Either we're not speaking the same language, or you're not listening. Or you're REALLY confused, and honestly think that serial killers all suffer from down syndrome. Regardless, judging by your inability to stay on the topic which you yourself started, I doubt that we can have a productive discussion.
It's stupid because it makes a baseless assumption about the nature of a specific type of human behavior, uses that assumption to propose an extremely complex solution, and ignores the multitude of side-effects which would most likely occur even if the initial premise were valid and a solution were found.
It's like saying "hey, why are we wasting money on kevlar vests when we could just cure the bullet-permeability gene?"
Actually, if you take that list and compare it to the populations of the given nations, you'll find that the UK apparently has 2.5 times as many serial killers as the US, Australia has twice as many, and Canada has roughly the same number.
Of course, getting a list of names from wikipedia is an idiotic way to study the prevalence of serial killers in different nations. But, then again, suggesting that we "cure the serial killer gene" is probably every bit as stupid, so I guess your comment fits the discussion perfectly.
It's the whole concept of "correct" that's the issue. How do we know that something is incorrect? Just because the "scientific consensus" says so? As you so rightly said, we cannot have our children "parroting the scientific consensus". We can not allow our childrens minds to be enslaved by the whims of a bunch of guys in lab-coats! No, we need to expand on the work of Brother Lenin, and establish once and for all that the views of all people are equally valid! Ignoramuses of the world, UNITE, and overthrow the shackles of the Academic Class! Together, we WILL be victorious!
Very true. I mean, if a kid taking a math test writes down that 2+2 is 7, who are we to stifle his creativity? Screw the scientific consensus - he should get bonus marks for going against the herd!
Not really. Same mindset as all conspiracy theorists. I'm just surprised to see so many on slashdot falling for it. You'd think nerds would be the LEAST likely to latch on to anti-technology conspiracy theories.
Actually, the punishments aren't similar (at least, in the UK). In fact, there isn't a "punishment" as such for a normal breach of copyright in the UK, merely the payment of damages if a (civil) court finds them to have occurred. On the other hand, theft is a criminal offence and can result in a prison sentence (up to 7 years, I believe).
You're right, of course. I'm not sure why I wrote that. I'll blame it on the heat - it's hard to think straight while sweating like crazy.
Ah, but it isn't an "all-or-nothing" thing.
I'm glad we agree.
Calling something property doesn't make it property legally (which is why copyright infringement isn't theft). Ideas and information aren't property in the UK and there is case law to support that.
I'll agree if it'll get you to stop repeating the same point over and over again. It is, however, irrelevant to the original discussion. He was bitching about the "rule of law" being dead. Nothing you've contributed supports that assertion, nor does it invalidate my response to him.
The idea was to break down the fiberglass, which would make it easier to extract the lead. Run the remnants through a centrifuge-type machine or a strainer or whatever, and reuse the lead. However, I didn't realize that fiberglass is silicon based (although it makes sense now that you mention it). You're right, that poses a rather large problem.
Fund more biotech? We've already seen bacteria that evolved to feed on nylon. It should be possible to engineer a strain that can eat fiberglass, plastics, rubber, whatever. Depending on what the byproducts are, you might even be able to harness them to make energy.
So, ok, I'm not a geneticist, but this seems like a lucrative line of research. I'd be surprised if there aren't already people looking into it.
When Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was writing his works, there was a cash-based economy without copyrights, but nevertheless he managed just fine, turning out some of the best music in history.
Mozart didn't have to worry about the internet. He didn't even have to worry about recordings. The worst case scenario for him would have been someone attempting to play his music for a live audience, and even that would have been no competition since his primary market was the rich upper class - people who were willing to pay well in order to hear him perform live. Most artists of his time did far, FAR worse.
Of course, that's still possible today, but if you play for a death-metal band your primary market is going to be much different than Mozarts. Comparing his situation to the situation of artists today is ridiculous. You may as well say that Napoleon did just fine fighting wars on foot and horseback, so we don't need to buy any tanks for our modern military.
Copyrights are not property, and copyright infringement is not theft and is clearly distinguishable from theft.
As I said - semantics. The punishments are similar, as is the reasoning. Call it whatever you like, the result is the same.
Personally I don't agree with much of current copyright law, but I disagree even more with the no-such-thing-as-intellectual-property crowd. If I have to pick between no copyright/patent laws at all, and the laws we currently have, it's an easy choice, even if it means that I'll break the law myself on occasion.
Durr WOOOSH Anyways, you may want to check that link again, if you are having trouble reading, search for safe(Control-F).
Thanks Mr. 24.111.76.107 - it's good to see that you know how to edit wikipedia articles. I thought about undoing your vandalism, but I'm sure someone else will come along and fix it soon enough.
The GP was trying to point out the conflict of interest, U.S. Radium would have not only told their workers that the paint was safe, they would have encouraged them to show it off!
I really don't give a shit what you think they "would have" done. Unless you can show that they did it, you're just talking out of your ass. Nor would it matter if you DID manage to show such a thing, since the major difference is that we had plenty of evidence to show that radium was harmful, whereas there is no evidence whatsoever which shows that genetically modified foods cause any harm.
There is a good chance that you wear frilly pink underwear. How about we discuss what's ACTUALLY going on, instead of what you think MIGHT be going on?
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
You know perfectly well that I'm talking about copyright law.
Highly intelligent and well educated men and women don't understand copyright law?
If you define "highly intelligent" as "they can tie their own laces", and "well educated" as "passed kindergarten", then ok, we can agree. Otherwise, you're out to lunch.
Copyright infringement isn't theft. If I steal your car, you don't have your car any more. If I copy your car you still have it. How hard is it to understand the distinction?
You can discuss semantics with me all you like, but it won't change the laws. Nor should it, as long as we have a cash-based economy. In some Star-Trek-like Utopian future (or, conversely, a 1982-like dystopian future) we may stop thinking of unauthorized copying as theft, but under those circumstances nobody would have much interest in copyrights anyway.
That would be why I asked for clarification, and used the term "AFAIK". I'm not an expert (as he apparently is) so I'd like to see the well-sourced information which solidified his beliefs to such a degree. Although, judging by the amount of bullshit that people bring out when talking about environmental issues... I'm not holding my breath.
Stop me if you've heard this one: Innocent until proven guilty
So if I'm walking around in downtown New York, spraying bullets from an AK-47 at every person I see, the cops can't respond because I haven't been proven guilty?
If I'm holding five children in my basement and using them for sexual gratification, the cops can't knock down my door and arrest me until a judge find me guilty?
Yep, now I'm certain that you don't understand how laws work.
Third world countries are starving because we 1. destroy their local farmers' economy by dumping free food on them
*sigh*
This is why the anti-capitalism/anti-west side is always impossible to please. There's another guy a few comments higher up claiming that there should be no starvation because we make so much food. Now here you are claiming that starvation happens because we give them free food. Right. No matter what we do, we're bad, they're innocent, and it's all our fault.
Just get off the computer and go watch Avatar or something...
We need policy that will encourage small scale farming, and discourage the kinds of practices that we know are harmful to our health and the environment: chemically altered corn-derived ingredients like HFCS, use of hormones, over-use of chemical fertilizers and insecticides, feed lots, shipping food hundreds of miles to be sold
Any citations? AFAIK small scale farming is more "harmful to our health and the environment" than any of the other things you've listed.
In other news, U.S. Radium says radium paint is safe [wikipedia.org]. News at 11...
Hey dumbass - the word "safe" doesn't even make an appearance in the article you link to. In fact, the article specifically states that the scientists and managers at the plant took measures to avoid their own exposure to radium because they were familiar with it's effects. To compare that to the current GM-foods drama is completely asinine.
Note to the idiots who modded you insightful: follow the fucking links next time.
" We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do, only we believe that they would best serve these interests, which are as dear to us as to them, by advocating the purity of all races, and not one alone. We believe also that the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race."
I know many very highly intelligent and extremely well-educated men and women who don't understand the law. This includes some of our members of parliament.
That would be a fair rebuttal if we were discussing some obscure rule about underwater crocheting being forbidden at 11:35 on the 2nd of march during a full moon. It doesn't really fly when we're talking about the concept of a nation being able to shut down organizations which blatantly violate theft laws.
You do realise the next thing they'll do is requiring TLD DNS to start logging IPs of hosts requesting IP address to those domains, since "they're surely up to No Good (tm) if they're looking up IP address(es) of those IP pirates." (Yes, I know it's absurd. But more bone headed things have happened before.)
How long of a time-frame are we talking, and how much money are you willing to put on that?
Slashdot Mirror
Either we're not speaking the same language, or you're not listening. Or you're REALLY confused, and honestly think that serial killers all suffer from down syndrome. Regardless, judging by your inability to stay on the topic which you yourself started, I doubt that we can have a productive discussion.
It's stupid because it makes a baseless assumption about the nature of a specific type of human behavior, uses that assumption to propose an extremely complex solution, and ignores the multitude of side-effects which would most likely occur even if the initial premise were valid and a solution were found.
It's like saying "hey, why are we wasting money on kevlar vests when we could just cure the bullet-permeability gene?"
I guess we'll have to fix the hemorrhaging gene, first.
Actually, if you take that list and compare it to the populations of the given nations, you'll find that the UK apparently has 2.5 times as many serial killers as the US, Australia has twice as many, and Canada has roughly the same number.
Of course, getting a list of names from wikipedia is an idiotic way to study the prevalence of serial killers in different nations. But, then again, suggesting that we "cure the serial killer gene" is probably every bit as stupid, so I guess your comment fits the discussion perfectly.
It's the whole concept of "correct" that's the issue. How do we know that something is incorrect? Just because the "scientific consensus" says so? As you so rightly said, we cannot have our children "parroting the scientific consensus". We can not allow our childrens minds to be enslaved by the whims of a bunch of guys in lab-coats! No, we need to expand on the work of Brother Lenin, and establish once and for all that the views of all people are equally valid! Ignoramuses of the world, UNITE, and overthrow the shackles of the Academic Class! Together, we WILL be victorious!
Very true. I mean, if a kid taking a math test writes down that 2+2 is 7, who are we to stifle his creativity? Screw the scientific consensus - he should get bonus marks for going against the herd!
They're hard to figure out.
Not really. Same mindset as all conspiracy theorists. I'm just surprised to see so many on slashdot falling for it. You'd think nerds would be the LEAST likely to latch on to anti-technology conspiracy theories.
Actually, the punishments aren't similar (at least, in the UK). In fact, there isn't a "punishment" as such for a normal breach of copyright in the UK, merely the payment of damages if a (civil) court finds them to have occurred. On the other hand, theft is a criminal offence and can result in a prison sentence (up to 7 years, I believe).
You're right, of course. I'm not sure why I wrote that. I'll blame it on the heat - it's hard to think straight while sweating like crazy.
Ah, but it isn't an "all-or-nothing" thing.
I'm glad we agree.
Calling something property doesn't make it property legally (which is why copyright infringement isn't theft). Ideas and information aren't property in the UK and there is case law to support that.
I'll agree if it'll get you to stop repeating the same point over and over again. It is, however, irrelevant to the original discussion. He was bitching about the "rule of law" being dead. Nothing you've contributed supports that assertion, nor does it invalidate my response to him.
The idea was to break down the fiberglass, which would make it easier to extract the lead. Run the remnants through a centrifuge-type machine or a strainer or whatever, and reuse the lead. However, I didn't realize that fiberglass is silicon based (although it makes sense now that you mention it). You're right, that poses a rather large problem.
Fund more biotech? We've already seen bacteria that evolved to feed on nylon. It should be possible to engineer a strain that can eat fiberglass, plastics, rubber, whatever. Depending on what the byproducts are, you might even be able to harness them to make energy.
So, ok, I'm not a geneticist, but this seems like a lucrative line of research. I'd be surprised if there aren't already people looking into it.
But since "they" are ultimately the ones who get all the cash, it's only fair "they" do the job. Unlike this [bbc.co.uk] guy, who's doing it himself.
Next you'll link to some guy playing with lasers, and claim he's building a death-star.
When Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was writing his works, there was a cash-based economy without copyrights, but nevertheless he managed just fine, turning out some of the best music in history.
Mozart didn't have to worry about the internet. He didn't even have to worry about recordings. The worst case scenario for him would have been someone attempting to play his music for a live audience, and even that would have been no competition since his primary market was the rich upper class - people who were willing to pay well in order to hear him perform live. Most artists of his time did far, FAR worse.
Of course, that's still possible today, but if you play for a death-metal band your primary market is going to be much different than Mozarts. Comparing his situation to the situation of artists today is ridiculous. You may as well say that Napoleon did just fine fighting wars on foot and horseback, so we don't need to buy any tanks for our modern military.
Copyrights are not property, and copyright infringement is not theft and is clearly distinguishable from theft.
As I said - semantics. The punishments are similar, as is the reasoning. Call it whatever you like, the result is the same.
Personally I don't agree with much of current copyright law, but I disagree even more with the no-such-thing-as-intellectual-property crowd. If I have to pick between no copyright/patent laws at all, and the laws we currently have, it's an easy choice, even if it means that I'll break the law myself on occasion.
Durr WOOOSH Anyways, you may want to check that link again, if you are having trouble reading, search for safe(Control-F).
Thanks Mr. 24.111.76.107 - it's good to see that you know how to edit wikipedia articles. I thought about undoing your vandalism, but I'm sure someone else will come along and fix it soon enough.
The GP was trying to point out the conflict of interest, U.S. Radium would have not only told their workers that the paint was safe, they would have encouraged them to show it off!
I really don't give a shit what you think they "would have" done. Unless you can show that they did it, you're just talking out of your ass. Nor would it matter if you DID manage to show such a thing, since the major difference is that we had plenty of evidence to show that radium was harmful, whereas there is no evidence whatsoever which shows that genetically modified foods cause any harm.
There is a good chance that you wear frilly pink underwear. How about we discuss what's ACTUALLY going on, instead of what you think MIGHT be going on?
Strawman.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
You know perfectly well that I'm talking about copyright law.
Highly intelligent and well educated men and women don't understand copyright law?
If you define "highly intelligent" as "they can tie their own laces", and "well educated" as "passed kindergarten", then ok, we can agree. Otherwise, you're out to lunch.
Copyright infringement isn't theft. If I steal your car, you don't have your car any more. If I copy your car you still have it. How hard is it to understand the distinction?
You can discuss semantics with me all you like, but it won't change the laws. Nor should it, as long as we have a cash-based economy. In some Star-Trek-like Utopian future (or, conversely, a 1982-like dystopian future) we may stop thinking of unauthorized copying as theft, but under those circumstances nobody would have much interest in copyrights anyway.
That would be why I asked for clarification, and used the term "AFAIK". I'm not an expert (as he apparently is) so I'd like to see the well-sourced information which solidified his beliefs to such a degree. Although, judging by the amount of bullshit that people bring out when talking about environmental issues ... I'm not holding my breath.
Stop me if you've heard this one: Innocent until proven guilty
So if I'm walking around in downtown New York, spraying bullets from an AK-47 at every person I see, the cops can't respond because I haven't been proven guilty?
If I'm holding five children in my basement and using them for sexual gratification, the cops can't knock down my door and arrest me until a judge find me guilty?
Yep, now I'm certain that you don't understand how laws work.
It's a sad day for slashdot when "die shill" is considered +5 Insightful.
Third world countries are starving because we 1. destroy their local farmers' economy by dumping free food on them
*sigh*
This is why the anti-capitalism/anti-west side is always impossible to please. There's another guy a few comments higher up claiming that there should be no starvation because we make so much food. Now here you are claiming that starvation happens because we give them free food. Right. No matter what we do, we're bad, they're innocent, and it's all our fault.
Just get off the computer and go watch Avatar or something ...
We need policy that will encourage small scale farming, and discourage the kinds of practices that we know are harmful to our health and the environment: chemically altered corn-derived ingredients like HFCS, use of hormones, over-use of chemical fertilizers and insecticides, feed lots, shipping food hundreds of miles to be sold
Any citations? AFAIK small scale farming is more "harmful to our health and the environment" than any of the other things you've listed.
In other news, U.S. Radium says radium paint is safe [wikipedia.org]. News at 11...
Hey dumbass - the word "safe" doesn't even make an appearance in the article you link to. In fact, the article specifically states that the scientists and managers at the plant took measures to avoid their own exposure to radium because they were familiar with it's effects. To compare that to the current GM-foods drama is completely asinine.
Note to the idiots who modded you insightful: follow the fucking links next time.
" We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do, only we believe that they would best serve these interests, which are as dear to us as to them, by advocating the purity of all races, and not one alone. We believe also that the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race."
-- Ghandhi
Bad news, one of the other suspected side effects of toxo in human women is also an increase in intelligence.
So ... they'll be able to cook tastier food? How is this a bad thing?
I know many very highly intelligent and extremely well-educated men and women who don't understand the law. This includes some of our members of parliament.
That would be a fair rebuttal if we were discussing some obscure rule about underwater crocheting being forbidden at 11:35 on the 2nd of march during a full moon. It doesn't really fly when we're talking about the concept of a nation being able to shut down organizations which blatantly violate theft laws.
You do realise the next thing they'll do is requiring TLD DNS to start logging IPs of hosts requesting IP address to those domains, since "they're surely up to No Good (tm) if they're looking up IP address(es) of those IP pirates." (Yes, I know it's absurd. But more bone headed things have happened before.)
How long of a time-frame are we talking, and how much money are you willing to put on that?