1) We now torture as part of imprisonment along with imprison people without the protections that the Geneva Convention provides and appear to detain people without formally charging them or letting them know what they are being charged with.
It is disturbing, but it's hopefully only temporary. It needs to be a priority in coming elections to undo these anti-terrorism measures.
2) We have a fear mongering national obsession with security that despite all the money and bureaucracy spent and created still leaves us wide open to security threats while taxing business and limiting travel. Threat levels are increased without justification to apparently further political goals.
The fear preceded 9/11 and all the anti-terrorism measures. 9/11 justified and heightened people's fear. With the combination of heightened fear in the general public, the attention-seeking media, and the democratic government, it was inevitable that the fear would get stuck in a feedback loop. I wouldn't call it fascism though.
I'd also like to point out that it's presumptuous to assume that you know better than the government what the "threat levels" are. Perhaps if you had better access to national security information, I might listen to you.
3) We have politicized education and science for political gain while at the same time stifled scientists from telling the facts/truth/scientific findings.
Things are only political if they disagree with your politics. For some people, teaching evolution is a political statement. That leaves two options: avoid the topic, or teach both. Otherwise you are being politically partisan. I'm not saying you should or shouldn't, rather that political partisanship is not easy to avoid.
4) We have completely conflated religion and government funneling money into religious groups with strong ties into the government.
It's democracy, lot's of people in America are religious. It's how the system works.
5) Taxation is only low for corporate and the most wealthy, while at the same time we have suppressed labor power and limited funding for intellectual and artistic pursuits.
It's a philosophy - the wealthy (in theory) have worked hard and contribute to the economy, and therefore (again in theory) don't deserve to be taxed so much of their rewards. Again, it's not fascism, it's for economic purposes. Still, I agree it accentuates the class divide, and that could (again in theory) help usher in fascism.
6) We have rampant government corruption and funneling of government "no-bid" contracts to companies with strong ties to government.
Rampant government corruption? It's a myth born out of fear of authority. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it's greatly exaggerated. I prefer to not buy into fear of terrorists or fear of authority.
Why should shareholders suffer losses because some idiot CEO or criminal CFO cooked up statements or committed a crime by using Corporate Veil.
Because they own the company, they finance the company, they benefit from a corporation's wrong-doing, and they employ the people committing. In fact, it's them who directly influence the company's actions. If they don't want financial inconvenience, they can either choose a more reputable company, or actively demand in stockholder's meetings that day-to-day profits are secondary to obeying the law, and the financial security associated with it.
Shareholders who are either care only for profits, or who take an apathetic view to the origin of their own dividends are solely responsible for the state of corporations today.
But by visiting their site I have not agreed to be subjected to all of the extraneous crap that adorns their site.
WTF? You go to a site, you get what you're given. If you don't want the ads, don't go to the site. If you want reimbursement for the bandwidth, why don't you first reimburse the sites that you visit for your fair share of the advertising revenue? Trust me, if you are an average/.er, you're getting a good deal.
Oh great, look what youve done. Now some idiots going to post some comment thatll put apostrophes everywhere, especially where its inappropriate, all the while the guyll think hes so funny. Its old, its really old.
Copyright is an amoral, utilitarian law; if most people seem to want to engage in piracy, then it's better to let them lawfully do so, provided that it's generally accepted that this may have side effects (e.g. less of an investment made in music by publishers, and so less commercially produced and released music) which will have to be accepted as part of the deal.
Hmm. I don't think that would be good for anyone except the pirates. Think about it: pirates get the stuff (whatever little amount gets produced) for free, while others who pay for their music have to pay through the nose to subsidise those who pirate. Or else the artists/publishers would have to bear the brunt of the reduced sales, which is equally unfair.
In this, copyright is more like Prohibition, which many at the time thought was a good idea, but turned out to just not work, and to be more trouble than it was worth
I'm not so sure that copyright is more trouble than its worth. For one, it's worth a lot. There's a lot of money and economic value in copyrights. There's also great cultural benefits, because it does encourage people to create artistic works. That's what it's worth. Most social costs are incurred by people who don't respect copyrights. Not necessarily the ones sued by the RIAA, but those who propagate the idea that copyright infringement is not really an offence (this isn't meant as a personal attack, this is just the way I see it), by either persuading their friends, by actively sharing songs/movies, or anything in between. If they had more respect for copyrights, there would be no need for this run of lawsuits, little need for legislation like the DMCA, and little need for DRM or watermarks. If you feel that copyright infringement is more trouble than it's worth, you can either campaign to get copyrights scrapped, which would incur greater costs until the law finally dies, or you can support copyrights and hopefully lessen the social cost gradually. Those are the options as I see it.
On the whole, then, I wouldn't be bothered by the presence of watermarks, provided that there were no secrets connected with how they work, so that individuals could trivially strip them out to maintain their privacy
Aren't you missing the point of watermarking? Why do it and provide the information to render the technology completely useless?
So the RIAA shouldn't sue people, is that correct? Have they used up their lawsuit quota? Or was piracy never worth suing over?
Seriously though, anything that makes the RIAA more accurate in their lawsuit splatter tactics is good in my books. The problem is not the fact that RIAA is suing people, rather that they publicly crucify too many people who only may or may not be pirates.
The advertising idea wouldn't fly either. It relies on the player cooperating with the watermarking requirements, and the consumer choosing the right player. There are two ways of doing this: DRM and legislation. And without means to enforce it, no pirate is going to chose an ad-laden media player.
The speedometer on my Jeep goes up to 100mph. Does that mean that if I get pulled over doing 100mph in a school zone that it's Chrysler's fault and not mine? Did Chrysler take measures to prevent me from speeding in a school zone?
No. This partially why we have driver's licenses: to place the responsibility of your actions on the road upon you alone.
You are assuming that they the guy is guilty, it seems the USA government has brainwashed you with the "guilty until proven innocent" mentality.
That's a bit of a leap. He was asserting that the Russian courts are corrupt, and therefore, in the case of copyright infringement (at least), it's not so much innocent until proven guilty, rather just plain innocent. He's not implying that the guy is guilty, rather that we will never know whether he was truly guilty or not (whatever that means), because the Russian courts aren't reliable enough to provide an answer.
I guess innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to Slashdot flames.
Oh no, they care all right. Right = copyright enforcement (since it equals more money). Wrong = piracy (since it equals less money). Why, did you have some other definitions?
Most "educator's" are totally disconnected from reality. They surrounded themselves in school their entire lives, generally in a public servant type role. They think they know what's best for kids but really they have just overdosed on talks and reports from overpaid sociologists that pull theories out of their asses.
I beg to differ. As this will occur in all of Florida, isn't it more of a government problem, rather than an "educator's" problem? I know that here in Australia, public education also suffers from its stingy bureaucratic management, and that we too are experiencing a similar trend towards forcing kids to grow up quickly. The government decided that it would be convenient if we could pass as much education as possible onto private universities, and use publicly funded schools (especially high school) for preparation for Uni, and the wider world, instead of academic pursuits. Consequently, high-school only education isn't worth jack shit, and Uni is all but compulsory.
Anyway, as someone who's individual high-school-chosen career path is an "educator", I felt the need to correct the direction of your finger-pointing.
It does help indicate that a person is an intellectual.
Agreed, but those who think that some typo makes you less intelligent, let's just say their "spelling/grammar" isn't so crash hot, if you know what I mean.
The sad reality is that most of life is boring -- and the sooner people recognize this, accept it, move on and learn the necessary material anyway, the better off we'll all be.
Nah, that's just a mindset (at least in the developed world) created to make the millions of people feel better about their misplacement in jobs they don't actually like. There is no reason why you can't have fun while being useful, it's just a matter of finding what you enjoy and where its needed. If you aren't enjoying your existence, you should probably change it.
No, Linux is definitely more expensive. Configuring anything but the most basic options is time-consuming to do and time-consuming to learn. You have to train yourself and others who use the system to work with Linux. Both software and hardware are limited on Linux, meaning decreased expandability and less choice. Despite the rich repositories of code, much of it is not professional enough for professional users. The repositories have definite holes too. For example, there isn't a single music creation and notation software I've found for Linux that comes close to Finale for windows, and I still haven't found any Linux software that matches Dragon Naturally Speaking (voice recognition software). I'm sure I don't even need to touch hardware.
With Windows, you still get access to most of the most useful open source projects, people know it and know how to work it, and it's not too hard to update, even with all its parts.
Evil is a feeble attempt to understand why certain (bad) things happen. In fact, that's pretty much what religion is, and started as: a way to understand the world. Philosophy then science displaced religion. Evil was created at the religious stage. It is the opposite to whatever God each person believes in, because your God represents the morality you subscribe to. You might as well call God a moral/philosophical construct, and you would not be wrong. However, to claim that God and/or evil are not religious constructs would be wrong.
Evil is not so much meaningless as it is relative. Saying something/someone is evil says just as much about you as whatever is evil to you. It is no more or less than that which fails to keep to your own morality. So yes, the label of evil is meaningless, unless you know something about the person who called it evil.
We're almost there, but the problem is that modern cars use computers to self-diagnose problems. Unless the labourers use really old cars, they still rely on computers.
Not for his partisan political opinions, but for his explanation of "evil". He's perfectly correct. Evil is basically a religious construct, and deserves just as much of a place in our understanding of our world as other religious concepts, like creationism, and the will of God, etc, etc.
Despite the fact you're just being difficult, and challenging me on definitions alone, I'll tell you that the absence of dissent is not consent. If you drug a girl and fuck her, that's rape, despite the fact she didn't tell you to stop. But in a way, you're right. Rape would not technically exist, since the person would be aware and would not refuse consent, but I stand by my "rape is good for natural selection", partially because the concept of rape naturally defeats itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Sony Executive: I just don't understand it. Why did Blu-ray fail?
Sony Lackey: We think the format war between our format and the HD-DVD made potential customers uncertain about...
Sony Executive: Nah. Our format is better. Everyone wants our format.
Sony Lackey: Well, perhaps the world isn't ready for Blu-ray, or HD for that matter.
Sony Executive: No way. Everyone likes HD. It's your job to ensure that.
Sony Lackey splutters
Sony Lackey: I... er... I guess the only other possibility is that consumers objected to the DRM technology we put into the standard...
Sony Executive: Yes! Exactly! I don't know what the hell this DRM is, but you gotta get rid of it! Problem solved!
I grew up a little later, and I was taught to fear authority. It can't be healthy.
I'd also like to point out that it's presumptuous to assume that you know better than the government what the "threat levels" are. Perhaps if you had better access to national security information, I might listen to you.Things are only political if they disagree with your politics. For some people, teaching evolution is a political statement. That leaves two options: avoid the topic, or teach both. Otherwise you are being politically partisan. I'm not saying you should or shouldn't, rather that political partisanship is not easy to avoid.It's democracy, lot's of people in America are religious. It's how the system works.It's a philosophy - the wealthy (in theory) have worked hard and contribute to the economy, and therefore (again in theory) don't deserve to be taxed so much of their rewards. Again, it's not fascism, it's for economic purposes. Still, I agree it accentuates the class divide, and that could (again in theory) help usher in fascism.Rampant government corruption? It's a myth born out of fear of authority. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it's greatly exaggerated. I prefer to not buy into fear of terrorists or fear of authority.
Shareholders who are either care only for profits, or who take an apathetic view to the origin of their own dividends are solely responsible for the state of corporations today.
Oh great, look what youve done. Now some idiots going to post some comment thatll put apostrophes everywhere, especially where its inappropriate, all the while the guyll think hes so funny. Its old, its really old.
So the RIAA shouldn't sue people, is that correct? Have they used up their lawsuit quota? Or was piracy never worth suing over?
Seriously though, anything that makes the RIAA more accurate in their lawsuit splatter tactics is good in my books. The problem is not the fact that RIAA is suing people, rather that they publicly crucify too many people who only may or may not be pirates.
The advertising idea wouldn't fly either. It relies on the player cooperating with the watermarking requirements, and the consumer choosing the right player. There are two ways of doing this: DRM and legislation. And without means to enforce it, no pirate is going to chose an ad-laden media player.
It's the Media. Lawsuits, being one of the more interesting aspects of life, are widely publicised, giving us a false impression of ubiquity.
I guess innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to Slashdot flames.
Oh no, they care all right. Right = copyright enforcement (since it equals more money). Wrong = piracy (since it equals less money). Why, did you have some other definitions?
Anyway, as someone who's individual high-school-chosen career path is an "educator", I felt the need to correct the direction of your finger-pointing.
It's almost as funny as people who think spelling/grammar makes a person smart.
No, Linux is definitely more expensive. Configuring anything but the most basic options is time-consuming to do and time-consuming to learn. You have to train yourself and others who use the system to work with Linux. Both software and hardware are limited on Linux, meaning decreased expandability and less choice. Despite the rich repositories of code, much of it is not professional enough for professional users. The repositories have definite holes too. For example, there isn't a single music creation and notation software I've found for Linux that comes close to Finale for windows, and I still haven't found any Linux software that matches Dragon Naturally Speaking (voice recognition software). I'm sure I don't even need to touch hardware.
With Windows, you still get access to most of the most useful open source projects, people know it and know how to work it, and it's not too hard to update, even with all its parts.
Evil is a feeble attempt to understand why certain (bad) things happen. In fact, that's pretty much what religion is, and started as: a way to understand the world. Philosophy then science displaced religion. Evil was created at the religious stage. It is the opposite to whatever God each person believes in, because your God represents the morality you subscribe to. You might as well call God a moral/philosophical construct, and you would not be wrong. However, to claim that God and/or evil are not religious constructs would be wrong.
Evil is not so much meaningless as it is relative. Saying something/someone is evil says just as much about you as whatever is evil to you. It is no more or less than that which fails to keep to your own morality. So yes, the label of evil is meaningless, unless you know something about the person who called it evil.
We're almost there, but the problem is that modern cars use computers to self-diagnose problems. Unless the labourers use really old cars, they still rely on computers.
Yeah! We're for freedom of information here! So no posting things we don't approve of!
Not for his partisan political opinions, but for his explanation of "evil". He's perfectly correct. Evil is basically a religious construct, and deserves just as much of a place in our understanding of our world as other religious concepts, like creationism, and the will of God, etc, etc.
Despite the fact you're just being difficult, and challenging me on definitions alone, I'll tell you that the absence of dissent is not consent. If you drug a girl and fuck her, that's rape, despite the fact she didn't tell you to stop. But in a way, you're right. Rape would not technically exist, since the person would be aware and would not refuse consent, but I stand by my "rape is good for natural selection", partially because the concept of rape naturally defeats itself.