Which brings up the question - why aren't there more homeless people robbing banks out there?
Because robbing banks requires at least a modicum of ability, some organizational skill, and a bit of motivation. If you've got all of the above, you're unlikely to be homeless in the first place.
I'm stating that the convergence in the terms "democracy" and "republic" has led directly to the changes seen in the US government - namely, from a constitutionally restricted legislature, to today, where the vast majority of Americans believe that if 50% + 1 people vote for something, then that's the way it should be.
I think you'll find that this isn't exactly a new phenomenon. People have always sought to impose their will on others, whether through force, social pressure, or a combination of the two.
As an example of what I think you're referring to, I regularly hear the refrain (from Americans) that "evolution is taught in school even though most people don't believe in it". As if the popularity of a scientific theory has anything to do with it's veracity. However, that complaint has been with us for a century now, and the judicial branch of the US government doesn't seem interested in budging on this issue. So while people in general tend to be quite ignorant about your system of government, the government still seems to be policing itself effectively. The idea of "checks and balances" - such a uniquely American concept - seems to be holding up just fine.
As an aside - where are you from? I've gathered that you're aren't from the US:)
I was born in (the former) Yugoslavia. I'm Canadian today. I much prefer the American system of government, but I love my adopted country despite it's flaws:)
The ability to replicate something infinity does take value away from it
It takes away value on a per-unit basis, sure, because value is a function of supply and demand. But if you can make 6 billion copies at essentially the same price as 6 copies, then the per-unit value is irrelevant. However, I think it's both evil and counter-productive to artificially limit the supply in order to increase the demand (and, therefore, the price).
And I don't have a problem with those creators deciding how abundant or scarce their work is through pricing
I don't either. But I also won't have any sympathy for them when potential customers flip them the bird and just copy their work instead.
If MS actually charged a reasonable price, people would be more likely to pay. Instead they charge an unreasonable price and most people use it for free, while people who can afford it subsidize those who can't. Either way MS makes the same amount of money, but by charging an unreasonable amount they actually encourage piracy. You can argue morality all you want, but there's no disputing the end result - higher prices on an infinite resource result in more piracy and rarely (if ever) generate higher profits.
I know that the US is a "constitutional republic", but that doesn't mean it's not democratic, nor does it mean it's not liberal. In fact, liberty and democracy are founding principles of the American Republic.
The word "republic" is essentially interchangeable with the word "democracy", anyway. In the original Greek, they're not only interchangeable, they're the same word "dimokratia". In modern usage, you could call a nation a "constitutional democracy" or a "constitutional republic" without changing the meaning of your claim in the slightest.
It's the word "constitutional" in "constitutional republic" that makes the real difference. Your constitution is what defines and limits your system of government. It's also important to point out that many different types of nations have called themselves "republics". North Korea styles itself as a republic, as did Nazi Germany. As far as I can tell it was the spirit of republicanism which drove the founding fathers to lay out the constitution in the way they did, but republicanism is a completely different animal - it's their idealized version of what they thought a republic should be.
Got ya. Sorry, I thought you were criticizing his objectives rather than his approach. You're right - he could certainly have handled it better. If he needed advice he could have privately asked other IT workers, or if he truly felt the need to post it here he could at least cut out some of the detail.
But anyhow, is it still ok to copy software for which an OSS equivalent exists?
I wasn't arguing that it's ok, I was just correcting the guy's misinterpretation of the original argument. As a matter of fact, I don't think it's EVER ok for a business to violate copyright, and I'm not a big fan of individuals doing it either. Back when I was in highschool, I pirated MS Office because no real alternative existed and I didn't have much money. Today I use OpenOffice even though I could easily afford MS Office. So I would certainly encourage the use of OSS whenever practical, and I'd aggressively pursue any corporations which knowingly pirate.
While the poster's motives might appear noble, I don't understand exactly what he's trying to achieve. A promotion, extra brownie points, getting someone in a foreign country fired, or at least severely embarrassed...
You see, there are some people who have these crazy concepts which the rest of the world doesn't really understand. They refer to them as "morals", "honour", "integrity"... weird names like that. I hear that some obscure dictionaries might even define them, in case you'd like to look them up. Anyway, as best as I can tell those words all generally refer to a desire to "do the right thing", regardless of personal cost or any potential reward.
Crazy, eh? It's weird to think that there may be such naive people on this planet. It's a good thing that pragmatic individuals such as you and I know better! Remember boys and girls: the number one question behind every action should be: "What's in it for ME?".
You could say the same about lots of things. Oil, for one. Or gold.
Not THAT horrible old analogy again!
What you're saying is that if you can't afford something, it's OK to steal it.
No - what he's saying is that if you can't afford something, it's ok to copy it. Now, you're free to disagree with that and in many cases I might even agree with you, but there's no reason to misrepresent the other side of the argument. You CAN NOT compare physical resources to information because information, once created, is an infinite resource, whereas physical resources will always be finite.
Fat lot of good it did him, eh? There's a lesson there: if it's a question of doing it first or doing it well, go with the latter.
Again. Please stop using the Internet. You're getting your stupid all over everything.
Case in point: you'd rather throw the first insult than take the time to come up with a good insult. As a result you vomit up some half-formed piece of drivel which would be perfectly suited for a middle-school environment. If you don't take the time to do it right, don't be surprised when you're written off as an amateur.
I took the liberty of emphasizing the key word for you. Despite the religious overtones, I agree with that statement completely - but that has nothing to do with whether or not all men ARE equal. You may have noticed that some men rape and steal, while others create and heal. A system of government which truly considers all men to be equal is impossible - it would be anarchy, which is not a system but a lack of a system.
Umm. No. The intent was not translated correctly and there's nothing in the linked article to support your claim that it was.
Oh, wait, I changed my mind, you're completely right! "Must be wiped from the pages of time" has a COMPLETELY different meaning than "must be wiped off the face of the earth". And when he later said:
"they say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan"
that CLEARLY meant "we love the US and Israel, and wish to give them big hugs and sloppy kisses".
And when he, later yet, says: "Our suggestion is that the 5 million Palestinian refugees come back to their homes, and then the entire people on those lands hold a referendum and choose their own system of government", this is clearly a call for Israel to continue to exist as a free nation. What could be more natural? Why, even Hitler's overtures were similarly misinterpreted - all he wanted was for the millions of German soldiers to move back to their homes which were under occupation by those treacherous Poleonists, and then hold a free and open referendum to chose their system of government. Unfortunately, the Scum-sucking Yankee Imperialist Pig-Dogs misinterpreted his attempts to bring peace to Europe, and chose instead to launch a preemptive unilateral disproportional attack on the freedom-loving people of Greater Europe!
I don't know how I could have been so confused. Thank you for setting me straight!
Now the question becomes, why do you keep posting lies?
Well clearly it's because I'm an Amerikkkan Neo-Con Zionist Bushitlernazi. No, the REAL question here is how did YOU get to be so smart? Was there a special school you went to? Did you have to wear a safety-helmet to keep that valuable brain protected? It must have been a hell of a childhood!
Maybe you missed the part where Galileo did a better job using similar equipment?
Let me repeat it a third time since you seem a little slow: G-A-L-I-L-E-O D-I-D I-T B-E-T-T-E-R.
Are we clear now? Did you get it this time, or did you want me to draw you a picture? I can't promise it'll be a Picasso, but I'll do my best. And you better not criticize unless you can do better!
That you're completely wrong? Unless all you're complaining about is a poor translation.
The meaning or intent of what he said was translated accurately - only the words are different. He's made similar statements on other occasions - each of them a direct threat to destroy Israel. As long as you realize this, we're ok. In that case, I misunderstood your complaint. But if you DON'T realize it, you need to read the rest of the article.
Who says that the President of the USA can't be a "genocidal maniac" as well
Congress, the constitution, and historical precedent.
After G.W.Bush I think it is not out of the question
Are you serious? The president whose entire strategy in Iraq has hinged on rebuilding and re-instating a Muslim government? THAT George Bush? You think he wanted to commit genocide?
And "liberal democracy" means for me that either everybody has the right to bear arms or no one.
I get your point, but there's a big difference between saying "you're evil" and saying "I'm going to kill you and your entire family". You can't possibly believe that a vague implied threat is the same as a clear promise of genocide. Our legal code certainly makes a distinction between the two.
You can test it out next time you get a traffic ticket: Tell the cop you think he's an evil asshole who deserves to rot in hell. Wait 30 seconds and gauge his response. Then tell him you're going to feed his children through a woodchipper, and see how his reaction differs. I'll bet you large quantities of cash that you get a completely different response.
Arguing that a country which gains nuclear power is immediately going to find an extremist subset of their population and put them in charge of launching their military's most prized weapon is just utter nonsense and scaremongering.
Oh, I suppose you could argue that Ahmagesundheit and the mullahs aren't extremists, since there are other whackos out there who are even worse. But that's a bit like arguing that a Ferarri isn't fast because it can't keep up with the Concord. Let's not split hairs here.
If they're crazy enough to threaten genocide, kill and imprison journalists, hang homosexuals, and, just for an ultra-funny encore, claim during a public lecture that there are no homosexuals in their nation.... well, if you don't consider that "extremist", then you're either an Islamist nutjob yourself, or you have a much worse opinion of mainstream Islam than I do.
As an outside observer, I think putting Iran in the "axis of evil" was pretty close.
WTF? Are you serious? No offense man, but that's retarded. You may as well say that Winston Churchills denouncements of the Nazis were equivalent to Hitlers genocidal rants. There's simply no comparison. In order to confuse the two you either need to be profoundly ignorant, or have some sort of ideological bias.
Unless Iran or Israel go all religious-fanatic over it, actually believing that their respective God gives them the upper hand. And I think *that's* what we all should fear the most.
On that we can definitely agree. Although I think it's a bit unfair to imply that both of those nations are equally fanatical about their religions. Both sides have their share of zealots, but in Israel they tend to be poorly represented in government whereas in Iran they ARE the government.
If it hadn't been for our meddling (oh, overthrowing governments, oil grabs etc--none of this is controversial), Iran would not be in confrontation with us today.
You know, I never stop being amazed by how many psychics there are on Slashdot. Think you could give me next weeks lottery numbers, while you're here?
No. I'm not sure where you got that silly idea - too much Marx, maybe? Anyway, it's completely wrong, as even the most cursory examination of the world around you would show.
So unless you are from a country without nuclear weapons and intercontinental missiles you have no right to talk.
Yes, I do - it's called the right to free speech. I find it interesting that you wish to stick up for the rights of genocidal maniacs to own nuclear weapons, while simultaneously attempting to take away the right of others to disagree. You REALLY don't get this whole "liberal democracy" thing, do you?
That means if Iran ever launches a missile as a weapon it'll be her last.
Which I'm sure will greatly comfort the few million who die when that missiles comes back down.
At least when we were facing down the Russians, we knew we had a rational enemy who wouldn't launch without a damn good reason. But when you've got religious fanatics in charge of nuclear arsenals... well, the extremist Muslims have no qualms with dying for their religion, nor do they seem to have much of a problem with causing the deaths of other Muslims. Really, whether Iran ever launches or not isn't going to be decided by anything we can predict - more likely that decision will rest on whether the reining mullahs are totally insane, or just a little-bit insane.
Iran seems to be doing a good job these last few years, but people still give them a bad rap.
It's hard not to, when they keep threatening to commit genocide on a bi-weekly basis. Imagine the reaction if Bush had gone on TV every few days promising to wipe Iran off the map.
Their actions so far seem relatively benign, even if they are funding and training various terrorist groups with which we're at war. Their rhetoric, on the other hand, could use a lot of work.
Congratulations Slashdotters, you've outdone yourselves this time! Never in my life have I seen so much redundancy with so little benefit. I think it's safe to say that we could replace 95% of the comments in this thread with:
Slashdot Mirror
I think you misspelled "newspapers".
Because robbing banks requires at least a modicum of ability, some organizational skill, and a bit of motivation. If you've got all of the above, you're unlikely to be homeless in the first place.
I think you'll find that this isn't exactly a new phenomenon. People have always sought to impose their will on others, whether through force, social pressure, or a combination of the two.
As an example of what I think you're referring to, I regularly hear the refrain (from Americans) that "evolution is taught in school even though most people don't believe in it". As if the popularity of a scientific theory has anything to do with it's veracity. However, that complaint has been with us for a century now, and the judicial branch of the US government doesn't seem interested in budging on this issue. So while people in general tend to be quite ignorant about your system of government, the government still seems to be policing itself effectively. The idea of "checks and balances" - such a uniquely American concept - seems to be holding up just fine.
I was born in (the former) Yugoslavia. I'm Canadian today. I much prefer the American system of government, but I love my adopted country despite it's flaws :)
It takes away value on a per-unit basis, sure, because value is a function of supply and demand. But if you can make 6 billion copies at essentially the same price as 6 copies, then the per-unit value is irrelevant. However, I think it's both evil and counter-productive to artificially limit the supply in order to increase the demand (and, therefore, the price).
I don't either. But I also won't have any sympathy for them when potential customers flip them the bird and just copy their work instead.
If MS actually charged a reasonable price, people would be more likely to pay. Instead they charge an unreasonable price and most people use it for free, while people who can afford it subsidize those who can't. Either way MS makes the same amount of money, but by charging an unreasonable amount they actually encourage piracy. You can argue morality all you want, but there's no disputing the end result - higher prices on an infinite resource result in more piracy and rarely (if ever) generate higher profits.
I know that the US is a "constitutional republic", but that doesn't mean it's not democratic, nor does it mean it's not liberal. In fact, liberty and democracy are founding principles of the American Republic.
The word "republic" is essentially interchangeable with the word "democracy", anyway. In the original Greek, they're not only interchangeable, they're the same word "dimokratia". In modern usage, you could call a nation a "constitutional democracy" or a "constitutional republic" without changing the meaning of your claim in the slightest.
It's the word "constitutional" in "constitutional republic" that makes the real difference. Your constitution is what defines and limits your system of government. It's also important to point out that many different types of nations have called themselves "republics". North Korea styles itself as a republic, as did Nazi Germany. As far as I can tell it was the spirit of republicanism which drove the founding fathers to lay out the constitution in the way they did, but republicanism is a completely different animal - it's their idealized version of what they thought a republic should be.
Got ya. Sorry, I thought you were criticizing his objectives rather than his approach. You're right - he could certainly have handled it better. If he needed advice he could have privately asked other IT workers, or if he truly felt the need to post it here he could at least cut out some of the detail.
I wasn't arguing that it's ok, I was just correcting the guy's misinterpretation of the original argument. As a matter of fact, I don't think it's EVER ok for a business to violate copyright, and I'm not a big fan of individuals doing it either. Back when I was in highschool, I pirated MS Office because no real alternative existed and I didn't have much money. Today I use OpenOffice even though I could easily afford MS Office. So I would certainly encourage the use of OSS whenever practical, and I'd aggressively pursue any corporations which knowingly pirate.
You see, there are some people who have these crazy concepts which the rest of the world doesn't really understand. They refer to them as "morals", "honour", "integrity" ... weird names like that. I hear that some obscure dictionaries might even define them, in case you'd like to look them up. Anyway, as best as I can tell those words all generally refer to a desire to "do the right thing", regardless of personal cost or any potential reward.
Crazy, eh? It's weird to think that there may be such naive people on this planet. It's a good thing that pragmatic individuals such as you and I know better! Remember boys and girls: the number one question behind every action should be: "What's in it for ME?".
Not THAT horrible old analogy again!
No - what he's saying is that if you can't afford something, it's ok to copy it. Now, you're free to disagree with that and in many cases I might even agree with you, but there's no reason to misrepresent the other side of the argument. You CAN NOT compare physical resources to information because information, once created, is an infinite resource, whereas physical resources will always be finite.
Fat lot of good it did him, eh? There's a lesson there: if it's a question of doing it first or doing it well, go with the latter.
Case in point: you'd rather throw the first insult than take the time to come up with a good insult. As a result you vomit up some half-formed piece of drivel which would be perfectly suited for a middle-school environment. If you don't take the time to do it right, don't be surprised when you're written off as an amateur.
that all men are created equal
I took the liberty of emphasizing the key word for you. Despite the religious overtones, I agree with that statement completely - but that has nothing to do with whether or not all men ARE equal. You may have noticed that some men rape and steal, while others create and heal. A system of government which truly considers all men to be equal is impossible - it would be anarchy, which is not a system but a lack of a system.
Oh, wait, I changed my mind, you're completely right! "Must be wiped from the pages of time" has a COMPLETELY different meaning than "must be wiped off the face of the earth". And when he later said:
"they say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan"
that CLEARLY meant "we love the US and Israel, and wish to give them big hugs and sloppy kisses".
And when he, later yet, says: "Our suggestion is that the 5 million Palestinian refugees come back to their homes, and then the entire people on those lands hold a referendum and choose their own system of government", this is clearly a call for Israel to continue to exist as a free nation. What could be more natural? Why, even Hitler's overtures were similarly misinterpreted - all he wanted was for the millions of German soldiers to move back to their homes which were under occupation by those treacherous Poleonists, and then hold a free and open referendum to chose their system of government. Unfortunately, the Scum-sucking Yankee Imperialist Pig-Dogs misinterpreted his attempts to bring peace to Europe, and chose instead to launch a preemptive unilateral disproportional attack on the freedom-loving people of Greater Europe!
I don't know how I could have been so confused. Thank you for setting me straight!
Well clearly it's because I'm an Amerikkkan Neo-Con Zionist Bushitlernazi. No, the REAL question here is how did YOU get to be so smart? Was there a special school you went to? Did you have to wear a safety-helmet to keep that valuable brain protected? It must have been a hell of a childhood!
Maybe you missed the part where Galileo did a better job using similar equipment?
Let me repeat it a third time since you seem a little slow: G-A-L-I-L-E-O D-I-D I-T B-E-T-T-E-R.
Are we clear now? Did you get it this time, or did you want me to draw you a picture? I can't promise it'll be a Picasso, but I'll do my best. And you better not criticize unless you can do better!
That you're completely wrong? Unless all you're complaining about is a poor translation.
The meaning or intent of what he said was translated accurately - only the words are different. He's made similar statements on other occasions - each of them a direct threat to destroy Israel. As long as you realize this, we're ok. In that case, I misunderstood your complaint. But if you DON'T realize it, you need to read the rest of the article.
Congress, the constitution, and historical precedent.
Are you serious? The president whose entire strategy in Iraq has hinged on rebuilding and re-instating a Muslim government? THAT George Bush? You think he wanted to commit genocide?
No, that's anarchy.
Please read the entirety of the article which you've linked to.
I get your point, but there's a big difference between saying "you're evil" and saying "I'm going to kill you and your entire family". You can't possibly believe that a vague implied threat is the same as a clear promise of genocide. Our legal code certainly makes a distinction between the two.
You can test it out next time you get a traffic ticket: Tell the cop you think he's an evil asshole who deserves to rot in hell. Wait 30 seconds and gauge his response. Then tell him you're going to feed his children through a woodchipper, and see how his reaction differs. I'll bet you large quantities of cash that you get a completely different response.
Oh, I suppose you could argue that Ahmagesundheit and the mullahs aren't extremists, since there are other whackos out there who are even worse. But that's a bit like arguing that a Ferarri isn't fast because it can't keep up with the Concord. Let's not split hairs here.
If they're crazy enough to threaten genocide, kill and imprison journalists, hang homosexuals, and, just for an ultra-funny encore, claim during a public lecture that there are no homosexuals in their nation .... well, if you don't consider that "extremist", then you're either an Islamist nutjob yourself, or you have a much worse opinion of mainstream Islam than I do.
WTF? Are you serious? No offense man, but that's retarded. You may as well say that Winston Churchills denouncements of the Nazis were equivalent to Hitlers genocidal rants. There's simply no comparison. In order to confuse the two you either need to be profoundly ignorant, or have some sort of ideological bias.
On that we can definitely agree. Although I think it's a bit unfair to imply that both of those nations are equally fanatical about their religions. Both sides have their share of zealots, but in Israel they tend to be poorly represented in government whereas in Iran they ARE the government.
You know, I never stop being amazed by how many psychics there are on Slashdot. Think you could give me next weeks lottery numbers, while you're here?
No. I'm not sure where you got that silly idea - too much Marx, maybe? Anyway, it's completely wrong, as even the most cursory examination of the world around you would show.
Yes, I do - it's called the right to free speech. I find it interesting that you wish to stick up for the rights of genocidal maniacs to own nuclear weapons, while simultaneously attempting to take away the right of others to disagree. You REALLY don't get this whole "liberal democracy" thing, do you?
Which I'm sure will greatly comfort the few million who die when that missiles comes back down.
At least when we were facing down the Russians, we knew we had a rational enemy who wouldn't launch without a damn good reason. But when you've got religious fanatics in charge of nuclear arsenals ... well, the extremist Muslims have no qualms with dying for their religion, nor do they seem to have much of a problem with causing the deaths of other Muslims. Really, whether Iran ever launches or not isn't going to be decided by anything we can predict - more likely that decision will rest on whether the reining mullahs are totally insane, or just a little-bit insane.
It's hard not to, when they keep threatening to commit genocide on a bi-weekly basis. Imagine the reaction if Bush had gone on TV every few days promising to wipe Iran off the map.
Their actions so far seem relatively benign, even if they are funding and training various terrorist groups with which we're at war. Their rhetoric, on the other hand, could use a lot of work.
Congratulations Slashdotters, you've outdone yourselves this time! Never in my life have I seen so much redundancy with so little benefit. I think it's safe to say that we could replace 95% of the comments in this thread with:
"America is teh ghay!"
without losing a shred of information.
And people call Vista bloated ....
Well yes - it's going to be crewed by Hollywood celebrities. I hear they might even get Patrick Stewart to take the helm.