Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Not Selling stolen stuff (Score 2) 72

1. Crucially, they didn't remove infringing material when put on notice. Instead, they just removed particular specified URLs.

Not all links are infringing, though. For example, imagine that if every time a video on Youtube got a take down notice, Youtube removed all copies of that video. How many official (and therefore non-infringing) videos would get removed?

It would be rather perverse if doing data de-duplication on identical files made someone guilty of contributory copyright infringement, given that the result would be fewer existing copies of the data than otherwise.

Comment Re: Libertarian nirvana (Score 1) 534

I am pretty sure that it isn't really a thing.

All of us anarcho-capitalists beg to differ.

Really. It is just putting together two opposite meaning words

Anarchy is categorized by a lack of rulers\the state. Capitalism is a system whereby the means of production are privately owned. There is no inherent contradiction.

Libertarianism fundamentally believes in government

Other than all those libertarians that don't fundamentally believe in government, you mean.

Comment Re:Libertarian nirvana (Score 1) 534

I do agree that the logical end of libertarianism is anarcho-capitalism. That's the old joke:

Q: What the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?
A: About six months!

The rest of your post amount to "Your views are extreme, therefore they are incorrect", which is simply an appeal to moderation, so I'm not certain exactly what it is I'm supposed to respond with.

"Nuh uh"?

Comment Re:Libertarian nirvana (Score 1) 534

Be mindful of how you use "libertarian". Most libertarians believe in a small government that executes a limited number of duties, including police, courts, and military, and thus your statement is directed towards the wrong group. The group you're looking for is "anarchists".

Be mindful of how you use "privatize". Trading an unaccountable, public monopoly that feeds off the taxpayers for an unaccountable, private monopoly that feeds off the taxpayers is not true privatization.

As an anarchist myself, this is obviously not what we mean when we say we want to privatize police. Once the police are (a) voluntarily funded and (b) no longer given a government-backed monopoly on security services, then you can declare an anarchist nirvana. :)

Comment Re:An experiment in motion (Score 3, Informative) 480

1. They are already "increasing the money supply". They simply don't have enough physical bills now to hand out all the digital money they are inventing.
2. A fiat currency controlled by a state apparatus is not a "free market", no matter which direction they end up choosing.

Comment Re:Pre-election laws (Score 1) 339

First, thank you for much better edge cases than the usual "fire in a crowded theater!" and "slander!". Yours are much more interesting to talk about.

The nuclear example is the easiest to dispose of, since it involves an actual property crime (essentially trespassing).

The others are trickier, but I think the distinction in question isn't about what they did or didn't say, but rather that they aided and abetted an actual property crime. For example, we prosecute the driver of the get-away car just as much as we prosecute the people who actually rob the bank at gun point. This isn't because driving people around is illegal or requires close scrutiny, but because they were knowingly a party to an actual property crime.

Or, for a similar example involving speech, imagine that I pull a gun on you in a darkened alley and say "Your money or your life." Obviously a crime, right? Now add that we happen to be actors in a movie and I am reading from a script when I do so. Obviously not a crime. That is to say, it's not the speech that makes such a thing a crime, it's the actual property crime behind it that does so.

From that perspective, we can see that slander and libel should not properly be considered crimes, since there is no property crime to back them up (you can't have a property right in your reputation, since that exists solely in the minds of others). It's the same with calling Mohammed a pedophile, telling the king of Thailand to piss off, or simply transmitting information to the public at large about how to build a bomb from household ingredients.

Slashdot Top Deals

In every hierarchy the cream rises until it sours. -- Dr. Laurence J. Peter

Working...