If, as you appear to be saying, every little kid who commits these tiny transgressions deserves to die, then I don't understand how you think any society is sustainable.
He's not saying they deserve it, he's saying he's not responsible for it. The parents are responsible for their children. He is objecting to parents trying to shift blaim for their tragic mistakes.
No philosophy regarding human life(or its value) is relevant unless you are willing to apply it to your own life and use it to guide your own actions.
I agree.
The proper decision for the believer in infinitely-valuable human life is the decision to preserve as much human life as possible, regardless of who or what that life might represent in the long run.
This is incorrect; you are conveniently forgetting the nature of infinity. Infinity multiplied by any number is still infinity; if one accepts that life is infinitely valuable, must must then accept that one life is just as important as 6 billion lives; after all, 6 billion times infinity is still infinity! Mathematically speaking, your statement is incorrect and thus, logically, your conclusion is erroneous.
To accept the statement that a moral theory must choose the path that saves the greatest number of lives is to accept that lives have finite value which can be directly compared. This is what I have been maintaining from the outset.
Here's a more concrete example to illustrate the contradiction in your statements: if someone said they would give you a trillion dollars to kill one person of little note (ie. no significant positive or negative impact on other lives), what would you do? You have stated that life is infinitely valuable, so obviously the money could not possibly be enough. But, you could save thousands if not millions of people from starvation with that money, so obviously the tradeoff is acceptable. Oh oh, a contradiction. What to do?
Let's throw out the contradictory proposition "preserve as much human life as possible"; this was not stated in the original post, and is not what I was arguing against anyhow. Let's solely focus on "a human life is priceless". As I mentioned above, any number of priceless lives is mathematically and logically equal in value to a single priceless life. Thus, in accepting this proposition, we must be willing to sacrifice the entire human race to save a single life. In the interests of our species, I will deem this unacceptable.
Any consistent, valid moral theory should be able to adequately answer any moral dilemma given a set of parameters. Simultaneously accepting that human life is priceless while believing in the "greater good" produces a contradiction, as I have illustrated, and thus is inconsistent and unacceptable. Accepting only that human life is priceless produces undesirable consequences, and is thus unacceptable. The only logical resolution is to accept that human life has finite value, and that we must properly assess and perform cost-benefit analyses when deciding whether to protect or terminate a life. Callous? Perhaps. Necessary? Absolutely.
How to assess the value of another's life is the really tricky question... left as an exercise for the reader of course.
You are being mired in the specifics of the situation which has little to do with the philosophical question I posed; you are attempting to use psychological incentives in a philosophical debate. One can construct any threat whose ultimate point is identical yet which does not invoke such incentives; I was merely trying to keep it simple. Don't try and weasle out of answering a tough moral dilemma by arguing over irrelevant details and semantics; we make no progress this way.
The ultimate point is that each life has a finite value which can be weighed against other values. So which would it be? Would you save your own life, or the other's? Either way, there is no solution other than to concede that life has finite, measurable value.
What a crock. If someone held a gun to your head and said "kill this person or you die", what would you do? You have two priceless items you must choose between, your life and his. So how do you make a value judgement between two items of "priceless" value? You have backed yourself into a logical corner here, because no matter which path you choose, you will have simply stated that one life was worth more than the other. And don't attempt to cheat by "flipping a coin" or some other such nonsense.
Never say never; such absolute statements are rarely true. This should probably be restated as, "Torture is never ok except in extreme cirumstances." If some individual has unleashed a devastating weapon that would literally wipe out mankind and the only way to save us all is to extract some crucial information from him and torture is the ONLY possible method of extraction, I would not be crying foul. When you're talking "extermination of the species" there is (or should be) no debate.
We only become mired in ethical concerns when we consider less extreme circumstances. How large a fraction of the world's population would we be willing to sacrifice to be "humane" to one individual? Some believe sacrificing even one person for a "terrorist/criminal" is out of the question. Others would sacrifice us all.
Is it right to torture someone to save a thousand lives if it's the only other choice? A hundred lives? One life? What if the one life is your own? (remember, this is assuming that "torture, or people die" are the only choices)
It's a tough issue. Absolutes will never do it justice.
Are they implying that we don't kill each other now with current technologies? Or are they saying that the technology alone will turn average homo sapiens into blood thirsty murderers?
They are essentially saying that one stupid, misguided, or malicious person can wipe out a significant portion of the population. The dangers are similar to bio-tech, except biological threats we can recognize. If full, general-purpose assemblers come to pass, the number of possible attack vectors are overwhelming.
Our economy, and wealth, is currently based on a system of scarcity. When you can take raw molecules and arbitraily combine them into useful/necessary/life saving objects then scarcity dissipates. Many, if not most, of today's conflicts revolve around scarcity or perceived scarcity.
Scarcity never completely disappears, it just shifts to other areas. General purpose molecular assemblers shift the scarcity from means of production (as it is today) to design and raw materials. Nano-assemblers can't transmutate matter! If you want something metallic, you'll still need a source of the raw metal. Atomic-scale design plans are also potentially scarce.
Think about how many in the previous world viewed modern health care as cheating darwinism/survival of the fittest and that the resulting overpopulation of lesser fitted humans would be catastrophic. Can you say now whether they were right or wrong?
While I'd say they were wrong, the jury is still out. No one said it would happen overnight.
What makes you think living standards will increase in the future?
Extrapolation.
energy times resources times sinks divided by the number of people sharing the resources.
You neglect efficiency. We can still make enormous gains in efficiency, not to mention that we haven't tapped all of the planet's resources. Not by a long shot. By the time we do, I'd wager we'll have off-planet resources to fill in the gaps. Hell, by then I wouldn't be suprised if we'd be transmutating the elements we require. Whichever is economically most efficient.
While energy to be generated is indeed bounded by the planet (incident energy from the sun limited by exposed surface area + stored energy), we are not so bounded. Solar farms in space that beam their energy via microwaves are just one idea which would violate your previous "finite", upper energy bound. If you are so clever as to say that the quoted upper bound includes all such prospects, then a complete Dyson's sphere is the absolute upper energy limit, and that limit is ENORMOUS. We would probably not need so much for thousands of years.
Use your imagination, and have a little faith in human ingenuity.
Is it impractical to forfeit copy-protection measures when the copy-protection measure are impractical? It has already been demonstrated that copy-protection itself is impractical. He seems blind to the evidence.
Before the DMCA it was not illegal to circumvent copy-protection measures. I have not heard a single convincing argument why it should be illegal. If someone rips a movie or a song and begins distributing it, then they are violating copyright. If they do not distribute it, then they are not violating copyright. Where does copy-protection enter into the equation?
Valenti's position, simply stated, is that the copyright holder's still *own* content you just bought, and thus can dictate its use. Should a book author be able prevent me from reading his book with glasses? While lying down? Obviously not, yet the logical conclusion of Valenti's reasoning seems is that dictating use of a work is completely justifiable. If the author writes a book in an obscure language, can I not go and learn that language just to read the book? I would like to understand the chain of reasoning that leads one to conclude that it should be illegal to watch movies in an "unlicensed" player. Valenti seems to misunderstand that copyright is a granted right to copy and distribute works, not an ownership right.
Valenti also says one should not craft laws and public policy for a minority. But that's exactly what he's doing! Content creators are a minority. Pirates are a minority. He is lobbying for laws to benefit creators and persecute pirates, both minorities, in direct violation of Valenti's own statement.
Furthermore, as someone else stated elsewhere, if we should not make public policy for minorities, should we leave all physically disabled persons to their own devices? Forget all this accessibility crap? This selective memory thing is very convenient for politicians and lobbyists I imagine.
Barf. Not to sound rude, but Mach is a horrid base for an operating system. I'm sorry Apple went with it.
If you mean popular as in "most widely used", then yes, Mach is the most popular "microkernel" (though it doesn't really fit the definition).
Mach is far from the most popular in hacker or academic circles (ie. those who know any better). L4 and EROS are far more suitable hosts for a guest operating system. L4 already has Linux 2.2 and 2.4 running as hosts in fact.
So in what world is putting a file that you do _NOT_ own the copyright on, and have not actually obtained permission from the copyright holder to copy for purposes beyond fair use, in a publicly shared folder for others to obtain _not_ a violation of the copyright act?
The article was not explicit, but I believe the ruling applied only to downloaders. Uploaders are obviously violating copyright.
Re:Article Text (Slashdotted Server)
on
Optimizing distcc
·
· Score: 2, Funny
It's not like you get promoted to "excellenter" or "excellentest" or something.
You mean you haven't been promoted yet? Ha! n00b...:-)
Because much land is currently going unused in the form of bare roofs. Why not make use of it? Why absorb that energy as heat in the building material, and then have to cool the building using yet more energy? Solar probably won't satisfy all energy demands, but it could certainly lighten the load significantly.
Strings are unobservable, and string theory describes nor predicts nothing that is not explained by another larger theory.
Strings ARE the larger theory, considering it encompasses solutions to both QM and relativity. I think you mean, it predicts nothing that cannot be explained by a more specific theory. And the reason for this is simply because strings are SO abstract that they provide too many solutions. Are they a fruitful pursuit? time will tell...
Yes, I know the GPL doesn't prohibit selling code licensed under it. However, it only allows selling one copy, practically speaking, since the code can be given away by anyone who buys a copy.
Just to interject a little note here: anybody who buys a copy of Windows or Office *can* share it with their friends (not legally of course, but they do it anyway). Windows and Office are probably the most pirated/"shared" software of all time. I don't see Microsft hurting though. You are under the misapprehension that the recognized legitimacy of an action will lead to even more widespread use/abuse than if it were illegitimate. The conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.
Just what 100% commercial private railway did you have in mind? [...] Only _very_ recently has privatization become fashionable for railservice and it is usually marked by miserable failure.
I'm afraid you have your facts backwards. The private north american rail business was booming in the early 20th century, until government stepped in with regulation. Then the multiple competing railways were reduced to a few entrenched monopolies, to everyone's detriment. Your other statements are also flawed, though I don't have time for the necessary lengthy explanation at the moment.
Machines work on the principle of taking in energy and outputting it in the form of waste heat.
Machines work on the principle of energy conversion; waste heat is just an unwanted side effect of imperfect energy conversion.
But once the universe has cooled down to the same temperature as the CBR, it will be impossible for any machine to output waste heat.
Once the universe cools to CBR levels, there will be no differences in energy levels, and thus no energy flow is possible (thus, no motion, no conversions, etc).
LOL Well, there is a difference between a natural death and a murder. The baby in a miscarrage dies as an act of nature, the mother's body rejects it or the baby has a fatal disorder of some type. Ripping a baby apart to get stem cells is a PURPOSFUL act. Murder.
The women could have taken immune suppressants to prevent such an occurrence. Do we then charge her with criminal negligeance causing death?
What about women who don't know they are pregnant and, due to stress or some conscious action, cause a miscarriage? Do we charge them with criminal negligeance causing death?
Where is the line dividing natural and intentional occurrences? Are we not natural beings? If so, are not our actions thus natural? Why then is a death incurred from a willful action unnatural?
There is more in heaven and earth applerules, than are dreamt of in your (simplistic) philosophy. The fact is that, philosophically, law is based on consequences not morality. If there are no negative consequences to society, then an action is not forbidden. Only if there are significant positive consequences, is an action made mandatory. Now chew on that and figure out which side this issue falls on.
I would not be willing to stop what nature has set in motion
By "nature" do you mean fate or destiny, or simply the natural world/forces/etc? In any case, what would prohibit us from being the agents of "nature", merely fulfilling her/its design? If there is no design, what then ethically prohibits us from this action?
You say that you could not countenance it, but that you would not prevent others from aborting. Why is that? For socio-political reasons (ie. don't interfere with other people's decisions which don't affect you)? Or do you have a justification for your own choice which somehow doesn't apply to others?
Not trying to pick a fight, just trying to understand people's various underlying reasons for their stance on such a touchy issue.
We obviously have radically different conceptions of what "political" means.
Funny that definition #5 lists my exact point: "Having or influenced by partisan interests: The court should never become a political institution."
Law should be relatively static, it should not change with the seasons like politics; law should change only when conditions arise which are outside the bounds of the framer's assumptions. For example, laws protecting people's right to choose military service or not might be superceded by a serious threat to the country's continued existence.
As I demonstrated before, in a pure capitalist system the only right a destitute person has is the right to work
You are convoluting the term "right". A destitute's only acceptable choice may be to work, but it is not a right. The right in question is their right to choose, and under (almost) no circumstances should this be revoked. So to rephrase your statement, "in a pure capitalist system, the only right everyone has is the right to choose; in such a system a destitute person's only choice may be to work or starve".
and if he can't earn more than the price of his food (and why should anyone offer him more?) then he will remain a de facto slave.
If he can produce no more value than the price of his food, then what argument can you provide in his favour that he should receive more? Why would anyone offer him more? Because free market competition also operates for the job market. Skills establish market prices based on how much value said skills produce for the companies. Companies compete for skilled employees just as much as employees compete for those positions. The equilibrium point is the market value of that job.
Your question was probably intended for minimum wage laws and unskilled labour which has been in steady decline for quite some time. But, just as government should not prop up failing businesses, it should also not prop up failing job markets. Minimum wage itself is a shaky proposition since many economists hold that they do more harm than good; if a unskilled positions are not worth the minimum wage to a business, no one will ever get the jobs instead of potentially receiving them at slightly lower pay.
I'm just saying that a market system is not suitable for choosing governments, because governments can change the law and thus the rules of the market. This allows the current market leaders to distort the market in their own favour, ensuring their continued dominance.
This is precisely an argument in favour of libertarianism and minimizing government influence. Concentration of power tends to turn out unfavourably, regardless of initial intentions. Centralizing anything is asking for trouble really. 'Special interest' laws against which you are arguing, are a consequence of the current political climate which favours government regulation of markets. Instead, libertarian ideals posit minimal interference, if any, thus explicitly forbidding special interest laws.
I agree that typical markets are not suitable for choosing governments though; government by its very nature is a necessary monopoly, and is thus an all-or-nothing proposition every time; thus free market economics break down since competition is not constant. Furthermore, many if not most, essential government institutions like law enforcement and the justice system, must remain relatively unaffected by changes in government. Unless you ascribe to anarcho-capitalist ideals, markets are simply not a suitable mechanism.
To have property rights and contract law you need a government, and that means political influence.
Law enforcement and justice are not political in nature. This is the whole point behind the separation of the different branches of government. Political favour should not influence justice.
In a pure capitalist system, a man with no money has no power: how is that universal suffrage?
No power? Universal suffrage is not about power, but about rights. To believe you have any power over anything but yourself is illusion. Money doesn't give you power over others beyond what they are willing to grant you in exchange. And as I said, money has no prejudice; anyone can use it.
Perhaps he can sell his labour, but he can't negotiate the price.
Why not?
With no money coming in he can never improve his situation, so he will remain a slave for the rest of his life.
This is an appeal to consequences fallacy. Firstly, slavery is a separate issue from economic status. Just because you have no money, does not mean you are a slave. The Constitution ensures "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." It does not guarantee happiness, it does not guarantee financial comfort. What it does guarantee, is the freedom to pursue those ends.
Practically speaking, people will adapt to survive and thrive in almost any particular environment; some scenarios are simply more conducive to growth than others. You have not pointed out how these poor people would all of a sudden be stripped of what they own, but let's assume that they have nothing to begin with. Labour is indeed the source of all value for those with no property of their own. But, you then assert that they have no viable negotiating position and will thus be "exploited". In fact, unions were started to address these very issues. If an employer does not treat his employees fairly, then a union is the only viable alternative.
There is nothing here that violates the principles of free market capitalism: a man voluntarily exchanges his labour for food and lodging, that is all.
And yet, economically speaking it would almost never make sense to provide lodgings and food instead of money. It is economically more efficient to deal with money; that is the driving force behind its widespread use. Your point is moot.
Even wage-slaves can use their votes to influence the law, perhaps to provide them with food and lodging so that they can demand money for their labour.
Law by majority vote (ie. democracy) is a terrible idea and often results in socialism. Perhaps you can explain why they are entitled to said food and lodgings without providing anything in exhange.
Yes, providing food and lodging will mean using the evil coercive power of government to steal somebody else's property, but that's the social cost of avoiding slavery.
Government is indeed a cost of avoiding slavery. Stealing someone else's property is not among the costs though. Preventing others from stealing property is one way to avoid slavery.
Perhaps you think it's nobler for each man to stand on his own two feet, in which case I say why not abolish property rights and contract law as well, and fight it out with our teeth and fingernails?
Since non-coercion is a fundamental tenet of libertarians, I'm not sure why they would support a deevolution to a coercive state.
Only if you have "votes" to cast. In a democracy you can spend your last dollar but you can't spend your right to vote.
In fact you can. You spend it on an election, and then you're stuck with your (or rather, everyone else's) choice for an entire term with no "out". A free market has a constant feedback, and response is near-immediate (compared to politics anyway). And you can't spend your last resource in capitalism either as long as you can provide something of value to another.
Governments have to worry about the opinions of all potential voters, not just those with money.
Perhaps you should amend "governments" to "representative governments".
The problem is that power brings more power: over time, unregulated capitalism tends to concentrate more and more power in the hands of fewer and fewer people, because those with money are able to buy political influence and change the rules in their favour
I'm afraid you misunderstand the nature of a libertarian socio-economic organization.
If it's truly unregulated free market capitalism, then there are no rules to be changed, and no political favour to win; the rules are set in stone: property rights and contract law. In regards to your accumulation of power argument, you assume a static market; in reality, markets are dynamic and even tiny innovations can produce large variations in results. An entire market (and thus an entire corporate empire which depends on said market) can be destroyed practically overnight by an innovation from a small competitor.
Furthermore, the existence of strong property rights completely negates your fear of concentrated power. It doesn't matter how much money a person/corporation has: if you don't want them to utilize your resources, they can do nothing about it. The single richest individual in the world (or even a cartel of them) could never possibly hope to purchase all the world's land, or natural resources and thus monopolize them.
In order to prevent a spiral towards tyranny, money and political power must be separated.
And they are in free market capitalism (as explained above).
That means not relying on the market as a mechanism to distribute social justice.
Which is a separate issue. Unless you are referring to anarcho-capitalists. Libertarianism is a very broad term which groups many diverse sets of opinion. Perhaps you should be more specific as to which set of principles you are disputing?
The only system that benefits more than one human being in the long run is a system based on universal suffrage and equality before the law.
I find it amusing that "universal suffrage" and "equality before law" are both integral components of free market capitalism: money does not recognize prejudice, and contract law + property rights similarly hold no bias against any race or creed.
In fact, free market economics are really a superset of democratic voting, since you can cast more than one "vote" on an issue which is really important to you, and withhold "votes" in areas which you don't care about.
Slashdot Mirror
I couldn't agree more. It sounds as though they're marketing this towards children!
They are. They're called "users".
If, as you appear to be saying, every little kid who commits these tiny transgressions deserves to die, then I don't understand how you think any society is sustainable.
He's not saying they deserve it, he's saying he's not responsible for it. The parents are responsible for their children. He is objecting to parents trying to shift blaim for their tragic mistakes.
No philosophy regarding human life(or its value) is relevant unless you are willing to apply it to your own life and use it to guide your own actions.
I agree.
The proper decision for the believer in infinitely-valuable human life is the decision to preserve as much human life as possible, regardless of who or what that life might represent in the long run.
This is incorrect; you are conveniently forgetting the nature of infinity. Infinity multiplied by any number is still infinity; if one accepts that life is infinitely valuable, must must then accept that one life is just as important as 6 billion lives; after all, 6 billion times infinity is still infinity! Mathematically speaking, your statement is incorrect and thus, logically, your conclusion is erroneous.
To accept the statement that a moral theory must choose the path that saves the greatest number of lives is to accept that lives have finite value which can be directly compared. This is what I have been maintaining from the outset.
Here's a more concrete example to illustrate the contradiction in your statements: if someone said they would give you a trillion dollars to kill one person of little note (ie. no significant positive or negative impact on other lives), what would you do? You have stated that life is infinitely valuable, so obviously the money could not possibly be enough. But, you could save thousands if not millions of people from starvation with that money, so obviously the tradeoff is acceptable. Oh oh, a contradiction. What to do?
Let's throw out the contradictory proposition "preserve as much human life as possible"; this was not stated in the original post, and is not what I was arguing against anyhow. Let's solely focus on "a human life is priceless". As I mentioned above, any number of priceless lives is mathematically and logically equal in value to a single priceless life. Thus, in accepting this proposition, we must be willing to sacrifice the entire human race to save a single life. In the interests of our species, I will deem this unacceptable.
Note that this has no bearing on your other arguments. I fully agree that mitigating circumstances can radically alter the decisions one makes. The consequences of one's actions determine one's choice in a proper system of ethics. However, as I have already stated, this has little to do with the philosophical exercise I was pursuing. Furthermore, simply because a life has finite value does not mean the value is even attainable monetarily.
Any consistent, valid moral theory should be able to adequately answer any moral dilemma given a set of parameters. Simultaneously accepting that human life is priceless while believing in the "greater good" produces a contradiction, as I have illustrated, and thus is inconsistent and unacceptable. Accepting only that human life is priceless produces undesirable consequences, and is thus unacceptable. The only logical resolution is to accept that human life has finite value, and that we must properly assess and perform cost-benefit analyses when deciding whether to protect or terminate a life. Callous? Perhaps. Necessary? Absolutely.
How to assess the value of another's life is the really tricky question... left as an exercise for the reader of course.
You are being mired in the specifics of the situation which has little to do with the philosophical question I posed; you are attempting to use psychological incentives in a philosophical debate. One can construct any threat whose ultimate point is identical yet which does not invoke such incentives; I was merely trying to keep it simple. Don't try and weasle out of answering a tough moral dilemma by arguing over irrelevant details and semantics; we make no progress this way.
The ultimate point is that each life has a finite value which can be weighed against other values. So which would it be? Would you save your own life, or the other's? Either way, there is no solution other than to concede that life has finite, measurable value.
Value of life within tent: priceless.
What a crock. If someone held a gun to your head and said "kill this person or you die", what would you do? You have two priceless items you must choose between, your life and his. So how do you make a value judgement between two items of "priceless" value? You have backed yourself into a logical corner here, because no matter which path you choose, you will have simply stated that one life was worth more than the other. And don't attempt to cheat by "flipping a coin" or some other such nonsense.
Torture is never OK.
Never say never; such absolute statements are rarely true. This should probably be restated as, "Torture is never ok except in extreme cirumstances." If some individual has unleashed a devastating weapon that would literally wipe out mankind and the only way to save us all is to extract some crucial information from him and torture is the ONLY possible method of extraction, I would not be crying foul. When you're talking "extermination of the species" there is (or should be) no debate.
We only become mired in ethical concerns when we consider less extreme circumstances. How large a fraction of the world's population would we be willing to sacrifice to be "humane" to one individual? Some believe sacrificing even one person for a "terrorist/criminal" is out of the question. Others would sacrifice us all.
Is it right to torture someone to save a thousand lives if it's the only other choice? A hundred lives? One life? What if the one life is your own? (remember, this is assuming that "torture, or people die" are the only choices)
It's a tough issue. Absolutes will never do it justice.
Are they implying that we don't kill each other now with current technologies? Or are they saying that the technology alone will turn average homo sapiens into blood thirsty murderers?
They are essentially saying that one stupid, misguided, or malicious person can wipe out a significant portion of the population. The dangers are similar to bio-tech, except biological threats we can recognize. If full, general-purpose assemblers come to pass, the number of possible attack vectors are overwhelming.
Our economy, and wealth, is currently based on a system of scarcity. When you can take raw molecules and arbitraily combine them into useful/necessary/life saving objects then scarcity dissipates. Many, if not most, of today's conflicts revolve around scarcity or perceived scarcity.
Scarcity never completely disappears, it just shifts to other areas. General purpose molecular assemblers shift the scarcity from means of production (as it is today) to design and raw materials. Nano-assemblers can't transmutate matter! If you want something metallic, you'll still need a source of the raw metal. Atomic-scale design plans are also potentially scarce.
Think about how many in the previous world viewed modern health care as cheating darwinism/survival of the fittest and that the resulting overpopulation of lesser fitted humans would be catastrophic. Can you say now whether they were right or wrong?
While I'd say they were wrong, the jury is still out. No one said it would happen overnight.
What makes you think living standards will increase in the future?
Extrapolation.
energy times resources times sinks divided by the number of people sharing the resources.
You neglect efficiency. We can still make enormous gains in efficiency, not to mention that we haven't tapped all of the planet's resources. Not by a long shot. By the time we do, I'd wager we'll have off-planet resources to fill in the gaps. Hell, by then I wouldn't be suprised if we'd be transmutating the elements we require. Whichever is economically most efficient.
While energy to be generated is indeed bounded by the planet (incident energy from the sun limited by exposed surface area + stored energy), we are not so bounded. Solar farms in space that beam their energy via microwaves are just one idea which would violate your previous "finite", upper energy bound. If you are so clever as to say that the quoted upper bound includes all such prospects, then a complete Dyson's sphere is the absolute upper energy limit, and that limit is ENORMOUS. We would probably not need so much for thousands of years.
Use your imagination, and have a little faith in human ingenuity.
Is it impractical to forfeit copy-protection measures when the copy-protection measure are impractical? It has already been demonstrated that copy-protection itself is impractical. He seems blind to the evidence.
Before the DMCA it was not illegal to circumvent copy-protection measures. I have not heard a single convincing argument why it should be illegal. If someone rips a movie or a song and begins distributing it, then they are violating copyright. If they do not distribute it, then they are not violating copyright. Where does copy-protection enter into the equation?
Valenti's position, simply stated, is that the copyright holder's still *own* content you just bought, and thus can dictate its use. Should a book author be able prevent me from reading his book with glasses? While lying down? Obviously not, yet the logical conclusion of Valenti's reasoning seems is that dictating use of a work is completely justifiable. If the author writes a book in an obscure language, can I not go and learn that language just to read the book? I would like to understand the chain of reasoning that leads one to conclude that it should be illegal to watch movies in an "unlicensed" player. Valenti seems to misunderstand that copyright is a granted right to copy and distribute works, not an ownership right.
Valenti also says one should not craft laws and public policy for a minority. But that's exactly what he's doing! Content creators are a minority. Pirates are a minority. He is lobbying for laws to benefit creators and persecute pirates, both minorities, in direct violation of Valenti's own statement.
Furthermore, as someone else stated elsewhere, if we should not make public policy for minorities, should we leave all physically disabled persons to their own devices? Forget all this accessibility crap? This selective memory thing is very convenient for politicians and lobbyists I imagine.
That's all for now...
Yes, we can. It's called a microkernel.
True.
The most popular one is Mach
Barf. Not to sound rude, but Mach is a horrid base for an operating system. I'm sorry Apple went with it.
If you mean popular as in "most widely used", then yes, Mach is the most popular "microkernel" (though it doesn't really fit the definition).
Mach is far from the most popular in hacker or academic circles (ie. those who know any better). L4 and EROS are far more suitable hosts for a guest operating system. L4 already has Linux 2.2 and 2.4 running as hosts in fact.
So in what world is putting a file that you do _NOT_ own the copyright on, and have not actually obtained permission from the copyright holder to copy for purposes beyond fair use, in a publicly shared folder for others to obtain _not_ a violation of the copyright act?
The article was not explicit, but I believe the ruling applied only to downloaders. Uploaders are obviously violating copyright.
It's not like you get promoted to "excellenter" or "excellentest" or something.
:-)
You mean you haven't been promoted yet? Ha! n00b...
Because much land is currently going unused in the form of bare roofs. Why not make use of it? Why absorb that energy as heat in the building material, and then have to cool the building using yet more energy? Solar probably won't satisfy all energy demands, but it could certainly lighten the load significantly.
Strings are unobservable, and string theory describes nor predicts nothing that is not explained by another larger theory.
Strings ARE the larger theory, considering it encompasses solutions to both QM and relativity. I think you mean, it predicts nothing that cannot be explained by a more specific theory. And the reason for this is simply because strings are SO abstract that they provide too many solutions. Are they a fruitful pursuit? time will tell...
Yes, I know the GPL doesn't prohibit selling code licensed under it. However, it only allows selling one copy, practically speaking, since the code can be given away by anyone who buys a copy.
Just to interject a little note here: anybody who buys a copy of Windows or Office *can* share it with their friends (not legally of course, but they do it anyway). Windows and Office are probably the most pirated/"shared" software of all time. I don't see Microsft hurting though. You are under the misapprehension that the recognized legitimacy of an action will lead to even more widespread use/abuse than if it were illegitimate. The conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.
Just what 100% commercial private railway did you have in mind? [...] Only _very_ recently has privatization become fashionable for railservice and it is usually marked by miserable failure.
I'm afraid you have your facts backwards. The private north american rail business was booming in the early 20th century, until government stepped in with regulation. Then the multiple competing railways were reduced to a few entrenched monopolies, to everyone's detriment. Your other statements are also flawed, though I don't have time for the necessary lengthy explanation at the moment.
Machines work on the principle of taking in energy and outputting it in the form of waste heat.
Machines work on the principle of energy conversion; waste heat is just an unwanted side effect of imperfect energy conversion.
But once the universe has cooled down to the same temperature as the CBR, it will be impossible for any machine to output waste heat.
Once the universe cools to CBR levels, there will be no differences in energy levels, and thus no energy flow is possible (thus, no motion, no conversions, etc).
LOL Well, there is a difference between a natural death and a murder. The baby in a miscarrage dies as an act of nature, the mother's body rejects it or the baby has a fatal disorder of some type. Ripping a baby apart to get stem cells is a PURPOSFUL act. Murder.
The women could have taken immune suppressants to prevent such an occurrence. Do we then charge her with criminal negligeance causing death?
What about women who don't know they are pregnant and, due to stress or some conscious action, cause a miscarriage? Do we charge them with criminal negligeance causing death?
Where is the line dividing natural and intentional occurrences? Are we not natural beings? If so, are not our actions thus natural? Why then is a death incurred from a willful action unnatural?
There is more in heaven and earth applerules, than are dreamt of in your (simplistic) philosophy. The fact is that, philosophically, law is based on consequences not morality. If there are no negative consequences to society, then an action is not forbidden. Only if there are significant positive consequences, is an action made mandatory. Now chew on that and figure out which side this issue falls on.
I would not be willing to stop what nature has set in motion
By "nature" do you mean fate or destiny, or simply the natural world/forces/etc? In any case, what would prohibit us from being the agents of "nature", merely fulfilling her/its design? If there is no design, what then ethically prohibits us from this action?
You say that you could not countenance it, but that you would not prevent others from aborting. Why is that? For socio-political reasons (ie. don't interfere with other people's decisions which don't affect you)? Or do you have a justification for your own choice which somehow doesn't apply to others?
Not trying to pick a fight, just trying to understand people's various underlying reasons for their stance on such a touchy issue.
No, the only logical point to say life has started is at the very beginning.
No, the only logical conclusion is that blanket generalizations do not apply to such complex issues.
But then, I'm against abortion and fertility treatment on purely irrational grounds, too.
I can understand an argument against fertility treatments on evolutionary grounds, but what is your objection to abortion?
And what of miscarriages where the woman's immune system attacks embryos and aborts the fetus? Should we charge the mother with murder?
We obviously have radically different conceptions of what "political" means.
Funny that definition #5 lists my exact point: "Having or influenced by partisan interests: The court should never become a political institution."
Law should be relatively static, it should not change with the seasons like politics; law should change only when conditions arise which are outside the bounds of the framer's assumptions. For example, laws protecting people's right to choose military service or not might be superceded by a serious threat to the country's continued existence.
As I demonstrated before, in a pure capitalist system the only right a destitute person has is the right to work
You are convoluting the term "right". A destitute's only acceptable choice may be to work, but it is not a right. The right in question is their right to choose, and under (almost) no circumstances should this be revoked. So to rephrase your statement, "in a pure capitalist system, the only right everyone has is the right to choose; in such a system a destitute person's only choice may be to work or starve".
and if he can't earn more than the price of his food (and why should anyone offer him more?) then he will remain a de facto slave.
If he can produce no more value than the price of his food, then what argument can you provide in his favour that he should receive more? Why would anyone offer him more? Because free market competition also operates for the job market. Skills establish market prices based on how much value said skills produce for the companies. Companies compete for skilled employees just as much as employees compete for those positions. The equilibrium point is the market value of that job.
Your question was probably intended for minimum wage laws and unskilled labour which has been in steady decline for quite some time. But, just as government should not prop up failing businesses, it should also not prop up failing job markets. Minimum wage itself is a shaky proposition since many economists hold that they do more harm than good; if a unskilled positions are not worth the minimum wage to a business, no one will ever get the jobs instead of potentially receiving them at slightly lower pay.
I'm just saying that a market system is not suitable for choosing governments, because governments can change the law and thus the rules of the market. This allows the current market leaders to distort the market in their own favour, ensuring their continued dominance.
This is precisely an argument in favour of libertarianism and minimizing government influence. Concentration of power tends to turn out unfavourably, regardless of initial intentions. Centralizing anything is asking for trouble really. 'Special interest' laws against which you are arguing, are a consequence of the current political climate which favours government regulation of markets. Instead, libertarian ideals posit minimal interference, if any, thus explicitly forbidding special interest laws.
I agree that typical markets are not suitable for choosing governments though; government by its very nature is a necessary monopoly, and is thus an all-or-nothing proposition every time; thus free market economics break down since competition is not constant. Furthermore, many if not most, essential government institutions like law enforcement and the justice system, must remain relatively unaffected by changes in government. Unless you ascribe to anarcho-capitalist ideals, markets are simply not a suitable mechanism.
To have property rights and contract law you need a government, and that means political influence.
Law enforcement and justice are not political in nature. This is the whole point behind the separation of the different branches of government. Political favour should not influence justice.
In a pure capitalist system, a man with no money has no power: how is that universal suffrage?
No power? Universal suffrage is not about power, but about rights. To believe you have any power over anything but yourself is illusion. Money doesn't give you power over others beyond what they are willing to grant you in exchange. And as I said, money has no prejudice; anyone can use it.
Perhaps he can sell his labour, but he can't negotiate the price.
Why not?
With no money coming in he can never improve his situation, so he will remain a slave for the rest of his life.
This is an appeal to consequences fallacy. Firstly, slavery is a separate issue from economic status. Just because you have no money, does not mean you are a slave. The Constitution ensures "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." It does not guarantee happiness, it does not guarantee financial comfort. What it does guarantee, is the freedom to pursue those ends.
Practically speaking, people will adapt to survive and thrive in almost any particular environment; some scenarios are simply more conducive to growth than others. You have not pointed out how these poor people would all of a sudden be stripped of what they own, but let's assume that they have nothing to begin with. Labour is indeed the source of all value for those with no property of their own. But, you then assert that they have no viable negotiating position and will thus be "exploited". In fact, unions were started to address these very issues. If an employer does not treat his employees fairly, then a union is the only viable alternative.
There is nothing here that violates the principles of free market capitalism: a man voluntarily exchanges his labour for food and lodging, that is all.
And yet, economically speaking it would almost never make sense to provide lodgings and food instead of money. It is economically more efficient to deal with money; that is the driving force behind its widespread use. Your point is moot.
Even wage-slaves can use their votes to influence the law, perhaps to provide them with food and lodging so that they can demand money for their labour.
Law by majority vote (ie. democracy) is a terrible idea and often results in socialism. Perhaps you can explain why they are entitled to said food and lodgings without providing anything in exhange.
Yes, providing food and lodging will mean using the evil coercive power of government to steal somebody else's property, but that's the social cost of avoiding slavery.
Government is indeed a cost of avoiding slavery. Stealing someone else's property is not among the costs though. Preventing others from stealing property is one way to avoid slavery.
Perhaps you think it's nobler for each man to stand on his own two feet, in which case I say why not abolish property rights and contract law as well, and fight it out with our teeth and fingernails?
Since non-coercion is a fundamental tenet of libertarians, I'm not sure why they would support a deevolution to a coercive state.
Only if you have "votes" to cast. In a democracy you can spend your last dollar but you can't spend your right to vote.
In fact you can. You spend it on an election, and then you're stuck with your (or rather, everyone else's) choice for an entire term with no "out". A free market has a constant feedback, and response is near-immediate (compared to politics anyway). And you can't spend your last resource in capitalism either as long as you can provide something of value to another.
Governments have to worry about the opinions of all potential voters, not just those with money.
Perhaps you should amend "governments" to "representative governments".
The problem is that power brings more power: over time, unregulated capitalism tends to concentrate more and more power in the hands of fewer and fewer people, because those with money are able to buy political influence and change the rules in their favour
I'm afraid you misunderstand the nature of a libertarian socio-economic organization.
If it's truly unregulated free market capitalism, then there are no rules to be changed, and no political favour to win; the rules are set in stone: property rights and contract law. In regards to your accumulation of power argument, you assume a static market; in reality, markets are dynamic and even tiny innovations can produce large variations in results. An entire market (and thus an entire corporate empire which depends on said market) can be destroyed practically overnight by an innovation from a small competitor.
Furthermore, the existence of strong property rights completely negates your fear of concentrated power. It doesn't matter how much money a person/corporation has: if you don't want them to utilize your resources, they can do nothing about it. The single richest individual in the world (or even a cartel of them) could never possibly hope to purchase all the world's land, or natural resources and thus monopolize them.
In order to prevent a spiral towards tyranny, money and political power must be separated.
And they are in free market capitalism (as explained above).
That means not relying on the market as a mechanism to distribute social justice.
Which is a separate issue. Unless you are referring to anarcho-capitalists. Libertarianism is a very broad term which groups many diverse sets of opinion. Perhaps you should be more specific as to which set of principles you are disputing?
The only system that benefits more than one human being in the long run is a system based on universal suffrage and equality before the law.
I find it amusing that "universal suffrage" and "equality before law" are both integral components of free market capitalism: money does not recognize prejudice, and contract law + property rights similarly hold no bias against any race or creed.
In fact, free market economics are really a superset of democratic voting, since you can cast more than one "vote" on an issue which is really important to you, and withhold "votes" in areas which you don't care about.