Kawasaki Concours Forum
The C-14, aka Kawasaki Concours-14, the new one :) => Accessories and modifications - C14/GTR 1400 => Topic started by: Restless on September 20, 2011, 05:27:01 AM
-
DELETED BY POSTER...sorry guys!
-
:popcorn:
-
Knew it was only a matter of time before an updated edition surfaced... :D
-
Yay ... :hail:
-
Guys, I would caution you about posting links that host copyrighted material.
The ruling from on high is that what happens between forum members stays with forum members.....
Now for something completely different.... I really like the PM function of this forum.
Jim
-
Only takes a minute for the download to complete. Information is useless if it's never shared!
Unbelievable. Information that is *copyrighted* is not legal to *share* that way. Believe it or not, some of us are offended by posts flaunting such illegal activities. Really, this whole thread should be deleted.
Information in the form of commercial books, music, video, games,software, etc, is a lot MORE useless when it stops being created because the writers, musicians, engineers, designers, publishers, copy setters, artists, etc, don't get paid.
I find that the service manual has *value* and *purchased* a copy from my dealership. It would only be ethical to download a PDF of it if you already owned the manual in print form (which I did, and which I do). It is annoying that Kawasaki doesn't not supply a PDF when you buy the printed manual. But I am guessing they don't because- believe it or not- people will "share" it, because, you know, "information wants to be free" and such crap. It is also why legitimate purchasers have to suffer with highly irritating and incompatible DRM (Digital Restrictions Management).
-
Here's a link to another discussion on the subject...
http://www.zggtr.org/index.php?topic=2466.0 (http://www.zggtr.org/index.php?topic=2466.0)
This thread will not be deleted unless someone higher than me deems it necessary....which I doubt.
The other forum should know better....
Jim
-
Here's a link to another discussion on the subject...
http://www.zggtr.org/index.php?topic=2466.0 (http://www.zggtr.org/index.php?topic=2466.0)
This thread will not be deleted unless someone higher than me deems it necessary....which I doubt.
The other forum should know better....
Jim
I should have known better myself so thanks for the flogging. My intention was never to offend the law or cause a problem. I'd rather help those that needed an electronic version of the manual. The link was available and I mearly passed on something I saw in another place on this great WWW. Actually, I bought a 2010 print copy last year from my dealer and simply thought having an electronic version was useful. I never considered the legal implications and for that I openly apologize to the group. Point taken on the copywrite issue. Personally, I think KAWI could cut their costs by just making the PDF available to new owners and stop production of the print copies period. Owners could print the pages they wanted, page protect them and everyone is happy. Then, maybe then, KAWI could funnel that savings into putting cruise on these things? ...my 2 cents, YMMV.
In the end though, I agree with JIM. The "PM function" on this forum works very well and in many cases, it's works in tandam with the "search function" in getting the information you're looking for...you just need to know who to ask. ;)
-
Definitely agree, buy the book, its the right thing to do. However, side point, its not legal to even download a copy of the PDF if you own the manual, unless you have express permission from the publisher. The second purchase I made after buying my bike was the manual, its all greasy, wish I could scotch guard it :-)
Unbelievable. Information that is *copyrighted* is not legal to *share* that way. Believe it or not, some of us are offended by posts flaunting such illegal activities. Really, this whole thread should be deleted.
Information in the form of commercial books, music, video, games,software, etc, is a lot MORE useless when it stops being created because the writers, musicians, engineers, designers, publishers, copy setters, artists, etc, don't get paid.
I find that the service manual has *value* and *purchased* a copy from my dealership. It would only be ethical to download a PDF of it if you already owned the manual in print form (which I did, and which I do). It is annoying that Kawasaki doesn't not supply a PDF when you buy the printed manual. But I am guessing they don't because- believe it or not- people will "share" it, because, you know, "information wants to be free" and such crap. It is also why legitimate purchasers have to suffer with highly irritating and incompatible DRM (Digital Restrictions Management).
-
Here's a link to another discussion on the subject...
http://www.zggtr.org/index.php?topic=2466.0 (http://www.zggtr.org/index.php?topic=2466.0)
This thread will not be deleted unless someone higher than me deems it necessary....which I doubt.
The other forum should know better....
Jim
Is that because they're all law abiding citizens or that they have more lawyers?
-
Definitely agree, buy the book, its the right thing to do. However, side point, its not legal to even download a copy of the PDF if you own the manual, unless you have express permission from the publisher. The second purchase I made after buying my bike was the manual, its all greasy, wish I could scotch guard it :-)
And I agree that it is not legal to download an electronic version even if you own the paper version. But it is not immoral or even "wrong" in such a case when they don't provide nor sell an electronic version. It does not hinder sales or rob them of potential revenue.
-
Don't forget that it is against the law to speed and pass on a double yellow.
And don't cross the street outside of the posted cross walks.
Blah... Blah.. Blah...
If someone is going to do something morally unethical, a Kawasaki forum is not going to change their mind.
I sure wish more people would choose abortion... ::)
-
Like I said, not trying to be holier than thou, just call it what it is. Yes you are right it is illegal to do all those things (traffic violations)...I still do them, but with eyes wide open, and don't call it ok.
Don't forget that it is against the law to speed and pass on a double yellow.
And don't cross the street outside of the posted cross walks.
Blah... Blah.. Blah...
If someone is going to do something morally unethical, a Kawasaki forum is not going to change their mind.
I sure wish more people would choose abortion... ::)
-
Unbelievable. Information that is *copyrighted* is not legal to *share* that way. Believe it or not, some of us are offended by posts flaunting such illegal activities. Really, this whole thread should be deleted.
Information in the form of commercial books, music, video, games,software, etc, is a lot MORE useless when it stops being created because the writers, musicians, engineers, designers, publishers, copy setters, artists, etc, don't get paid.
I find that the service manual has *value* and *purchased* a copy from my dealership. It would only be ethical to download a PDF of it if you already owned the manual in print form (which I did, and which I do). It is annoying that Kawasaki doesn't not supply a PDF when you buy the printed manual. But I am guessing they don't because- believe it or not- people will "share" it, because, you know, "information wants to be free" and such crap. It is also why legitimate purchasers have to suffer with highly irritating and incompatible DRM (Digital Restrictions Management).
And I agree that it is not legal to download an electronic version even if you own the paper version. But it is not immoral or even "wrong" in such a case when they don't provide nor sell an electronic version. It does not hinder sales or rob them of potential revenue.
You can't have it both ways. You downloaded the PDF and admitted that it was not legal. Then you say that it is not immoral or even 'wrong' to download the PDF becasue an electronic version is not provided, IF you bought the paper version?
Oh, I see now... ::)
-
You can't have it both ways. You downloaded the PDF and admitted that it was not legal. Then you say that it is not immoral or even 'wrong' to download the PDF becasue an electronic version is not provided, IF you bought the paper version?
Oh, I see now... ::)
Actually, from your posts in the elephant thread, you do see. Anyone with their eyes even halfway open understands that legal and moral are not necessarily equal, or even equivalent. The same is true with illegal and immoral. In an open/free society, we try to pass laws that approximate our morals, even amidst the shouts of the foolish saying that "you can't legislate morality", but the truth is that laws and morality will never be a perfect match.
I think all of us would do well to operate as best we can within the confines of the law and morals and ethics. I do not buy into the concept that since both speeding and murder are illegal, if we do one we have no right to object to the other.
Whatever our personal morals, we have an obligation as forum members not to put the forum in violation of the law. Rick deserves at least that much respect.
-
Amen.
-
Actually, from your posts in the elephant thread, you do see. Anyone with their eyes even halfway open understands that legal and moral are not necessarily equal, or even equivalent. The same is true with illegal and immoral. In an open/free society, we try to pass laws that approximate our morals, even amidst the shouts of the foolish saying that "you can't legislate morality", but the truth is that laws and morality will never be a perfect match.
I think all of us would do well to operate as best we can within the confines of the law and morals and ethics. I do not buy into the concept that since both speeding and murder are illegal, if we do one we have no right to object to the other.
Whatever our personal morals, we have an obligation as forum members not to put the forum in violation of the law. Rick deserves at least that much respect.
Well said.
-
Elephant thread? What elephant thread? Sounds interesting and possibly entertaining- always a good combination.
As far as the ruckus about the PDF, this is actually an interesting thread. Good point Clyde about the severity of the crime (or immoral behavior) not being a blanket escape for any further misbehavior. Our legal system is actually pretty good at picking a chain of crimes apart and dealing with each in reasonable response to its severity.... most of the time.
On the other side of the coin, I do not agree with those who would have this thread deleted. It is perfectly reasonable to remove any references to copyrighted material but talking about illegal activities itself in NOT illegal. Another slippery slope to be sure but we all have the freedom as well as the right to talk about whatever we want, including that which in itself is illegal.
I would also question the actually legality of being in possession of the PDF manual if that individual also owns a paper copy. To the letter of the law it is almost certainly illegal but I believe it may be within the spirit of the law to have both. Copyright law is there to protect intellectual property from being stolen and in doing so interfering with the rightful owner's ability to regulate and distribute that property. If a person already has a legitimate copy of a work, possessing another, identical copy of that work in another form would be a hard thing to oppose IMO. It would be like owning a book and photocopying a page- technically illegal but it does not violate the spirit of the law and a person would never be prosecuted for such an act. Again, it is a slippery slope to be sure, and I am not trying to justify what anyone might do or not do, but I believe this is a case where the letter of the law may be carried a bit too far. To the letter of the law removing a blade of grass from a neighbor's lawn and taking it home is larceny but I think we would all agree that no damage would be done to the neighbor and any attempt to address such an act would be foolish at best.
At any rate, this is an old topic that comes up every now and then. And it generally goes just like this thread although often not as respectfully or articulately.
Brian
Actually, from your posts in the elephant thread, you do see. Anyone with their eyes even halfway open understands that legal and moral are not necessarily equal, or even equivalent. The same is true with illegal and immoral. In an open/free society, we try to pass laws that approximate our morals, even amidst the shouts of the foolish saying that "you can't legislate morality", but the truth is that laws and morality will never be a perfect match.
I think all of us would do well to operate as best we can within the confines of the law and morals and ethics. I do not buy into the concept that since both speeding and murder are illegal, if we do one we have no right to object to the other.
Whatever our personal morals, we have an obligation as forum members not to put the forum in violation of the law. Rick deserves at least that much respect.
-
snip...
Elephant thread? What elephant thread? Sounds interesting and possibly entertaining- always a good combination.Brian
Both...
http://www.zggtr.org/index.php?topic=4234.0 (http://www.zggtr.org/index.php?topic=4234.0)
-
At any rate, this is an old topic that comes up every now and then. And it generally goes just like this thread although often not as respectfully or articulately.
Brian
I like those words. :thumbs:
-
Others have already mirrored my position, so I won't reply to any particular posting....
I am far more concerned with what is "right" or "wrong" than "legal" or "illegal".
I hope that we all know that it is illegal to download copyrighted material for which you do not have a license. But what I was asserting is that it is also *wrong*, and stated the reasons why.
What ticked me off and set the tone of my initial reply was the OP's last sentence saying that "Information is useless if it's never shared!" It is one thing to do something illegal. And it is much worse doing something that is "wrong". But that declaration implies that IT IS NOT WRONG and should be PROMOTED.
In my example of downloading a PDF that is not for sale for something I already PURCHASED in paper format- to the letter of the law, it is illegal. But it is not "wrong"... It deprives nobody of money or liberty (although the person posting/hosting is highly likely to be doing so). I used that example to illustrate the difference between legality and morality.
Another good example of something illegal but not "wrong" or "immoral" not wearing a seatbelt or helmet by an adult. Such laws remove liberty for an act that takes nobody else's liberty away. It dictates what an adult is allowed to do with their own body in their own space. As such, the law itself might be considered "wrong" or "immoral". That said, I would *NEVER* ride a motorcycle without a helmet, or a car without a seatbelt on. But I take great offense at the government telling me I have to do so. Anyway, I digress and hear myself rambling.... I will shut up now.
-
The safety nazis will say it is wrong and immoral not to wear a helmet or seatbelt due the burden on society the your becoming a veggie will cause. So your freedom is actually wrong and immoral.
ps I have a legally purchased factory manual for my '08 and would really like it in pdf. Anybody got a link?
-
The safety nazis will say it is wrong and immoral not to wear a helmet or seatbelt due the burden on society the your becoming a veggie will cause. So your freedom is actually wrong and immoral.
Right you are. But using their "logic", almost EVERY freedom we have could have some type of potential, possible, theoretical, deleterious effect "on society". So there should be or should be no freedom at all (that would really sit well with Libertarians and Constitutionalists). I don't want to side-track the thread too much- I debated if I should use the helmet thing at all in the post, but it is really great example.
-
Kawasaki has to produce a service manual anyway for their products. It costs them to publish hard copies of it. It does not cost them anything to provide it for download on PDF. I am a firm believer the service manual should come with the vehicle in one form or the other.
As an aside, electronic copyright laws are very esoteric by nature and unenforceable in most of the world. I have zero ethical issues. Kind of like if there are radio transmissions crossing your personal space, you are free to receive them.
-
With all due respect, I disagree with the helmet analogy. A motorcycle rider that is injured will invariably be treated whether or not that person has any type of insurance. So the cost is passed onto society at large. One person can have an effect on society as a whole without society having any choice in the matter.
A copy of a book that is held after the book itself is purchased has no wide- ranging effect on anyone but the copyright holder, and even the copyright holder is not really losing anything or being penalized (assuming the book was purchased). It is a private transaction between two parties, the person having the electronic copy and the publisher.
Of course this is all just a conversation about a particular point; in reality, the reason Kawasaki would not want the electronic copy "loose" in the public domain is because it will be transferred among different people. What is really happening is that at least some people will use the electronic version in lieu of the printed version simply because it is free. And that, of course, is outright theft without much wiggle room.
Brian
Others have already mirrored my position, so I won't reply to any particular posting....
I am far more concerned with what is "right" or "wrong" than "legal" or "illegal".
I hope that we all know that it is illegal to download copyrighted material for which you do not have a license. But what I was asserting is that it is also *wrong*, and stated the reasons why.
What ticked me off and set the tone of my initial reply was the OP's last sentence saying that "Information is useless if it's never shared!" It is one thing to do something illegal. And it is much worse doing something that is "wrong". But that declaration implies that IT IS NOT WRONG and should be PROMOTED.
In my example of downloading a PDF that is not for sale for something I already PURCHASED in paper format- to the letter of the law, it is illegal. But it is not "wrong"... It deprives nobody of money or liberty (although the person posting/hosting is highly likely to be doing so). I used that example to illustrate the difference between legality and morality.
Another good example of something illegal but not "wrong" or "immoral" not wearing a seatbelt or helmet by an adult. Such laws remove liberty for an act that takes nobody else's liberty away. It dictates what an adult is allowed to do with their own body in their own space. As such, the law itself might be considered "wrong" or "immoral". That said, I would *NEVER* ride a motorcycle without a helmet, or a car without a seatbelt on. But I take great offense at the government telling me I have to do so. Anyway, I digress and hear myself rambling.... I will shut up now.
-
I am a firm believer the service manual should come with the vehicle in one form or the other.
Ditto.
-
although I don't own a newer c 14, I do own an older one that I already have a service manual for. I find it interesting to look at manuals for later units to see how things have changed. This in general is not worth the cost of a service manual but certainly worth the time of a download.
-
With all due respect, I disagree with the helmet analogy. A motorcycle rider that is injured will invariably be treated whether or not that person has any type of insurance. So the cost is passed onto society at large.
I knew that analogy would get me in trouble. :)
Insurance is *not* a valid reason to remove freedom. With that logic, riding without a proper armored jacket is far more dangerous than without- so it should be illegal to ride without one. But motorcycle riding is dangerous- far more dangerous than cars, regardless of what you do. So it would cost society a lot less to simply make motorcycles illegal. So we should also make alcohol, tobacco, fatty foods, sugary foods, skateboards, firearms, pit bulls, nail guns, (etc) illegal too....
Of course this is all just a conversation about a particular point; in reality, the reason Kawasaki would not want the electronic copy "loose" in the public domain is because it will be transferred among different people.
100% correct. That is exactly why. BECAUSE people do the wrong thing, Kawasaki reacts in a way that makes other people suffer (like those of us who purchase the manual but also want access to the electronic version because it is more convenient to use).
-
Kawasaki has to produce a service manual anyway for their products. It costs them to publish hard copies of it. It does not cost them anything to provide it for download on PDF. I am a firm believer the service manual should come with the vehicle in one form or the other.
Those are both "rationalizations". It costs them to make the manual- no matter what format it is in. The printed book probably costs them $4 on top of all their other costs allocated to it (writers, engineers, typists, editors, etc, etc). It sells for $80 or something (I forgot the amount I paid). And yes, they need to produce a manual, regardless. While I TOTALLY agree with you that it SHOULD come with the bike, they chose to do what most companies do and sell it to defray some of their costs in making and distributing it. It is not unreasonable to do so. Not thinking it should cost money doesn't make it OK to obtain it for free, when it is something being sold.
Now... what if they didn't sell a manual to the public AT ALL? That would be a far more interesting argument. But that isn't the case. They do, and people who "steal" it by downloading the PDF without buying the manual are those who just don't want to pay (technically it is not "stealing", it is copyright violation).
-
although I don't own a newer c 14, I do own an older one that I already have a service manual for. I find it interesting to look at manuals for later units to see how things have changed. This in general is not worth the cost of a service manual but certainly worth the time of a download.
That is another famous rationalization. The "Well, I wouldn't have bought it anyway, so they aren't losing potential revenue" one :)
Here are some more: "It is overpriced, so I don't think I should have to pay that much." "I only use it occasionally." "It is a manual for an older model than what I own, so I don't think I have to buy it." "It was offered to me and I didn't want to seem ungrateful." "I only needed it just to fix a problem that shouldn't have happened in the first place." and the one from above- the "It should have come with the bike, so I don't feel I have to pay for it".
As a friend of mine likes to say: "Whatever helps you sleep better at night"
-
I just happened to be studying up on the final drive on this bike when this thread came up. You folks who do not have the paper manual are really missing out- nothing like curling up with a good book on the first day of fall.
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f82/BDF08012008/Kirbyreadingmanual.jpg)
While I was there I did a quick review of the copyright and sure enough, Kawasaki reserves all rights on the entire publication (no surprise there). I wonder if it would be OK to use the PDF copy if you held your fob while doing so?
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f82/BDF08012008/Kirbyreviewscopyright.jpg)
Kirby
-
I am afraid I may not have made my point clear- I was not addressing insurance (or any politically charged issue) but rather the fact that an individual can cause costly repercussions to society at large. Forget about insurance, it is the cost to all of society that means something. The same thing applies to all of our rights- they are modulated and sometimes infringed to protect society at large from the individual even at the expense of that individual's rights. Freedom of speech... but you cannot yell 'fire' in a crowded place. The right to keep and bear arms....but not weapons of mass destruction. Etc., etc.
As I said, it is a slippery slope and extremely difficult to modulate the needs of the one against the needs of the many. It is even more difficult when trying to adapt written laws to specific instances. Overall, I think we (the US) have done an outstanding job of that but I am an American and I like it here so I am biased. ;D
Now for the disclaimer: this is NOT a political post. I am trying to address the finer points of negotiating life as it pertains to possessing a copy of the C-14 manual.
Brian
I knew that analogy would get me in trouble. :)
Insurance is *not* a valid reason to remove freedom. With that logic, riding without a proper armored jacket is far more dangerous than without- so it should be illegal to ride without one. But motorcycle riding is dangerous- far more dangerous than cars, regardless of what you do. So it would cost society a lot less to simply make motorcycles illegal. So we should also make alcohol, tobacco, fatty foods, sugary foods, skateboards, firearms, pit bulls, nail guns, (etc) illegal too....
100% correct. That is exactly why. BECAUSE people do the wrong thing, Kawasaki reacts in a way that makes other people suffer (like those of us who purchase the manual but also want access to the electronic version because it is more convenient to use).
-
<snip>Now for the disclaimer: this is NOT a political post. <snip>
Brian
Actually, it is a political post, and sadly, you are arguing from and on the wrong side.
Best to let it drop.
-
I think you are reading something into my post(s) that isn't really there Clyde. I did not take a side, I was merely discussing the issue. Actually I do not have a particular opinion on what anyone / everyone should do regarding the downloading of the C-14 manual but I do find the topic interesting. The world is a complicated place and between unintended consequences and changing times, I think it is fascinating to watch the entire species navigate these issues.
Please elaborate on how you think I have chosen a side. Being reasonable adults, I would think we could discuss any topic, at least motorcycle topic, without rancor.
Brian
Actually, it is a political post, and sadly, you are arguing from and on the wrong side.
Best to let it drop.
-
No rancor, but it is political. The question is one of the Constitutionality of wealth transfers by the government to benefit some individuals at the expense of others. Some feel that caring for the unfortunate or ill-prepared is a proper moral obligation, but is an unconstitutional legal obligation. I would stand with those of that opinion. Therefore, I feel that your argument about social costs may be pragmatic, but that it is fundamentally and basically flawed.
-
Thank you for the civil response.
Allow me to reply: you do not know my opinion on this matter as I have never expressed it, either in this thread or elsewhere on the 'Net. I believe you are reading intent into my words that is simply not there.
The statement I made, or was trying to make, is that something like wearing a helmet does have consequences for society as a whole; I did not express an opinion on whether it was good or bad, or whether I am pro- helmet law or anti- helmet law. For that matter, I may not even have an opinion on the matter. But I do believe what I expressed was a logical and correct observational view, not political. Especially when viewed within the contest of this thread: wearing a helmet and the potential consequences to others who are nominally [not involved], and possessing a copy of a service manual which has no impact on anyone outside of the copyright holder and the person holding the intellectual material (legally or otherwise). Even the topic of wearing a helmet and / or helmet laws was not my choice, I was simply responding to someone else who made the analogy.
And I still have not expressed a political view.
Brian
No rancor, but it is political. The question is one of the Constitutionality of wealth transfers by the government to benefit some individuals at the expense of others. Some feel that caring for the unfortunate or ill-prepared is a proper moral obligation, but is an unconstitutional legal obligation. I would stand with those of that opinion. Therefore, I feel that your argument about social costs may be pragmatic, but that it is fundamentally and basically flawed.
-
I wonder if it would be OK to use the PDF copy if you held your fob while doing so?
It depends (http://www.depend.com/) on where and with what you are holding the fob (such is the power of KIPASS). And yes, the underlined word was a clue. :D
----------------------------
OK, so if someone posts a link here to another site that is doing something illegal, then this site is in the wrong?
I mean if I tell you that such and such gas station is selling bootleg DVDs and I give you a map on how to get there
and I supply this information for free, and they are in fact selling bootleg DVDs,... have I broken the law? (not counting the
law of run-on sentences. ::) )
-
Brian, you know that I like and respect you. However, as I read and re-read your post, you have, indeed stated a political opinion. By the mere conceding of the argument that freedoms have been infringed, and that you are pleased with that, you have indicated a position. Perhaps not a fanatical, wild-eyed positions, but a concession that loss of freedom is inevitable or past correction, and that it is acceptable to go along to get along. I understand political pragmatism, and would not say that it is always a bad thing. But it still is a position, and it can often be read clearly, even if it retains plausible deniablity.
For better or worse, I've changed my tactics on these "pdf manual" threads. It is much easier to let the mods and Mama Kaw handle it from the "legal" side. If someone really wants to discuss the "moral" side, then it usually doesn't take too long to get the opposite points of view displayed and clarified.
I let myself get drawn into the political side of the freedom/societal cost discussion, because many who claim to value freedom do not understand just how far they may have drifted from the basic tenets thereof. As individuals and as nations, we have often traded freedom for security and comfort, to the extent that we find true freedom and responsibility almost foreign and often politically "incorrect" or unpopular.
-
Good post Clyde. Unfortunately it is late here and I cannot generate the kind of concentration I usually need but especially need now to discuss this matter with you (that is a compliment by the way). I have a fairly big day tomorrow riding to NY. But I would like to respond to this post in a day or two, assuming the thread is still here and available, because I think this is an important topic.
Brian
Brian, you know that I like and respect you. However, as I read and re-read your post, you have, indeed stated a political opinion. By the mere conceding of the argument that freedoms have been infringed, and that you are pleased with that, you have indicated a position. Perhaps not a fanatical, wild-eyed positions, but a concession that loss of freedom is inevitable or past correction, and that it is acceptable to go along to get along. I understand political pragmatism, and would not say that it is always a bad thing. But it still is a position, and it can often be read clearly, even if it retains plausible deniablity.
For better or worse, I've changed my tactics on these "pdf manual" threads. It is much easier to let the mods and Mama Kaw handle it from the "legal" side. If someone really wants to discuss the "moral" side, then it usually doesn't take too long to get the opposite points of view displayed and clarified.
I let myself get drawn into the political side of the freedom/societal cost discussion, because many who claim to value freedom do not understand just how far they may have drifted from the basic tenets thereof. As individuals and as nations, we have often traded freedom for security and comfort, to the extent that we find true freedom and responsibility almost foreign and often politically "incorrect" or unpopular.
-
I just happened to be studying up on the final drive on this bike when this thread came up. You folks who do not have the paper manual are really missing out- nothing like curling up with a good book on the first day of fall.
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f82/BDF08012008/Kirbyreadingmanual.jpg)
While I was there I did a quick review of the copyright and sure enough, Kawasaki reserves all rights on the entire publication (no surprise there). I wonder if it would be OK to use the PDF copy if you held your fob while doing so?
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f82/BDF08012008/Kirbyreviewscopyright.jpg)
Kirby
Hey Kirby, the first day of fall isn't till Friday the 23rd. Try curling up with the PDF on the laptop instead.
-
:popcorn:
Need more butter.
-
:popcorn:
Need more butter.
You betcha..
-
You betcha..
Hey, Sarah joined the non political fray ;D
-
OK, not tired now and have re-read your post. And I still do not agree with you Clyde. No political leanings in any of my postings so I maintain that if you found some it is because you have projected your opinion of what you think are my opinions (because you do not know my opinions, at least not the ones with a political slant) into my posts as you were reading them.
In summation: stealing = bad. Bad comes in levels or degrees, and stealing an electronic book is pretty low on the list of bad things.
As far as individual freedoms go, I think any rational person would have to agree that most, if not all, personal freedoms will eventually have to be constrained by limits. Of course these limits directly attack individual freedoms but the constraints are necessary in any world with more than one person that I can imagine. To argue otherwise is to take an irrational side IMO and cannot be supported by any reasonable (practical, executable) political stance or attachment.
And finally, can you send me the link to that PDF manual? In all the excitement I forgot to write it down and now it seems to be gone.... (http://zggtr.org/Smileys/default/ROTFLMAO.gif)
Brian
Brian, you know that I like and respect you. However, as I read and re-read your post, you have, indeed stated a political opinion. By the mere conceding of the argument that freedoms have been infringed, and that you are pleased with that, you have indicated a position. Perhaps not a fanatical, wild-eyed positions, but a concession that loss of freedom is inevitable or past correction, and that it is acceptable to go along to get along. I understand political pragmatism, and would not say that it is always a bad thing. But it still is a position, and it can often be read clearly, even if it retains plausible deniablity.
For better or worse, I've changed my tactics on these "pdf manual" threads. It is much easier to let the mods and Mama Kaw handle it from the "legal" side. If someone really wants to discuss the "moral" side, then it usually doesn't take too long to get the opposite points of view displayed and clarified.
I let myself get drawn into the political side of the freedom/societal cost discussion, because many who claim to value freedom do not understand just how far they may have drifted from the basic tenets thereof. As individuals and as nations, we have often traded freedom for security and comfort, to the extent that we find true freedom and responsibility almost foreign and often politically "incorrect" or unpopular.
-
Nah, I am ascairt of anything electronical that does not come with a fob.
Kirby
Hey Kirby, the first day of fall isn't till Friday the 23rd. Try curling up with the PDF on the laptop instead.
-
OK, not tired now and have re-read your post. And I still do not agree with you Clyde. No political leanings in any of my postings so I maintain that if you found some it is because you have projected your opinion of what you think are my opinions (because you do not know my opinions, at least not the ones with a political slant) into my posts as you were reading them.
In summation: stealing = bad. Bad comes in levels or degrees, and stealing an electronic book is pretty low on the list of bad things.
As far as individual freedoms go, I think any rational person would have to agree that most, if not all, personal freedoms will eventually have to be constrained by limits. Of course these limits directly attack individual freedoms but the constraints are necessary in any world with more than one person that I can imagine. To argue otherwise is to take an irrational side IMO and cannot be supported by any reasonable (practical, executable) political stance or attachment.
And finally, can you send me the link to that PDF manual? In all the excitement I forgot to write it down and now it seems to be gone....
Brian
Hi Brian. Hope the trip went well. The highlighted parts are your political position. "I am rational, and anyone who disagrees with me is irrational. My position is so well-thought-out that it is not a political position, it is merely a statement of truth, beauty and reality."
Umm, Okay. Nice bike you have there.
-
It went very well, and we had a great time- thanks for asking.
I can understand what you are saying but I did not mean it that way- I believe you are rational (as are most people) and I do believe that all rational people have to come to some common conclusions simply because those conclusions are the only ones available, not because they are my conclusions.
Perhaps we need an example of personal freedoms vs. the common good, without any political bent. How about these:
1) I can build or buy a radio to transmit on any frequency I want but the US gov’t (specifically the FCC) regulates which frequencies I may use and in which ways I may use them. This is clearly an infringement on my personal freedom but it is for the greater good of my community. Would you take the other side and say that I should be able to broadcast on any frequency I want? Perhaps on air traffic control frequencies or emergency services frequencies?
2) I can buy an airplane and fly it whenever I want but the gov't controls (specifically the FAA) some aspects of flight w/in the US- I cannot circle above an airport for example. Would you say that this infringement of freedom is a bad idea? Should we all be able to fly kites over airports should we desire to do this? Or should society impose certain restrictions so that air travel is safer both to the people flying and those on the ground?
3) I like loud pipes on my motorcycle but I am restricted by noise limits in some (most) communities. Should we, as a society, remove all restrictions on an individual's right to make noise as he / she would like to?
As I said, I believe there are rational and necessary reasons why individual rights must be tempered for the greater good. Of course this idea can, and has been, abused and used irrationally. But I am extremely interested in any rational argument for individual freedom without restriction. Besides, others seem to have their popcorn out and we do not want to dissapoint them....
Brian
Hi Brian. Hope the trip went well. The highlighted parts are your political position. "I am rational, and anyone who disagrees with me is irrational. My position is so well-thought-out that it is not a political position, it is merely a statement of truth, beauty and reality."
Umm, Okay. Nice bike you have there.
-
4. I like machine guns, edged weapons and high explosives. There are probably rational and necessary reasons why I can't have them. :'( :'(
-
Ah but you can, at least in the US! It is a right of yours from the Constitution, specifically item #2 in the Bill of Rights. You have to pay a 'transfer tax' of $200 per item but you can own machine guns (or any type of 'machine' firearm) and things like artillery. The edged weapons are generally not a problem although some items are specifically prohibited from certain areas; for example, it is illegal to transport a switch- blade knife interstate unless you only have one arm (really).
Back in the '80's a local gun shop had a Browning M2 for sale- it appeared unfired, came in the original crate, came with an additional crate of support gear (six barrels and a pair of asbestos gloves) as well as a couple of boxes of ammunition. Perfectly legal to buy, possess and transport provided you paid the federal transfer tax. It was originally from a National Guard armory, and became 'legal' during a 1920's firearm amnesty. $8,000. What a lost investment opportunity that was....
As I said, there have been many man hours put into the art of balancing personal freedoms against civil needs and overall, I think we (again the US) has done a very good job of it. Regulating freedom is always a slippery slope but it can be done.
Brian
4. I like machine guns, edged weapons and high explosives. There are probably rational and necessary reasons why I can't have them. :'( :'(
-
Well, I think this :doublepuke: has gone about as far as it's going to get. Everyone has made their point and is happy. I so love a good discussion.