Ah, but you see, not having a weapon is not a safe option, since all the criminals have guns. And it's not smart for criminals not to have guns since every civilian is also packing heat. And it's not safe for cops not to have guns, since every criminal has a weapon. And it's not safe again for civilians not to have weapons, since the government, public enemy number 1, now has an armed presence on the street...
I can sum up your post into two words: "knee jerk". As many people have pointed out already, the study certainly has not proved that the ban is and always will be ineffective. It just shows that, right now, people are still crashing just as often, but this will probably change as people get used to the idea that they can't use their phones while driving.
And besides, since you seem to implicitly trust studies, there was the original study(s) that said phones were dangerous while driving. Shouldn't your reaction be to find ways to make the ban more effective, rather than scrapping it?
If you think about it, you are not giving people what they want, you are telling people what they want and then giving it to them. It is, in fact, the other way around: a repressive regime leader would be the last person to allow consumers choice over the news they get.
Acting on the assumption that people don't want to hear news that could topple their own local regime does nobody any good. Assuming the regime is any threat, they will have control over news outlets, so the news outlets choosing the news does more harm than good. Even if the news outlet is pure and untainted, then controlling the news and force-feeding to an unwilling public will just cause them not to listen (unless you force them yourself and turn yourself into an oppressor).
Essentially, what I'm trying to say is that this is not a matter of defence against tyranny. This is because, even though ignorance can lead to tyranny, it is not personalised news which is causing it. It is indifference that causes ignorance, and force-feeding news does little to help that.
Ha! That's part of the fun and the challenge. It's easy for tensions to rise, but at the same time, death is less serious, since you just come back in a bubble.
You would advertise it right there, at Google Books. If you search for the book, it would come up as an entry saying the book will be added in X number of days.
You are right, of course, this is another opt out scheme, but, as I said, the parent makes a good point. This system keeps abandoned books in the public eye, and contacting authors can be difficult. This service is, culturally, extremely valuable. If Google manages to stick only to consenting artists, public domain works, and abandoned works, then without significant harm to the artists, they can bring vast portions of our cultural past to us for free.
Right now, this is only Google doing this. It's a unique settlement between them and various authors' groups. There isn't going to be 1000 other companies doing this, unless these groups wish to make the same deal with each of them. We are in no particular danger of copyright collapsing around us.
Free thinking people dictating what others should think.
Liking closed culture has absolutely nothing to do with free thought or lack thereof. A free thought here or there might confirm this.
If, however, there was a mythical culture of people who instantly start desiring an Apple product as soon as its announced, without any thought or effort put into assessing whether they would actually enjoy the product, that would be a different matter...
I would think, as a compromise, perhaps an enforced minimum period of advertising a new book before it's displayed. Give the author a chance to reject or OK it before anyone can actually get to read it.
Of course, there's still the problem of authors and publishers scrambling to keep control of their copyright, but at least there's some mitigation.
Well, perhaps, if they don't want to take the time to OK the mass infringing of other people's rights individually with their respective owners, then they shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
Or they should advertise and wait for artists to come to them.
Yeah, I don't think Valenti meant "forever less one day" as a solid amount. It meant making copyright last a finite, but ridiculously long amount of time.
That's the great thing about free market capitalism: if the better way is really just that simple, then someone will do it.
Of course, the contrapositive of this statement is that if someone hasn't done it already, then it's really not just that simple (but some people find this view a little challenging).
Moral relativism is the principle that people should be aware of the moral framework behind moral statements. Just like when we say we are driving at 60 km/h, we are moving at 60 km/h relative to the earth, so too is political censorship and torture much, much worse than the DMCA, relative to human rights morality (Oh noes! I just compared the DMCA to torture!). I think that it's more than useful; it's absolutely vital for understanding intercultural politics.
That's the inoffensive part of moral relativism. The part that people have trouble with is that it doesn't allow you to make judgement calls about which moral code is superior, external to your own moral code. That is, you allowed to think that your moral code is superior, but in the back of your mind must be the recognition that this is your moral code promoting itself, and nothing more. I'm not sure if it's a shooting offence though.
Comparing the DMCA to political censorship and torture is ridiculous.
I'm not sure if it's fair to call people ridiculous for comparing two things (that's not moral relativism, that's me and my moral code). It all depends on what aspects you are comparing between them. The GP was pointing out that, just like DMCA is part of the US, censorship is part of China, and Google obeying the US's rules need not be any more expected than Google obeying China's rules. Of course, it depends on the people who make up google, and their moral alignment. Since most of them will be from the US, it would be reasonable for Google to be more closely aligned to the US's values.
Either way, this doesn't mean that Google, me, or the GP is saying that the DMCA is just as bad as censoring political speech!
Why? Why blame developers for what they produce? If you don't like it, if you don't like the price, if you don't like the DRM, or even if you don't like the way they look at you when you pass them on the street, you don't have to buy it! Doing anything else is just encouraging them.
And besides, when did profiteering make you an asshole anyway?
Slashdot Mirror
This also tends to happen with my WiFi solution as well.
Some of us from non-US countries aren't quite as up on the gun slang as you guys.
Ah, but you see, not having a weapon is not a safe option, since all the criminals have guns. And it's not smart for criminals not to have guns since every civilian is also packing heat. And it's not safe for cops not to have guns, since every criminal has a weapon. And it's not safe again for civilians not to have weapons, since the government, public enemy number 1, now has an armed presence on the street...
... etc, etc, etc, round and round it goes.
While it is privately amusing, it isn't really fair to call them dimwits. Ignorant perhaps, but not necessarily dimwits.
I can sum up your post into two words: "knee jerk". As many people have pointed out already, the study certainly has not proved that the ban is and always will be ineffective. It just shows that, right now, people are still crashing just as often, but this will probably change as people get used to the idea that they can't use their phones while driving.
And besides, since you seem to implicitly trust studies, there was the original study(s) that said phones were dangerous while driving. Shouldn't your reaction be to find ways to make the ban more effective, rather than scrapping it?
If you think about it, you are not giving people what they want, you are telling people what they want and then giving it to them. It is, in fact, the other way around: a repressive regime leader would be the last person to allow consumers choice over the news they get.
Acting on the assumption that people don't want to hear news that could topple their own local regime does nobody any good. Assuming the regime is any threat, they will have control over news outlets, so the news outlets choosing the news does more harm than good. Even if the news outlet is pure and untainted, then controlling the news and force-feeding to an unwilling public will just cause them not to listen (unless you force them yourself and turn yourself into an oppressor).
Essentially, what I'm trying to say is that this is not a matter of defence against tyranny. This is because, even though ignorance can lead to tyranny, it is not personalised news which is causing it. It is indifference that causes ignorance, and force-feeding news does little to help that.
But you wouldn't say that, right?
Ha! That's part of the fun and the challenge. It's easy for tensions to rise, but at the same time, death is less serious, since you just come back in a bubble.
I really enjoyed that game.
You would advertise it right there, at Google Books. If you search for the book, it would come up as an entry saying the book will be added in X number of days.
You are right, of course, this is another opt out scheme, but, as I said, the parent makes a good point. This system keeps abandoned books in the public eye, and contacting authors can be difficult. This service is, culturally, extremely valuable. If Google manages to stick only to consenting artists, public domain works, and abandoned works, then without significant harm to the artists, they can bring vast portions of our cultural past to us for free.
Right now, this is only Google doing this. It's a unique settlement between them and various authors' groups. There isn't going to be 1000 other companies doing this, unless these groups wish to make the same deal with each of them. We are in no particular danger of copyright collapsing around us.
Free thinking people dictating what others should think.
Liking closed culture has absolutely nothing to do with free thought or lack thereof. A free thought here or there might confirm this.
If, however, there was a mythical culture of people who instantly start desiring an Apple product as soon as its announced, without any thought or effort put into assessing whether they would actually enjoy the product, that would be a different matter...
You make a good point.
I would think, as a compromise, perhaps an enforced minimum period of advertising a new book before it's displayed. Give the author a chance to reject or OK it before anyone can actually get to read it.
Of course, there's still the problem of authors and publishers scrambling to keep control of their copyright, but at least there's some mitigation.
Well, perhaps, if they don't want to take the time to OK the mass infringing of other people's rights individually with their respective owners, then they shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
Or they should advertise and wait for artists to come to them.
Well, that's what I read.
Probably not. Why should he?
They probably didn't even invent the name Mr Hanky; it's probably another person from their childhood, like their school counsellor Mr Mackey.
Yep, your comment doesn't really work on a serious or snarky level I'm afraid. It made a nice troll though.
The only way to effectively protect creators' rights is to protect publishers' rights. The two actions are functionally indistinguishable.
(I'm assuming here that counter-trolling is fair game.)
Yeah, I don't think Valenti meant "forever less one day" as a solid amount. It meant making copyright last a finite, but ridiculously long amount of time.
Jesus Christ, that was an awful article.
That's the great thing about free market capitalism: if the better way is really just that simple, then someone will do it.
Of course, the contrapositive of this statement is that if someone hasn't done it already, then it's really not just that simple (but some people find this view a little challenging).
As far as I can tell, yes.
Moral relativism is the principle that people should be aware of the moral framework behind moral statements. Just like when we say we are driving at 60 km/h, we are moving at 60 km/h relative to the earth, so too is political censorship and torture much, much worse than the DMCA, relative to human rights morality (Oh noes! I just compared the DMCA to torture!). I think that it's more than useful; it's absolutely vital for understanding intercultural politics.
That's the inoffensive part of moral relativism. The part that people have trouble with is that it doesn't allow you to make judgement calls about which moral code is superior, external to your own moral code. That is, you allowed to think that your moral code is superior, but in the back of your mind must be the recognition that this is your moral code promoting itself, and nothing more. I'm not sure if it's a shooting offence though.
I'm not sure if it's fair to call people ridiculous for comparing two things (that's not moral relativism, that's me and my moral code). It all depends on what aspects you are comparing between them. The GP was pointing out that, just like DMCA is part of the US, censorship is part of China, and Google obeying the US's rules need not be any more expected than Google obeying China's rules. Of course, it depends on the people who make up google, and their moral alignment. Since most of them will be from the US, it would be reasonable for Google to be more closely aligned to the US's values.
Either way, this doesn't mean that Google, me, or the GP is saying that the DMCA is just as bad as censoring political speech!
Why? Why blame developers for what they produce? If you don't like it, if you don't like the price, if you don't like the DRM, or even if you don't like the way they look at you when you pass them on the street, you don't have to buy it! Doing anything else is just encouraging them.
And besides, when did profiteering make you an asshole anyway?
I'm sorry, but CIAR? When trying to parse this, all I got was Central Intelligence Agency and a 1 character buffer overflow.
Clearly I need an upgrade.
Yeah. Don't we all?
Thou shalt not worship false idles.
I disagree. That was actually pretty funny.