People's view - Revision history

Paul: added eat your own dog food section

2020-02-21T20:07:10Z

added eat your own dog food section

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:07, 21 February 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	A collection of comments from people who I found interesting in one way or another.		A collection of comments from people who I found interesting in one way or another.

			== Eating your own dog food ==

			[https://gist.github.com/chitchcock/1281611 Stevey's Google Platforms Rant]

	== Copyright ==		== Copyright ==

Paul at 06:43, 11 July 2008

2008-07-11T06:43:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:43, 11 July 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
	A collection of comments from people who I found interesting in one way or another.		A collection of comments from people who I found interesting in one way or another.

			== Copyright ==
	A slashdot user posted		A slashdot user posted
	<~~pre~~>It's not stealing as copying does not deprive the original owner of anything. Copyright is an artificial monopoly provided by the government as an incentive to create and release creative works.		<blockquote>It's not stealing as copying does not deprive the original owner of anything. Copyright is an artificial monopoly provided by the government as an incentive to create and release creative works.

	Am I stealing from you if I choose not to buy from you, but from someone else? No? Yet I am depriving you of revenue, isn't that stealing? No? Then depriving you of revenue by copying your product isn't stealing either.		Am I stealing from you if I choose not to buy from you, but from someone else? No? Yet I am depriving you of revenue, isn't that stealing? No? Then depriving you of revenue by copying your product isn't stealing either.
Line 8:		Line 9:
	It is copyright violation, which is wrong, but not stealing. It is wrong because it violates the social contract you agree to by continuing to live in our society.		It is copyright violation, which is wrong, but not stealing. It is wrong because it violates the social contract you agree to by continuing to live in our society.

	That is important: you wouldn't even have a moral claim against a person who renounced society and all its benefits who then violated copyright. They would not be a party to the social contract, and would have no moral reason not to copy.</~~pre~~>		That is important: you wouldn't even have a moral claim against a person who renounced society and all its benefits who then violated copyright. They would not be a party to the social contract, and would have no moral reason not to copy.</blockquote>

			== Overhauling FISA ==
	A slashdot user posted		A slashdot user posted
	<~~pre~~>Don't be deceptive. FISA has worked fine for 22 years -- there's no reason it suddenly needs to be updated now. The only thing this bill removes is judicial oversight and accountability. It's not as though it's challenging to get approval for a legitimate tap from the FISA court -- they've only ever rejected a handful of requests. It's also not about the need to tap in an emergency: FISA makes provisions for that too. Taps can be placed for 72 hours without a warrant in the event of an emergency, all that has to be done is that the tap be reported and a warrant sought after the 72 hours.		<blockquote>Don't be deceptive. FISA has worked fine for 22 years -- there's no reason it suddenly needs to be updated now. The only thing this bill removes is judicial oversight and accountability. It's not as though it's challenging to get approval for a legitimate tap from the FISA court -- they've only ever rejected a handful of requests. It's also not about the need to tap in an emergency: FISA makes provisions for that too. Taps can be placed for 72 hours without a warrant in the event of an emergency, all that has to be done is that the tap be reported and a warrant sought after the 72 hours.

	No, this bill is about removing judicial oversight, removing accountability, and removing the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.</~~pre~~>		No, this bill is about removing judicial oversight, removing accountability, and removing the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.</blockquote>

Paul at 06:36, 11 July 2008

2008-07-11T06:36:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:36, 11 July 2008
Line 9:		Line 9:

	That is important: you wouldn't even have a moral claim against a person who renounced society and all its benefits who then violated copyright. They would not be a party to the social contract, and would have no moral reason not to copy.</pre>		That is important: you wouldn't even have a moral claim against a person who renounced society and all its benefits who then violated copyright. They would not be a party to the social contract, and would have no moral reason not to copy.</pre>

			A slashdot user posted
			<pre>Don't be deceptive. FISA has worked fine for 22 years -- there's no reason it suddenly needs to be updated now. The only thing this bill removes is judicial oversight and accountability. It's not as though it's challenging to get approval for a legitimate tap from the FISA court -- they've only ever rejected a handful of requests. It's also not about the need to tap in an emergency: FISA makes provisions for that too. Taps can be placed for 72 hours without a warrant in the event of an emergency, all that has to be done is that the tap be reported and a warrant sought after the 72 hours.

			No, this bill is about removing judicial oversight, removing accountability, and removing the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.</pre>

Paul at 21:09, 10 July 2008

2008-07-10T21:09:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:09, 10 July 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
	A collection of comments from people who I found interesting in one way or another.		A collection of comments from people who I found interesting in one way or another.

	A slashdot user posted~~, "~~It's not stealing as copying does not deprive the original owner of anything. Copyright is an artificial monopoly provided by the government as an incentive to create and release creative works.		A slashdot user posted
			<pre>It's not stealing as copying does not deprive the original owner of anything. Copyright is an artificial monopoly provided by the government as an incentive to create and release creative works.

	Am I stealing from you if I choose not to buy from you, but from someone else? No? Yet I am depriving you of revenue, isn't that stealing? No? Then depriving you of revenue by copying your product isn't stealing either.		Am I stealing from you if I choose not to buy from you, but from someone else? No? Yet I am depriving you of revenue, isn't that stealing? No? Then depriving you of revenue by copying your product isn't stealing either.
Line 7:		Line 8:
	It is copyright violation, which is wrong, but not stealing. It is wrong because it violates the social contract you agree to by continuing to live in our society.		It is copyright violation, which is wrong, but not stealing. It is wrong because it violates the social contract you agree to by continuing to live in our society.

	That is important: you wouldn't even have a moral claim against a person who renounced society and all its benefits who then violated copyright. They would not be a party to the social contract, and would have no moral reason not to copy."		That is important: you wouldn't even have a moral claim against a person who renounced society and all its benefits who then violated copyright. They would not be a party to the social contract, and would have no moral reason not to copy.</pre>

Paul: New page: A collection of comments from people who I found interesting in one way or another. A slashdot user posted, "It's not stealing as copying does not deprive the original owner of anything. ...

2008-07-10T21:09:02Z

New page: A collection of comments from people who I found interesting in one way or another. A slashdot user posted, "It's not stealing as copying does not deprive the original owner of anything. ...

New page

A collection of comments from people who I found interesting in one way or another.

A slashdot user posted, "It's not stealing as copying does not deprive the original owner of anything. Copyright is an artificial monopoly provided by the government as an incentive to create and release creative works.

Am I stealing from you if I choose not to buy from you, but from someone else? No? Yet I am depriving you of revenue, isn't that stealing? No? Then depriving you of revenue by copying your product isn't stealing either.

It is copyright violation, which is wrong, but not stealing. It is wrong because it violates the social contract you agree to by continuing to live in our society.

That is important: you wouldn't even have a moral claim against a person who renounced society and all its benefits who then violated copyright. They would not be a party to the social contract, and would have no moral reason not to copy."