Sorry, but the reasoning in your post made me wince. For one, the term "bad guys" is simply a us-vs-them generalisation that holds no water. I haven't met a single person in my life who is incapable of a good deed, or a bad deed. So, the question really should be, "Is the act of breaking a law always bad?".
For two, even if the answer to this is no, it makes no mention of how many laws are unjust, and which ones specifically are. If a significant portion of laws are just, then we should certainly be very concerned whether something is illegal or not, in general. Unless we know whether a specific law is unjust, then we would be sensible treating the laws as they are in the majority (which I think most people would say is "just").
I assume the only purpose of this article is to make RIAA look dumb by trying to suggest that there is such a thing as an illegal sequence of 0s and 1s, especially when it may be exactly the same in meaning as a legal sequence.
But they're not. They're saying there's such a thing as an illegal copy of digital music. There is a meaningful difference, and pretending otherwise damages no-one's side but your own.
Now if you excuse me, I need to stop typing. I'm currently trying to type and drive your car (whose arrangement of matter and energy was perfectly legal in your garage, so I figure it's going to be legal in mine) at the same time, and there's a policeman up ahead. For some reason, they just don't seem to get your logic.
What about those of us who complain about the anti-Apple sentiment, who aren't Apple customers? Do we just do the same?
Please tell me, because your argument has ridiculed and humiliated me, therefore proving without a doubt that everything I say is factually incorrect. What am I to think now in the face of unassailable logic?
How many Americans here would actually care if Barack Obama was born overseas? Not saying he has been, but assuming for the sake of argument that he was.
I ask because the less useful and more racist protections on democracy in the US (and other countries). I live here in Australia, and I can't honestly say it would bother me in any significant way if one of our many immigrants took the position of prime minister. Well, I could conceive that I would be bothered if my culture and way-of-life were threatened by their being elected, but as things stand, I would consider them as seriously as any other candidate.
I don't get it; his argument makes perfect sense. If we give ourselves any rights, the evil government will just hijack them, so we mustn't have any rights whatsoever. What could possibly be irrational about that?
Even though I agree that euthanasia should be legal, I don't find that particular argument convincing.
For one, the premise is blatantly untrue. Most people do not get to choose how they die, and a vast majority of them are not due to the government. There's no natural right to choose the manner of death. Don't get me wrong, I wish it were, but in reality, such a privilege is a rarity. Instantly, the whole premise is wrong.
For two, I don't think anti-euthanasia laws are telling people how they should die. They do tell people how they shouldn't die, but they don't tell people how they should die. It's a subtle, but in my opinion, important distinction. There's a difference in intent: the government's interest is in prolonging life in general, not dictating the manner by which it ends. The restriction on the manner is incidental to the main purpose, which is to stop people dying prematurely.
So, why do I think euthanasia should be legal? Well, my reasons are similar, but my wording is different. I believe that nobody has the right to force people to endure pain, no matter what causes it. In the same way that we have a moral obligation, as a society (if not as an individual) to help people within our society (if not others) who suffer against their will, we have a moral obligation to allow them to help themselves. Whatever the reasons presented to the contrary, anti-euthanasia laws are an unbearable cruelty imposed on those suffering already. We have to ask ourselves, exactly what reasons could possibly justify such a cruelty?
Hey, you're not allowed to hack companies who aren't flagrantly, explicitly evil! It's almost like you're hacking companies whose security is weak, rather than acting as moral crusaders. How could that be?
The hard truth is, most human beings are type-cast personalities. They are stamped from a few cookie cutters. They are individuals "just like everyone else" which means not at all. Their thoughts, beliefs, mannerisms, biases, values, ethics, principles, worldviews, perspectives, even those they would quite willingly fight for, are not their own. They are not genuinely theirs.
I disagree. People are, in part, a collection of their thoughts, beliefs, etc. They arrive at these through processing their own experiences, and sometimes even their own biology plays a part as well. The cookie-cutter philosophy doesn't really hold up when you actually examine people. To find two people whose beliefs are exactly identical is actually extremely rare. Given just about any two people, regardless of their upbringing, they can find something about which they don't agree with each other.
The way that I see it, a person is, at least in part, a sum of their experiences. What defines their thoughts, beliefs, etc, is their experiences, and occasionally their biology. It means that their ego doesn't so much have reins, rather it is malleable. The hypnotist doesn't hijack the person temporarily, he actually changes them. Of course, most people would tend to conclude the opposite: that standing on your head is the person standing on their head is the mind or free will of the person "stepping aside" and allowing the hypnotist to indirectly control their body, but I think you and I both know this is not true. As you pointed out, the mind fills in its own reason. It may be that the ego is inherently proud, and accordingly in denial, but it could also be that this is the way hypnotism works: it encourages you to come up with a reason to do something, and you do it because your mind is convinced it is a good idea.
So, with that in mind, what is it that makes the claims/rhetoric of the lobbyists so evil? Let's take stock.
- They fabricate data with the intent of convincing people with that data, which is certainly evil. - They spread misinformation, i.e. they try to convince you of something that is false? Maybe. It depends whether or not you can objectively prove what they're saying is false. Plus, even if they are guilty of that, you must ask, do we consider the words of others who do this as being as evil? Do we treat conspiracy theorists the same way? Do we treat psychics the same way? Do we treat anyone arguing a debunked study the same way? I don't think so. - They lie, i.e. they try to convince you of something that they know is false? Again, maybe. This time, we need to know whether they know what they're saying is false. I'm sure they know their numbers are exaggerated, and while this is a form of lie, exaggeration is hardly considered evil. - They hijack people's beliefs, so that their influence spreads insidiously? I don't think so. They are just spreading another influence, no more or less evil than say, libertarianism, environmentalism, conservatism, etc. With the exception of the fabricated data, all their other actions are employed by others, and when they are, we do not typically consider them evil.
No, what does make them evil is the other stuff, e.g. selectively suing those who cannot defend themselves for the purpose of obtaining a settlement, exerting undue influence on the political system, etc. We see their actions as evil because of the context, not so much because of the actions themselves.
Anyway, that's my two cents. I'd like to point out that I am fully aware that over 50% of the people who read my comment will dismiss me as another brainwashed victim of big media. However, I feel that a lack of dissenting opinions or some kind of intellectual diversity is far more dangerous than a group of lobbyists ever could be, so even if nobody actually reads my comment, it comforts me to know that people remember that this type of opinion exists.
How is it that these organizations and lobbyists can claim they genuinely feel their profits are being "stolen" when they need to use fabricated data to support their claims?
It doesn't mean the companies aren't having their profits stolen, just that they are lying as to the extent. Probably to garner sympathy from the government.
How has slashdot managed to get into its head that Sony's behaviour is the reason for it being targeted? Have the various hacker groups unanimously claimed it to be so? (Serious question there; not rhetorical.)
OK then, my mistake. I must have misunderstood you.
However, I have to say, it's not even a matter of trust, that's my point. The bias is only relevant if we have to take any of his points on faith, which we don't.
Ad hominem arguments are just one of many fallacies that I abhor, but that seem to be so popular. Sorry that you got unjustly caught in my (over)zealotry.
Well, the place where fashion and visual art differ from music, movies, games, and books, is that there is prestige with owning an original, which is a problem for your final point. Genuine brands and original works are reasonably rare, reasonably valuable, and a status symbol, which is what motivates people to buy them, instead of knock-offs and prints. With music, movies, games, and books, there is less prestige with associated with a "genuine" copy. There's no corresponding affirmation of status, no sense of rarity to motivate people to actually buy the copies. This effect would have to somehow be applied to all other art forms in order for this plan to work.
I suppose it is possible. One way would be for the artist to sell the copyright. This could be done either to an individual or syndicate. Each person gets the prestige of truly owning an album, movie, game, or book, as though it were created just for them. Perhaps it's only an asset on paper, but then again, so choosing a genuine Louis Vuitton over the knock-off that looks almost identical. My biggest concern would be that the people who do buy the copyrights would, in order to regain some finances, or to maintain the prestige, would fail to distribute the works freely. They may turn out to be worse than publishers are today.
Another way, based on a popular suggestion here on slashdot, would possibly be to ride of the prestige of live performances and merchandising. The benefits of this is that such prestige already exists. People do both these things to show that they are true fans, and there's more than a little money to be had because of it. However, this also has big problem: it only adequately covers one form of entertainment. It's a perfectly viable solution for musicians to try, and supposing that paper books continue surviving, I suppose authors could try a similar tactic with book signings, but no such options exist for games and cinema.
So yeah, those are the suggestions I can think of. Feel free to jump in and add in your own.
Free for developers looking to make closed derivative works. Not free for society, other developers, and certianly not users.
Oh? Where in the BSD license does it say that only developers looking to make closed derivative works may use it, modify it, or redistribute it? I'm pretty sure that the answer is "nowhere". You can do everything with BSD-licensed software that you can do with GPL-licensed software, regardless of whether you are a developer user, or society.
The difference is that people making derivative works of BSD-licensed software are not forced to contribute back to the project. This doesn't somehow stop the original software from being free. When someone chooses to incorporate the software into their own project, they do not magically acquire the copyright to the original software. GPL doesn't "keep software free", so much as it forces developers who want to use the software to share their developments with the community. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but it comes at the cost of some developer freedoms that would otherwise be present. Therefore, the GPL is slightly less free than BSD.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, but the reasoning in your post made me wince. For one, the term "bad guys" is simply a us-vs-them generalisation that holds no water. I haven't met a single person in my life who is incapable of a good deed, or a bad deed. So, the question really should be, "Is the act of breaking a law always bad?".
For two, even if the answer to this is no, it makes no mention of how many laws are unjust, and which ones specifically are. If a significant portion of laws are just, then we should certainly be very concerned whether something is illegal or not, in general. Unless we know whether a specific law is unjust, then we would be sensible treating the laws as they are in the majority (which I think most people would say is "just").
Oh god. You voted for Bush, didn't you?
But they're not. They're saying there's such a thing as an illegal copy of digital music. There is a meaningful difference, and pretending otherwise damages no-one's side but your own.
Now if you excuse me, I need to stop typing. I'm currently trying to type and drive your car (whose arrangement of matter and energy was perfectly legal in your garage, so I figure it's going to be legal in mine) at the same time, and there's a policeman up ahead. For some reason, they just don't seem to get your logic.
What about those of us who complain about the anti-Apple sentiment, who aren't Apple customers? Do we just do the same?
Please tell me, because your argument has ridiculed and humiliated me, therefore proving without a doubt that everything I say is factually incorrect. What am I to think now in the face of unassailable logic?
*facepalm*
Someone working so hard to invent a dichotomy for the purposes of insult probably shouldn't be lecturing on critical thinking. Ever.
rub-a-dub-dubish!
How many Americans here would actually care if Barack Obama was born overseas? Not saying he has been, but assuming for the sake of argument that he was.
I ask because the less useful and more racist protections on democracy in the US (and other countries). I live here in Australia, and I can't honestly say it would bother me in any significant way if one of our many immigrants took the position of prime minister. Well, I could conceive that I would be bothered if my culture and way-of-life were threatened by their being elected, but as things stand, I would consider them as seriously as any other candidate.
Your readers have too, so it seems. :-)
You know, when you share backups, they're not really backups.
How many democracies have you seen without some sort of healthcare infrastructure (e.g. ambulances, etc)? A vast majority?
I don't get it; his argument makes perfect sense. If we give ourselves any rights, the evil government will just hijack them, so we mustn't have any rights whatsoever. What could possibly be irrational about that?
Even though I agree that euthanasia should be legal, I don't find that particular argument convincing.
For one, the premise is blatantly untrue. Most people do not get to choose how they die, and a vast majority of them are not due to the government. There's no natural right to choose the manner of death. Don't get me wrong, I wish it were, but in reality, such a privilege is a rarity. Instantly, the whole premise is wrong.
For two, I don't think anti-euthanasia laws are telling people how they should die. They do tell people how they shouldn't die, but they don't tell people how they should die. It's a subtle, but in my opinion, important distinction. There's a difference in intent: the government's interest is in prolonging life in general, not dictating the manner by which it ends. The restriction on the manner is incidental to the main purpose, which is to stop people dying prematurely.
So, why do I think euthanasia should be legal? Well, my reasons are similar, but my wording is different. I believe that nobody has the right to force people to endure pain, no matter what causes it. In the same way that we have a moral obligation, as a society (if not as an individual) to help people within our society (if not others) who suffer against their will, we have a moral obligation to allow them to help themselves. Whatever the reasons presented to the contrary, anti-euthanasia laws are an unbearable cruelty imposed on those suffering already. We have to ask ourselves, exactly what reasons could possibly justify such a cruelty?
Hey, you're not allowed to hack companies who aren't flagrantly, explicitly evil! It's almost like you're hacking companies whose security is weak, rather than acting as moral crusaders. How could that be?
I disagree. People are, in part, a collection of their thoughts, beliefs, etc. They arrive at these through processing their own experiences, and sometimes even their own biology plays a part as well. The cookie-cutter philosophy doesn't really hold up when you actually examine people. To find two people whose beliefs are exactly identical is actually extremely rare. Given just about any two people, regardless of their upbringing, they can find something about which they don't agree with each other.
The way that I see it, a person is, at least in part, a sum of their experiences. What defines their thoughts, beliefs, etc, is their experiences, and occasionally their biology. It means that their ego doesn't so much have reins, rather it is malleable. The hypnotist doesn't hijack the person temporarily, he actually changes them. Of course, most people would tend to conclude the opposite: that standing on your head is the person standing on their head is the mind or free will of the person "stepping aside" and allowing the hypnotist to indirectly control their body, but I think you and I both know this is not true. As you pointed out, the mind fills in its own reason. It may be that the ego is inherently proud, and accordingly in denial, but it could also be that this is the way hypnotism works: it encourages you to come up with a reason to do something, and you do it because your mind is convinced it is a good idea.
So, with that in mind, what is it that makes the claims/rhetoric of the lobbyists so evil? Let's take stock.
- They fabricate data with the intent of convincing people with that data, which is certainly evil.
- They spread misinformation, i.e. they try to convince you of something that is false? Maybe. It depends whether or not you can objectively prove what they're saying is false. Plus, even if they are guilty of that, you must ask, do we consider the words of others who do this as being as evil? Do we treat conspiracy theorists the same way? Do we treat psychics the same way? Do we treat anyone arguing a debunked study the same way? I don't think so.
- They lie, i.e. they try to convince you of something that they know is false? Again, maybe. This time, we need to know whether they know what they're saying is false. I'm sure they know their numbers are exaggerated, and while this is a form of lie, exaggeration is hardly considered evil.
- They hijack people's beliefs, so that their influence spreads insidiously? I don't think so. They are just spreading another influence, no more or less evil than say, libertarianism, environmentalism, conservatism, etc. With the exception of the fabricated data, all their other actions are employed by others, and when they are, we do not typically consider them evil.
No, what does make them evil is the other stuff, e.g. selectively suing those who cannot defend themselves for the purpose of obtaining a settlement, exerting undue influence on the political system, etc. We see their actions as evil because of the context, not so much because of the actions themselves.
Anyway, that's my two cents. I'd like to point out that I am fully aware that over 50% of the people who read my comment will dismiss me as another brainwashed victim of big media. However, I feel that a lack of dissenting opinions or some kind of intellectual diversity is far more dangerous than a group of lobbyists ever could be, so even if nobody actually reads my comment, it comforts me to know that people remember that this type of opinion exists.
It doesn't mean the companies aren't having their profits stolen, just that they are lying as to the extent. Probably to garner sympathy from the government.
Not the amount that matters, just how you use it. And here, it's being used well.
Unfortunately, being a thug is almost part of the job description. Who else could take the constant pressure, scrutiny, and hatred from all sides?
How has slashdot managed to get into its head that Sony's behaviour is the reason for it being targeted? Have the various hacker groups unanimously claimed it to be so? (Serious question there; not rhetorical.)
OK then, my mistake. I must have misunderstood you.
However, I have to say, it's not even a matter of trust, that's my point. The bias is only relevant if we have to take any of his points on faith, which we don't.
Ad hominem arguments are just one of many fallacies that I abhor, but that seem to be so popular. Sorry that you got unjustly caught in my (over)zealotry.
TheVelvetFlamebait writes that not all people are stupid enough to be swayed by ad hominem attacks.
Pterrordactyl 2 Pterrordactyl?
(Wow that was bad, even for me)
As champions of the internet, I believe that it is Comcast's solemn duty to start sabotaging video traffic now, before things get out of hand.
You do realise the irony of typing this on a personal computer, or some derivative, right?
Why should I? Deliver your own messages!
Well, the place where fashion and visual art differ from music, movies, games, and books, is that there is prestige with owning an original, which is a problem for your final point. Genuine brands and original works are reasonably rare, reasonably valuable, and a status symbol, which is what motivates people to buy them, instead of knock-offs and prints. With music, movies, games, and books, there is less prestige with associated with a "genuine" copy. There's no corresponding affirmation of status, no sense of rarity to motivate people to actually buy the copies. This effect would have to somehow be applied to all other art forms in order for this plan to work.
I suppose it is possible. One way would be for the artist to sell the copyright. This could be done either to an individual or syndicate. Each person gets the prestige of truly owning an album, movie, game, or book, as though it were created just for them. Perhaps it's only an asset on paper, but then again, so choosing a genuine Louis Vuitton over the knock-off that looks almost identical. My biggest concern would be that the people who do buy the copyrights would, in order to regain some finances, or to maintain the prestige, would fail to distribute the works freely. They may turn out to be worse than publishers are today.
Another way, based on a popular suggestion here on slashdot, would possibly be to ride of the prestige of live performances and merchandising. The benefits of this is that such prestige already exists. People do both these things to show that they are true fans, and there's more than a little money to be had because of it. However, this also has big problem: it only adequately covers one form of entertainment. It's a perfectly viable solution for musicians to try, and supposing that paper books continue surviving, I suppose authors could try a similar tactic with book signings, but no such options exist for games and cinema.
So yeah, those are the suggestions I can think of. Feel free to jump in and add in your own.
Oh? Where in the BSD license does it say that only developers looking to make closed derivative works may use it, modify it, or redistribute it? I'm pretty sure that the answer is "nowhere". You can do everything with BSD-licensed software that you can do with GPL-licensed software, regardless of whether you are a developer user, or society.
The difference is that people making derivative works of BSD-licensed software are not forced to contribute back to the project. This doesn't somehow stop the original software from being free. When someone chooses to incorporate the software into their own project, they do not magically acquire the copyright to the original software. GPL doesn't "keep software free", so much as it forces developers who want to use the software to share their developments with the community. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but it comes at the cost of some developer freedoms that would otherwise be present. Therefore, the GPL is slightly less free than BSD.