GasBandit
Staff member
When the Democrat's heir apparent is Hillary Clinton, I think they might could bend a bit.
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
Oh but their hypocrisy will surprise you, just watch
It won't surprise me in the least.Oh but their hypocrisy will surprise you, just watch
I agree, however you nor anybody else in this thread mentioned what he was doing this for/against/about until you did just then. That's why I quoted what I did originally, in that far be it from stimulating discussion and/or thought about what was being fillibustered, that topic wasn't even mentioned in this case.
I don't know about corporations writing school materials, but the information they give here might be good. In today's society, if you infringe on copyrights, you could land yourself in a lot of trouble. I'm not saying the current legislation on IP is the best or even particularly good, but it's not necessarily bad advice to keep clear of messing with it, assuming the aim is to teach kids things they'll need in real life once they grow up.
You missed the point. Teaching impressionable children that they can't use any copyrighted material for any reason, in any way, at any time, is wrong. That's essentially what that proposed curriculum would teach. It's a corporation's wet dream to try to brainwash kids like this, and I can't believe it's gotten as far as it has.
If you look at the lesson plan Wired links to, it equates emotional connection to a piece of art with the monetary value of that piece, which is preserved by *not*sharing it.
For one, it's creepy as hell, and for another it limits the idea of valuation to one based entirely on monetary transactions.
For one, it's creepy as hell, and for another it limits the idea of valuation to one based entirely on monetary transactions.
Isn't this about teaching the kids that using copyrighted material for any reason, in any way, at any time without proper permission from the owner of the rights to said material is wrong? I understand that is the gist of a copyright, and IP legislation in general. And respect for other people's property is what young kids normally get taught while growing up.
The article did mention the intent of teaching the children about fair use and such later on, when they are old enough to understand the concept. That seems like a fair enough idea, as trying to teach elementary school kids about when it is okay to use other people's property just a little bit without the owner's permission might be a difficult proposition, and have some unintended consequences.
I'm not quite sure I found the lesson plan you are referring to, but then again there were a number of them. But I think the big idea behind the lesson plans and the whole program was that you need to have the owner's permission first before you can use the copyrighted work, and some owners charge a fee for the right to use their work. While there exist obvious cases of abuse of the IP system currently in place, the general concept does seem sound enough to me.
The preceding sentence is incorrect (in the United States, at least), and that's is Tress' point. There are perfectly legitimate uses which do not require the consent nor even notification of the owner in any way, and it is wrong to indoctrinate impressionable youths using absolutes and then try and chisel out exceptions later. Doing so undermines credibility and compliance, and it makes them less likely to trust their educators in future endeavors. It essentially turns the educators into unpaid lobbyists pushing someone else's agendum, and is something the State of Texas has been doing for years.
What this program smells like (to me, at least) is just an effort to rationalize making kids think it is illegal to do these things during the time in their lives when they are most likely to do so, and then withold the loopholes until they are presumably "mature enough" to be informed of their actual rights.
--Patrick
"Fair use" or "creative commons" licenses aren't in any way harder to understand than full copyright systems. It's been studied and found a hundred times, (for other subjects, of course) that teaching children a full system at a young age is much more efficient than teaching them a dumbed-down version and "upgrading" or "expanding" it later. Really, in children's psychology, there's quite a bit to do about changing curriculae because "dumbing things down" turns out not to actually help at all in almost all cases.
I'm not sayign "teach kindergartners copyright law at Harvard level", but "just never do this" and adding "...except..." a couple of years later really does lead to wrong ideas about what is and isn't allowed. It's quite literally brainwashing.
As I understand, US law has fair use, and other legal systems have similar concepts. There are exceptions and limitations on copyrights, such as there are for most things under the law. I don't think that is in dispute.
But isn't it usually the case that, when young children are concerned, you teach them the basic gist of the issue, and the exceptions are taught later when the children are old enough to properly understand that things actually aren't always simple and straightforward? A child gets taught that 1+1=2 and takes that at face value, with the adults thinking that okay, that is good enough for where the kids are now, and they can learn about rounding and error margins later. A child can be under the impression that their parents own the house, without the parents needing to get into the details of the mortgage contract. A child is taught that stealing is wrong, and later on learn that in some cases taking things without permission is actually not stealing.
Elementary school aged kids can be quite internet savvy, to the degree that their ability to run afoul of the law there is substantially greater than their understanding of the law. I think they need to be taught the basics of these things, in a way they will understand.
Perhaps it is that elementary school aged children could indeed be taught sufficient basics of copyright law to be trusted to conduct themselves responsibly on the internet. Even if they don't, they are still minors with limited legal liability. But I wonder if there have been many cases where their parents, who probably have the internet connection registered to their names, have gotten into trouble over what their kid did on the internets.
Bravo man, I fucking burst out loud laughing.
GasBandit
Staff member
Attention Republican voters: If your senator's name is not one of the 19 on this list, he supports Obamacare.
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Enzi (R-WY)
Fischer (R-NE)
Grassley (R-IA)
Heller (R-NV)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Lee (R-UT)
Moran (R-KS)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Enzi (R-WY)
Fischer (R-NE)
Grassley (R-IA)
Heller (R-NV)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Lee (R-UT)
Moran (R-KS)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Good, at least one of my Senators do.
GasBandit
Staff member
Yeah, Cornyn' practically turning into McCain 2.0 lately.
A little more legwork finally found the R-Ayes, AKA "what's wrong with the Republican party in 23 words":
McConnell, Wicker, Coats, Ayotte, Chambliss, Kirk, Johanns, Isakson, Corker, Alexander, Chiesa, McCain, Coburn, Burr, Cochran, Collins, Boozman, Hoeven, Murkowski, Thune, Cornyn, Barrasso, Johnson.
Last edited:
GasBandit
Staff member
Not any, just the one that was the litmus test for hypocrisy that should guide future voting.
IE, "These senators de facto voted for Obamacare." That's not just "any compromise or deviation."
Damn them from trying to vault us off another fiscal cliff of their own making.
I am tired of people playing chicken with the future of the USA.
I am tired of people playing chicken with the future of the USA.
It's pretty obvious it's not going to happen though
Hopefully it will be the spark needed to vote out the Tea Party.
GasBandit
Staff member
True, I'll be surprised if it does.It's pretty obvious it's not going to happen though
Yep, who needs brakes on a runaway train, anyway?
As if the Tea Party did anything but exasperate every single issue. What's needed, are some Moderate Republicans that can push forth a Conservative Financial Front but with the flexibility of a Liberal Social front. They'd be unstoppable if their own party could get their head out of the long since Past. Hell I'd vote Republican with those views. I know many many upset Democrats would too.
If the Pope himself can tell the world to chill out on stuff like DOMA and Pro-Life/Pro-Choice then why can't the GoP? Who claim to be sooooo in touch with their Religion?
GasBandit
Staff member
Er.. in other words, Libertarians?
As if the Tea Party did anything but exasperate every single issue. What's needed, are some Moderate Republicans that can push forth a Conservative Financial Front but with the flexibility of a Liberal Social front.
Unstoppable Libertarians. THAT will be the day.
Their problem is the tag. Also Libertarians (from you being an example) are TOO extreme on the Conservative side of the Fiscal and not motivating enough on the Liberal Social side.
GasBandit
Staff member
I don't see how much more socially liberal we could get. The platform already calls for legalized drugs, gay marriage, and pro-choice abortion laws. Any further and it wraps back around to supervillain-tier fascism (MANDITORY ABORTIONS BWA HA HA HA HA HAAAA)
Paying people for doing no work. That's social liberalism as far as it goes. Goes hand-in-hand with 100% tax rate (or higher).
GasBandit
Staff member
When you're vastly outnumbered in our system, there is no "getting things done," there is only stopping what you can't abide. Unless the next few elections veer right, the only options for someone who opposes out of control government are either gridlock or capitulation.
Wait, I thought that was your official stance.
GasBandit
Staff member
SHH. Baby steps.
"Young man, I will turn this economy around RIGHT NOW if we can't be civil about this."
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
Ten hours til shutdown. I still don't think the Republicans have the backbone to take it all the way to a shutdown, and the Democrats know it. But we'll see, I may yet be pleasantly surprised.
And all the hand-wringing about all the tragic nonessential stuff getting shutdown that the media is doing is delicious. Oh no! The Smithsonian will be closed? Eric Holder's investigations will be affected? Perish the thought! HAH.
And I just heard Obama dodge a question about it that included the words "It's the congress and senate's duty to pass a budget that..." Well that's not what they're doing, they're arguing over a continuing resolution. The Senate hasn't allowed an actual budget to pass since the Democrats took it over 7 years ago.
And all the hand-wringing about all the tragic nonessential stuff getting shutdown that the media is doing is delicious. Oh no! The Smithsonian will be closed? Eric Holder's investigations will be affected? Perish the thought! HAH.
And I just heard Obama dodge a question about it that included the words "It's the congress and senate's duty to pass a budget that..." Well that's not what they're doing, they're arguing over a continuing resolution. The Senate hasn't allowed an actual budget to pass since the Democrats took it over 7 years ago.
My wife and I live near DC, where a lot of jobs are government-related. Here's the fun thing about those non-essential things the media bitches about:
The government considers the functions of most things to be essential, but the payment offices for many of them are not. Meaning the work must still be done because it's considered important, but we won't be paid for it until weeks after the government resumes those non-essential functions because paying employees is not considered important.
So I look forward to draining from my savings if this goes on for an extended period, while still not getting time off from work.
The government considers the functions of most things to be essential, but the payment offices for many of them are not. Meaning the work must still be done because it's considered important, but we won't be paid for it until weeks after the government resumes those non-essential functions because paying employees is not considered important.
So I look forward to draining from my savings if this goes on for an extended period, while still not getting time off from work.