to watch the state administering the punishment that they implicitly approve of.
Of course, that'll never happen in the US.
Copyright infringement is different than 'taking without paying,' or 'stealing'
Raising the pedantic semantics of the word "steal" is a desperate red-herring raised by those unable to justify their actions. The truth is that the people "infringing" software and music off the 'net have shaky ethics in ALL aspects of their lives. However, the inherent (or at least, perceived) anonymity of the Internet empowers them to actually go ahead and act on their impulses.
Downloading music/software/fonts/clipart/e-books/whatever without paying for them is WRONG. It is "taking something you don't deserve, without paying for it," whether you like to admit it or not. Someone invested effort in creating that work, and is requesting that you compensate them in exchange for you benefitting from the time and energy they expended. By "infringing" that work, you are basically thumbing your nose at that person. You're saying, "You've created something which has a value that I recognize (by virtue of the fact that I do indeed want it), however, I don't wish to abide by the terms of your implicit offer. Since I don't even know who you are, and it is highly unlikely that I will ever get caught, I will simply download a copy of it without paying."
The key to this whole thing is the perceived anonymity granted by the Internet. These same morally-bankrupt thieves typically wouldn't sneak onto a bus without paying, jump the fence and get into a concert without paying, or sneak in the back door of a movie theatre without paying, yet they'll boldly download gigs and gigs of software, music, and whatever else, that they haven't paid for and aren't entitled to.
The reason is they know they might get caught sneaking onto a bus, or into a concert or movie theatre. People actually see their face in those instances, and they might have to explain why they are a thieving, cheating prick. But when you can take those things in private, with nobody watching, they do it anyway, and come up with all sorts of ridiculous arguments to justify their actions. They have modded XBoxes and PS2's, and a rack full of CD-Rs of games they never bought. They watch 600 channels of TV on a black market cable box with a stolen, hacked HU card, stealing satellite signals.
Oops, crap, I used the "S" word. I was doing so well too, trying to play by your silly little rules of "calling it anything but what it really is." Piracy. Stealing. Theft. You can clean it up and call it "infringing" or "backups" or "sharing" if you want, but deep down, you know it's wrong. It's taking something without paying for it. You know that if everyone acted as you do, then nothing new and creative would be created anymore.
Sleep well, theif, knowing that thankfully, the honest folks like myself are picking up the slack and funding your freeloading debauchery.
Take your line of thinking to its logical conclusion, in which everyone "infringes" (I know people like you hate the word "steal").
Can you describe for me what kind of movies would be showing at the local theatre in such a world? No? Why not? Would that be because all of the theatres would have closed?
the critically acclaimed "Gigli"
I call bullshit.
What critics "acclaimed" Gigli? Ebert and Roeper gave it two thumbs down.
Even Ben Affleck himself poked some self-deprecating fun at that stinker when he hosted SNL.
I understand the point you were trying to make, but you've completely failed at demonstrating that Hollywood portrays bad movies as gems. Hollywood produces hundreds of mainstream, big-budget movies each year. They can't all be "Saving Private Ryan" (which was, incidentally, critically acclaimed - two thumbs up from Ebert and Roeper).
Incidentally, "Dodgeball" wasn't all that good. It wasn't nearly as good as either "Old School" or "Zoolander", both of which were also merely mediocre.
If you're trying to justify your illegal actions (that of downloading movies, which you already admitted to), well, I guess you'll have to do better than "Hollywood made a terrible movie (true) and said it was fantastic (a lie - no respected critics made such a review)"
The links to terrorism are absolute and irrefutable. Saddam paid Arab terrorists to murder Israelis.
So, paying someone to commit terrorism is terrorism itself? Surely you'll agree then, that the US is guilty of funding terrorism? Witness the US support of Isreal's repeated and ongoing attacks on Palestinian civilians.
Saddam gave Abu Nidal safe harbor inside Iraq during the 1990's.
Allowing a terrorist to take refuge is terrorism itself? Once again, the US has harboured and sheltered individuals which other nations/cultures openly denounced as terrorists. For example, Salomon Rushdie.
The US has also secretely sponsored covert military operations aimed at toppling governments and influencing foreign policy, through threats, assassinations, and other methods. See Panama, Iran-contra, the ongoing Cuban embargo, and unfriendly foreign nationals mysteriously being assassinated.
Come on - are you really going to deny that the US has assassinated "troublesome" foreign nationals? Not a single one, you're telling me?
The US is just as guilty as "terrorism" as any other nation out there. Moreso, actually. Partially because of the string of power-drunk, corrupt regimes that have helmed the country, and partially because of the morally-relativistic nature of the word "terrorism" itself.
I know no one will likely ever see this post, but I wanted to address a point you made.
Iraq was a threat, in my opinion, because it possessed weapons it was not allowed to have,
But how did that make it a threat to the US? While it is possible that it did indeed posess weapons it wasn't allowed to have, none of those weapons were capable of reaching anywhere near the US. Thus, it was no threat at all to the US.
had demonstrated in the past a clear willingness to use them against [the US]
Only against the US airplanes that were flying overhead, daily, in Iraqi airspace! Are you telling me that if China started flying spyplanes over Washington and New York, that the US wouldn't open fire? And if they did, would that give China the right to declare that the US has demonstrated "open hostility" and a "willingness to use weapons" against China? Don't you see how silly that is?
[Iraq] had established contacts with networks of international terrorists both willing and able to strike at our essentially undefended homeland.
Iraq was not the only country with terrorist ties, not by a long shot. Moreover, other hostile nations have engaged in far more threatening anti-US "chatter", and posess far more dangerous weapons. Pakistan, Syria, Libya, and North Korea, to name but a few examples. Finally, there were/are equally or more vicious tyrants out there than Saddam.
They just don't have oil.
American is a nationality.
;)
Ever notice the only people who ever say that are from the USA?
I'm sorry, but what you're saying is the equivalent of someone from a non-EU Eastern European country not being allowed to say they're "European", because they don't belong to the EU.
USAmericans call themselves "Americans" because, as I mentioned in my original post, their country doesn't really have a real name. "United States of America" is an awkward name. It's like people from the former USSR. What did *they* say they were? Did they say the were "USSR-ian"? Or did they try to lay claim to the generalization "Asian," and demand that the Chinese stop calling themselves "Asian," too?
America is the short form of United States of America.
No. "America" is a pair of continents, globally referred to as the "western world." It can be subcategorized into the continents "North America" and "South America." Everyone on either of these continents is entitled to call themselves "American," as are people from the continental United States. However, the United States is wrong to try and lay exclusive ownership of the adjective (note: not a nationality) "American."
Interestingly enough, it is wrong of US citizens born and raised in Hawaii to refer to themselves as "American." Chew on that for a bit.
Temperature is one of those things where, in America, if someone says, "It's 75 degrees outside," you have an immediate idea of what that feels like. But if someone in Mexico says, "It's 22 degrees outside," I have no idea what that means to me.
First of all, Mexico is part of "America." I think you meant to say, "In the USA", which is the best you can do <FLAMEBAIT>considering your country doesn't even have a real name. I mean, "United States of America?" How is that a country name? "Spain" is a name. "Mexico" is a name. "Group of Asian Regions", or "United States of America", or "Confederation of European Provinces" are not country names.<FLAMEBAIT> But I digress.
Secondly, Canada is also part of "America" ("North" America, to be exact), and around here, temperature is always in Celcius. My experience is the exact opposite of yours. When I hear it is 22 degrees out, that's perfect, comfortable temperature for the spring. But 75 degrees Farenheit? WTF is that? Is that hot? Do I need a coat? How about 65? Is 80 degrees sweltering, or still comfy?
On a more serious note, up here in Canada (not the "Broad Confederation of Provinces of America" - note, real name!), we also include factors like the humidex (in the summer) and windchill (in the winter) to indicate that while the thermometer might only say its 25 out, the fact that the humidity is 100% will make it feel like it's 30 degrees. Do they do similar adjustments in the USA?
Point to a SINGLE KNOWINGLY FALSE STATEMENT made by the Administration. Point to a SINGLE LIE.
"Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction."
"Iraq poses an immediate military threat to America."
"Iraq has been, and is on a continuing basis, providing support to al Quaeda."
"Iraq played a role in the September 11 attacks."
These are all lies.
Shall I continue?
American culture glorifies movies stars, singers, and professional athletes.
Not by a longshot, my friend. American media loves airing celibrities' dirty laundry. Michael Jackson, O.J. Simpson, Britney's "scandalous" admission of pre-marital sex, the Bush twins' caught drinking, Matthew Perry's coke habit, Clinton and Lewinsky, Kobe and whoever. Americans love to see their celebrities at their worst.
As for "worshipping beauty," what culture doesn't? And why shouldn't they? Beauty belies health, indicating a verile partner, full of vitality. It attracts ideal mates. Heck, you can blame that one on Mother Nature, if you want. It's how we're programmed.
It's ok for one child to call another child a "geek" or a "nerd."
I disagree. I mean, obviously, I disagree with the sentiment itself, but I also disagree that American society considers it "OK" to label people "geeks" or "nerds" in a derogatory way. I don't know where you get that idea, but I don't recall ever seeing such a depiction in the media, or mainstream culture accepting such labeling. It is universally accepted that such actions amount to bullying, and I see them discouraged virtually at every instance.
It's ok to make fun of the kids who participate in the national spelling bee every year.
Once again, I deny your assertion. Not only have I never seen anyone making fun of the kids in the national spelling bee, I've never seen anyone defend anyone who does so, nor have I seen any TV shows depicting such derision as "acceptable", let alone "funny.'
Basically, I'm saying your whole first paragraph is complete bollocks. It makes for shocking, controversial fodder for thought, in a Michael-Moorish kind of way, but it's just plain not true. Of course, there are a few exceptions - I'm sure there are tiny pockets of individuals who may believe as you assert. However, there are also pockets of racists and anti-semetics out there, but no one claims that American culture embraces their views as mainstream.
It's so hard to find American workers with technical skills,
Uh, really? Have you looked around lately? I suggest you come up to Ottawa, Ontario, Canada and witness the "drought" of technical talent. There are scores of extremely intelligent people in this city, practically begging for work since the high-tech meltdown. It's an employer's market. The only reason driving the increase in offshoring is cost - certainly not a shortage of local talent. Simply a shortage of local talent willing to work for next-to-nothing.
Hi, my name is Ed (pronounced "John").
Is it really so absurd? Anyone else remember "Netscape" (pronounced "Mozilla")?
Or Prince's symbol-thingy?
Companies dealing in intellectual property have never before faced this level of onslaught of piracy and infringement. This isn't something that happened overnight - it's been building up for years (although in recent years, it has accelerated greatly). While a lot of people criticise the methods they're employing to try and protect their assets, few can offer insightful solutions that have solid financial reasoning behind them. We all just seem to assume that if you offered your property for $1/track, that piracy would vanish. Well, they took us up on that challenge, and piracy hasn't vanished.
These people/companies are getting desperate. Sure, I don't think DRM is a silver bullet either, but it is at least slowing the problem until they can figure out a better, long-term solution.
The real thing we should be worrying about in all this is the laws they're passing in the meantime, like the DMCA. While the companies themselves will evolve through this, the rights-stripping provisions enshrined in legislation will be much, much harder to phase out. Laws are rarely repealed, and THAT is what should concern us.
Governments merly have the opprotunity to recognize or ignore these "truths"
What the heck are you talking about? The courts have the "opportunity" to rule on the scope and interpretation of the "truths" contained in laws handed down by the government. The government doesn't "recognize" any truths, it merely codifies rights into law.
I.E. "we believe these truths to be self evident"
Are you off your rocker? First of all, the actual quote is, "we hold these truths to be self-evident," not "believe." And that quote is from Dr. Martin Luther King, not the "government."
Any HTML at all is unacceptable in an email.
It is? Cripes buddy, if your email reader can't handle HTML... I don't know what to tell you. It's friggin' 2004. TIME TO GET A NEW MAIL READER. I mean Jebus... my cell phone, PDA... just about everything can handle SGMLs nowadays... and you're telling me I can't use it in my email? Geez, what should I tell my boss? "Some guy on Slashdot said we shouldn't be using HTML in our emails anymore, boss. You send a memo to the employees, I'll let all of our clients know that from now on, we'll be ignoring any correspondance from them in which they choose to use HTML."
Geez buddy, pull your head out of your ass. Next, you're gonna tell me images don't belong in Usenet, and plugins don't belong on the web. Methinks you need to evolve just a little bit.
And you forgot the most egregious error of all, word attachments.
Do you actually live and work in the real world? We use Word at our office. Occassionally, we need to send documents to each other, or to our clients. These are not just simple text documents - they are design specs, product proposals, and other docs that contain images, graphs, charts, and other multimedia content. Why shouldn't we just email them the document, if we know that everyone in the circle has Word?
Why don't you tell me some other things that are "unacceptable" for us to be using?
8 bucks for a movie?? Where do you live and can I move there? try $15-20 if you live in a major city
I call hogwash. Name the city. I challenge you to provide a link to a website where I can buy a movie ticket that costs $15 (the low point of your claim). Imax doesn't count. You can choose any theatre in any city, for any movie at any showtime. I challenge you to find one that is $15. They don't exist.
I'm in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, and up until a few months ago, movie ticket prices had climbed to $13 CDN for regular admission ($9.50 USD). However, the theatres pulled back a bit, and now, I can get a movie ticket for about $9 CDN ($6.50 USD).
the current level of piracy is showing that people do NOT value what's currently being released and how it's being released (they're literally valueing it at $0).
I don't think that's true - they value them enough to still spend 2 hours of their life watching it, so that's not "nothing."
I think what we're seeing here is kids don't value their time. Kids don't want to pay to see websites or TV, but they don't mind watching some ads if that's what it takes to keep the content free. Kids don't typically have a lot of money, but they view their time as limitless, mostly because of their sheer youth (i.e., abundance of time). As people get older, however, their buying power (usually) increases, and they start to realize that their time is in fact precious.
So they're not valuing the movie as "worthless," they'd simply rather pay for it with their time (which they perceive to have an abundance of) rather than with money (which they usually have comparatively less of).
Movies and CDs are essentially monopoly markets.
Wow. I don't think you really understand what "monopoly" means. There are plenty of different companies out there making and distributing movies, all competing with each other. Paramount, Universal, Warner Brothers, Disney... these are all major, major companies that are completely independant of one another.
CDs, same thing. Lots of different labels out there competing for your entertainment buck. If by "monopoloy," you were referring to the RIAA, well, the RIAA is an association that represents the interests of all music labels, so it would make sense that there is only one, but they most certainly do not control (or even own) the content itself. They are no more a monopoly than the Screen Actors Guild is a monopoly, or the Professional Engineer Association is a monopoly.
Before you go labeling all these independent, capitalist, free market companies "Monopolies," I strongly suggest you take a look at a couple REAL monopolies. Why don't you start with OPEC?