Prev: &optional combined with &rest
Next: local-time on Clozure CL windows vista 64 Can't resolve foreign symbol "gettimeofday"
From: Anti Vigilante on 11 Oct 2009 18:28
On Sun, 2009-10-11 at 13:31 -0700, Nick Keighley wrote:
> On 9 Oct, 19:34, Dave Searles <sear...(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote:
> > Nick Keighley wrote:
> > > On 30 Sep, 08:29, Tamas K Papp <tkp...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> The whole thread reminds me of a civil law class that I have taken
> > >> (IANAL, but it seemed -- and turned out to be -- interesting). It was
> > >> a course for non-law students, most had a mathematics/science
> > >> background. _All_ questions from the audience were like this,
> > >> students thinking that laws are like an algorithm that they can hack..
> > >> The professor was very understanding and actually stopped to explain
> > >> that legal systems don't work that way -- common sense is present in
> > >> both Common Law and continental European systems, and you can't expect
> > >> to get away with technical tricks like that.
> >
> > > in my country it used to illegal to trade on a sunday except for
> > > certain exceptions. A man who lived in my town wanted to sell
> > > furniture on a sunday but this was not one of the allowed exceptions.

The harm means that there is no day set aside for people to simply be
human and free.

You fail to see the harm because everything is path of least resistance
knee jerk for you.

It's not the selling it's the day of rest.


From: Tamas K Papp on 12 Oct 2009 04:14
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 13:30:59 -0700, Don Geddis wrote:

> Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote on Sun, 11 Oct 2009:
>> Ron Garret wrote:
>>> [says I'm a liar]
>> No, you are.
>> This is getting very tiresome. If you have run out of rational
>> arguments and all you have left are ad hominems in your ammo, maybe
>> it's time you quit?
>
> How very odd, Dave. You take non-ad hominem text that someone posts,
> quote it and then "summarize" it with a new ad hominem summary, and then
> complain about the ad hominem text? That you generated yourself?
>
> Surely, if it bothers you, the simplest thing would be to simply stop
> yourself from generating the text that bothers you, wouldn't it?
>
> Or perhaps there's not a single entity in that body called "Dave". I'm
> reminded of Pink Floyd, "There's someone in my head, but it's not me."
> Is it possible that you're arguing with yourself, and the rest of us
> here are mere observers to the spectacle?

In all fairness, you don't just observe the spectacle, you help
generate it. Most readers of this ng have killfiled "Dave" and alter
egos long ago, but others keep replying to him. It takes two to tango;
"Dave" would not be able to sustain this argument without your
generous donations of time and effort.

Tamas

From: Aleksej Saushev on 12 Oct 2009 05:10
Espen Vestre <espen(a)vestre.net> writes:

> Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> writes:
>
>>> Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon(a)flownet.com> writes:
>>>> [says I'm a liar]
>>>
>>> Thank you for pointing that out.
>>
>> I am not a liar and it is incorrect to thank someone for falsely
>> claiming otherwise.
>
> You must be the reincarnation of Stalin, then.

On contrary, quite unlikely.

I recommend you to avoid invalid comparisons.

It is really stupid to compare a person with good diplomatic skills and
good grasp of law to another one with no such skills at all.


--
HE CE3OH...
From: Alessio Stalla on 12 Oct 2009 05:47
On Oct 11, 2:31 pm, Joost Kremers <joostkrem...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> > The point is, don't use your fucked up country's laws in discussions
> > about what is right.
>
> You seem to be forgetting that copyright law is also a law. You seem to claim
> that the rights that copyright law provides for creators and consumers form a
> *moral* basis, but it's just a law.

Every rule we are required to obey to is a law. Being a law does not
make a rule be "good".
However, copyright law is generally thought as "good" because (if done
right) it properly balances the rights of two opposing forces, and by
doing so it benefits society as a whole.

> But ok, let's discuss this from the point of right and wrong. I personally feel
> that someone who develops a creative work, whether literature, music, or a piece
> of software, has the moral right to decide how others use their work. If I don't
> like their conditions, I have the freedom not to buy a copy of the work in
> question.[1]

Ask yourself: why treating creative work differently than other kinds
of work? Is a car maker allowed to forbid you certain uses of the car
he sold you? My answer is no, for if he was allowed, a basic right of
mine (to do what I want with my property, as long as I respect the
law) would be seriously undermined, and what's worse, it would be
undermined by a private subject that it has NOT been elected. Sure, I
could avoid buying that particular car; but what if all car makers
imposed similar restrictions? No, thanks, it's too dangerous.

The *only* thing in my opinion that makes creative work different is
the ease of copying it, and copyright law exists (or should exist)
only to limit such easy copying just as much as not to render making
new creative works unprofitable.

> So if someone wants to make their software available to me only under the
> condition that I don't reverse-engineer it, then I either accept the conditions
> and use the software, or I don't accept the conditions and don't use the
> software. To me, that's primarily a moral matter, not a legal one.

Oh, if it's a moral matter, it's perfectly fine - I won't blame you
for your morals. However, when moral is imposed by force of law, it
means that you live in a despotic state.

Alessio
From: Dave Searles on 12 Oct 2009 19:23
Nick Keighley wrote:
> On 9 Oct, 19:34, Dave Searles <sear...(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote:
>> Nick Keighley wrote:
>>> On 30 Sep, 08:29, Tamas K Papp <tkp...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The whole thread reminds me of a civil law class that I have taken
>>>> (IANAL, but it seemed -- and turned out to be -- interesting). It was
>>>> a course for non-law students, most had a mathematics/science
>>>> background. _All_ questions from the audience were like this,
>>>> students thinking that laws are like an algorithm that they can hack.
>>>> The professor was very understanding and actually stopped to explain
>>>> that legal systems don't work that way -- common sense is present in
>>>> both Common Law and continental European systems, and you can't expect
>>>> to get away with technical tricks like that.
>>> in my country it used to illegal to trade on a sunday except for
>>> certain exceptions. A man who lived in my town wanted to sell
>>> furniture on a sunday but this was not one of the allowed exceptions.
>>> Groceries were exempt.
>>> So he sold 200 &currency_unit carrots and gave away arm chairs.
>>> When it got to court the judge ruled this was not a genuine grocery
>>> sale but merely a device for circumventing the law.
>> I don't know which is more ridiculous: the law in question, the method
>> of circumvention, or the judge actually upholding the obviously-bogus law.
>>
>> In particular, where is the harm in selling furniture on a Sunday? Point
>> me to the victim, please. No victim, no crime.
>
> laws aren't written by computer programmers (thank goodness!).

Objection: relevance?
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
Prev: &optional combined with &rest
Next: local-time on Clozure CL windows vista 64 Can't resolve foreign symbol "gettimeofday"