The Leased Life?

Effugas asks: "I've been thinking about something off and on for some time now...perhaps, in all of our complaining that the patent office equates 'net' with 'new', we've done a bit of this ourselves? I'm thinking particularly in regards to non-computer related economic trends that look suspiciously like what the computer industry has taught us to expect. To wit: You don't own your apps (ASP's), you can't control your software (UCITA), your music isn't yours (SDMI), your privacy isn't yours, etc. Now look at the real world in areas where tech savviness is on the rise: leased cars, rented houses, long term apartments / condos / duplexes...your employment is at will and can disappear anytime, and your cities seem strangely hostile to you doing anything other than working, sleeping, or spending. Note the lack of any kind of long term commitments, ownerships, investments, or so on... Is there a relationship between tech patterns and what's going on outside? I'd appreciate your comments."

Comments

Re:Life is more than things

[Anonymous Coward]

In the immortal words of Tyler Durden:

"You are not your fucking kakhi's!"

Rent only == No inheritance for the kids.

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to leave something for my kids when I die. My parents left me their house. When you think about this you'll realize that, renting is selfish, because it's only about you and meeting your needs. All that work and money only allows you to keep your head above water but never to acquire anything. My goal is for my kids to have a better life than me. And for that I need to be able to own a house/car etc.

Since I can't afford to buy that way cool car, I'll just lease it instead.

So buy an older car. Save $$$. Use some of those $$$ to fix it up and make it nice. Sleep well knowing it's all yor and that you're in control. Or save up and wait until you really can afford a new car. Don't you see, leasing doesn't let you live beyond your means. It just lets you live beyond your time, except that in the end it takes more from you than if you had saved and waited. Leasing is the BIG LIE that actually costs us more than owning. Multiply your 5 year car loan payment by 12*5. You'll see its about triple the cash price of the car. The lease price, though less, still comes out to more than the purchase price of the car. Really think about this. Forget instant gratificatation and really own things. It's such a rush.

The temporal society...

[Anonymous Coward]

The US leads the way to the temporal society... We export our fast-food franchises to other countries who (for the most part) eagerly embrace the concept of needing to be in a hurry to eat. There is no concept of permanence anymore. Look at the business parks we work in - the building are called 'tilt-ups' which are able to be constructed in a matter of days. They aren't built to last centuries, let alone decades. There is no longer any idea about leaving a legacy for future generations - the prevailing idea is that we need to make our fast buck and we need to make it NOW! Companies don't look more than a quarter or two out - Wall street demands profits NOW! We drive around in a constant road rage - cussing anyone who gets in our way. There's the constant drive for more of everything for ourselves. We're all jostling for position in the RatRace. We're in a big hurry to get somewhere, problem is we don't know where - we're going so fast we forgot where we were going. And when we arrive we find that there is no there there - so better keep running. We don't want to think about all of this so some drink, other do drugs or become addicted to other pain killing activities... It's all meaningless, meaningless, like chasing after the wind. There's a vacuum of meaning. Sure, the economy is great, we're warm and well fed, we've got bread and circuses - but kids are shooting each other in the schools and we have an uneasy sense that something in our great Corporatocracy is awry. Something that money can't fix. A crisis of the soul. We sense that we can't fit into the mold that the Corporatocracy is trying to force the human spirit into... Don't let them lock you into it!

It's not feudalism at all

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not think this has anything to do with feudalism. The whole plot of feudalism was a pyramid-like hierarchy, your lord being vassal of a more important lord, ... the king being at top of the chain. And more important, you were under the authority of a lord because this lord had the duty to protect you. There is no such idea of protection in capitalism.

Re:It's not feudalism at all

[lemox]

I appreciate your rosy view of the medevial history, but your statements are not entirely accurate:

"you were under the authority of a lord because this lord had the duty to protect you."

Wrong. That may have been the case much later in the middle ages, but our own Neo-Feudalism is just beginning. Feudalism grew out of fall of the Roman empire. With no organized government to protect them anymore and barbarians running rampant, people flocked to the estates of rich and powerful landowners. For their (the people's) protection, the landowners had them do work, usually farming and took most of their output, letting the serfs keep enough to get by.

There is no such idea of protection in capitalism.

Wrong again. What do you think automobile insurance is? Later the lords forbade the serfs to move from the estate, making one who did so guilty of "theft of services" for lack of a better term. Insurance is the most obvious one (ie it's against the law not to have it, therefore not be "protected"), but other exist in various forms as well. Paid protection is the core of much of the world's business model, 2nd only to pure consumerism.

What about the people that work for these corps?

[Anonymous Coward]

What I don't understand is the fact that the people that work for these corporations, the people that come up with these ideas and the people that implement them and the people that defend these ideas, are same ones that are going to get screwed by them when we don't have choices anymore. It seems to me like we're heading down a road where everyone pays fees for every single thing they do. Thats what corporations want, some way to keep their hand in the cookie jar, but it totally boggles my mind that people are so greedy or narrow minded that they don't realize the kind of world they're building for themselves. It's not just those of us that actually care that are going to get screwed if we do continue the way we're going, its the same people that implement these ideas that are going to get screwed as well.

Age of Access

[Anonymous Coward]

You might want to check out Jeremy Rifkin's recent book, The Age of Access. It talks about these issues at length.

It's all capitalism's fault

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all capitalism's fault. Capitalism is responsible for everything that's good about our society, so it must be responsible for everything that's bad as well.

Re:It's all capitalism's fault

[ahodgson]

There's relatively little luck involved, sorry. Sure, there are some people with mental or physical disabilities who can't work. For everyone else, it's taking the initiative to do what needs to be done to make a living.

Overall, Capitalism makes more people better off than any other system (demonstrated to date). Unless you have a better alternative (that would actually work), live with it. Want to help the less fortunate - give to a charity that will help.

Re:It's all capitalism's fault

[ChaosMt]

I don't think it's the fault of capitialism or any other "ism". Perhaps is the lack of an "ism". IMHO, it seems that the crazy psychologist mights have been right.

Frued was all about "the will to pleasure" and that mankind is driven to do things by pleasure, and that when that is unchecked by the super-ego, it leads to polymorphus perversity. In other words, we're getting everything we want, and that's what's hurting us. It seems we've tolerated away religion, so much so that our conscience can tolerate anything, except making less then our neighbor. To misquote Marx, opiates are the religions of the masses.

Alder was another psychologist who was all about the "will to power". In other words, he felt that mankinds modivation was to dominate and control. While the majoryity of us have been pursuing plesure, it seems that we've let these others, who live for power, in control. And this is especially troubling considering, our social leader, that are to hold capitialism in check (politicians), and no long interested in doing the right thing. They will only do what brings them more power. For a short time, republicans furthered the cause of capitialism and the democrats kept them in balance. It seems that now both parties have lost their way.

Frankyl, argued that man's ultimate drive was not power or pleasure, but meaning. It seems to me, that our hope for the future lies an a global search for meaning. The "will to meaning" is the ultimate. When a person does not have hope, they stop living.

As our lives loose options if a franchised feudalism, we need a revolution of hope. Who we are is so much more important that what we own or build. Besides, freedom from materialism brings joy - and you can't buy or rent joy.

Re:It's all capitalism's fault

[Vanders]

Capitalism is responsible for everything that's good about our society

Ah, but you see this is the problem. Capitalism makes life good for the sections of society who are lucky enough to have money. Those that don't have the money, get left on the pavement to slowly die away, like they are some peice of garbage that can be ignored; they are seen as an anoyance.

Capitalism makes life great for those who can afford health care, those who can afford a decent education, those that have the skills to make money. It makes life stink for those who can't afford such basic necesities as health care, education, food, housing etc. etc. Not everyone is so fortunate, and it those people who Capitalism lets down so badly.

Re:It's all capitalism's fault

[anonymous cowerd]

Capitalism couldn't be responsible for anything in society that's more than a couple hundred years old, because capitalism basically didn't exist until a couple hundred years ago.

Giving that devilish capitalism its due, it is real efficient at what Marx called primitive accumulation. Similarly gasoline is good for powering your car, but you might not want to gargle with it, bathe in it, or put it into your baby's bottle. But here in the U.S.A., where "socialism" is a dirty word, we Americans let capitalists control everything in this so-called society of ours. I mean, look at the presidential candidates this year: not one but two third or fourth generation trust-fund kids who never in their lives had to work for a living, both of them devoted heart-and-soul to capital uber alles.

Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

Tyler Durden said it best

[Anonymous Coward]

"You are not your job. You are not the money in your bank account. You are not the car you drive. You are not how much money is in your wallet. You are not your fucking khakis. You are the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world. You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic matter as everything else. We were raised on television to believe that we'd all be millionares, movie gods, rock stars, but we won't. And we're starting to figure that out.Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War. Our war is spiritual. Our depression is our lives. This is your life and it's ending one minute at a time."

Coincidentally, it's out on DVD today, eh?

Re:I'd appreciate your comments

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot: News for Herds. Stuff that Flatters.

A lack of value...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not values, value.

I used to wonder about leasing cars. It couldn't be worth it, could it? After all, you don't own the car.

But then a friend of mine pointed out a key fact. If the car depreciates FASTER than you can for it (to own it), then buying-to-own doesn't make sense. But the time you 'buy it', it isn't worth anything.

We're see this trend in other things. Application cost is so high, and changes so fact (upgrades), that RENTING starts making senses. In effect, there's a shift from a company marketing a product (car/software application/whatever) to marketing a service (transportation/computer uses/whatever).

However, I wouldn't worry about this too much. Several of us have argued that computer software never really fit the product model anyway (it only does in the shrink-wrapped mass market) and that this represents a GOOD thing, as the true cost starts becoming apparent.

(Personally, I'm much more worried about the transportation thingy...damn it, I LIKE to own my own cars).

Re:A lack of value...

[thc69]

If the car depreciates faster than you can pay for it, there are generally three reasons why it could be happening:

1. You bought too expensive of a car, and took out a too-long loan.

2. That model depreciates extra fast (models that most people like don't seem to do this as badly; it's unpopular models that depreciate very quickly, often.)

3. You put on zillions of miles every month, like myself. In this case, leasing would cost you much, much more than buying, and in the end, you not only wouldn't have a car worth money, but you wouldn't even have transportation.

Of course, sooner or later, the value levels off somewhat, while what you owe continues to drop at the same speed as before. I owe about $5000 on my car; and it's currently worth about the same. Already I'm catching up - 6 or 8 months ago, I owed a lot more than it was worth. When I'm done paying it off, hopefully in less than a year if I can, it will still be worth about $3500 or $4000.

Buying still makes sense, even for lower-mileage drivers as much as high-milage drivers; such drivers can buy a car with a long warranty, and be assured of a running car without having to pour horrid amounts of money into repairing it. Think about it - if you don't put on lots of miles, and you buy a car with a 6 or 10 year warranty, then you pay it off in 4 or 5 years...for the next 5 years, you can have a warrantied car that will run and pass inspection, and not have to pay every month for it! If you lease, when that's done, you can then buy the used car that you've been driving for a highish price, or you can start the monthly payment cycle all over again...

The direction we are headed in

[Anonymous Coward]

It is very easy to make the argument that we are walking in the direction on some sort of science fiction slave society. We have the pills to keep us happy, we have the golden hand cuffs to keep us all entrapped.

Strangely enough there is more than one big city human resources department (for example) whose first response is to send you to the shrink for your happy pills if you happen to be unhappy with how things are working out on the job.

Of course, they say that they do this so that no-one goes postal on them. While the corruption goes on....

so, if you're happy and you know it, click your chains ... (clink clink)
if you're happy and you know it, click your chains ... (clink clink)
so, if you're happy and you know it, and you really want to show it
If you're happy and you know it, clink your chains ... (clink clink)

brings a tear to my eye, y'know

Ah, ironies...

[Anonymous Coward]

During the late 1960s, the 'rental life' was put forward by leftist thinkers such as Buckminster Fuller as a 'solution' to the alleged 'problem' of private property. No one would 'own' anything anymore -- people would simply rent what they needed as they needed it, and the social 'harm' of ownership would thus be eliminated. All property would be transitory, and, without owning property, people would naturally be more generous, sharing, compassionate, communal, etc ad infinitum nauseum.

The reality of this leftist vision, like the reality of every other leftist vision, is far more horrifying than expected.

Something is certainly changing

[Anonymous Coward]

and it could bring us all a lot of headaches. This is my take on the evolution of personal property values...

Up to 1999, big corporations were softening their look and feel, but since the start of the year there has become visible a definite strategy by industries of different kinds to identify, define, and then occupy tomorrow. Patents on inventions has always seemed fair, even if inventors like Edison abused the system. Patents on genes, parts of viruses, modified plants, and basic components of the Internet start to look like a kind of theft.

It's ironic then, that it's another kind of theft - that practiced by mp3 kiddies - that looks like becoming the catalyst of the revolution against the encroachment on our future that the patent office is abetting. I see big battles ahead between the large owners of intellectual property and the patent pirates on the one hand, and the media pirates and the fair-use activists on the other.

As so often in American debates (and this is one where the US is leading), the issues get very polarised very quickly. Personally I don't want to be lumped together with people who think that fast Internet access was invented just to download MP3 files. But it looks inevitable.

This was, of course, all caused by the Internet. And the Internet will be the battleground. Metallica vs. Napster was the starting shot. IMHO, 2000 will likely see a big move by Corporate America to sanitise the Internet. The excuse will be to get rid of pirate MP3 and MPEG sites. But it will go further than this.

The big change will be in the way people perceive and control who owns what. Taken to extremes, anything digital will be pirated to death, and this piracy plus the fight against it will define the future structure of the Internet.

Re:Real life is like that for a different reason..

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, but don't orget that prices have skyrocketed. (at least in the US).

The cost of everything has gone up, especially those things which you really can't do without in todays society, such as housing and cars. A car typically costs more than the average person's yearly salery. How on earth can joe average expect to save up that much money? And part of the reason the car prices have gone up is becasue the car companies no longer have to make the cars affordable to the average person in order to sell them, they can just *rent* them, and increase their profit margin (aka squeeze more out of the curtomer). And joe average really has no choice. NoCar==NoTransportation=NoJob in most places. You've pretty much *got* to have one to get by.

It's totally *impossible* for most people to even *consider* ever buying a house. Its just way too expensive. And there is no chance of saving up to ever buy a house, becasue all your money is going into the pocket of your landlord. Its not like you can just go build your own house on some vacant piece of land. You really don't have much choice. You gotta pay whatever the rent rates are. And they're always set at the maximum that people can afford, again leaving joe average with noting left to put into a savings account.

Once upon a time, you worked, made money, and bought things, and *owned* those things, so didn't have the continuing monthly bills, and also had the possibility of selling the item at some point, which meant that you were really making an *investment*. You still had the "fruits of your labor" when all was done.

Nowdays, you work, make money, and rent things, so when the lease runs out, you have nothing left to show for your efforts. You're back to your starting point.

Re:Mud to Mud

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to move back towards Christianity. True Christianity, not the corrupted versions of it floating around.

Its really sad that I have to post this anonymously to protect my "karma" here. Censorship is alive and well, even in our "free" Slashdot community. I do not support censoring the Internet or burning people at the stake, but I know a lot of people will assume I do now.

You rotten bastard. :)

[torpor]

Your sig is fucking hilarious, dude. I'm sending that to all the WinZealots I can find...

Nice one!

:)

Re:You rotten bastard. :)

[Rumble]

sorry to be lame, but what's so great about his sig? I honestly can't figure it out, heh :)

-Ryan

Re:You rotten bastard. :)

[Quikah]

doesn't do anything to my machine. *shrug*

Win98 Netscape 4.73

Re:You rotten bastard. :)

[torpor]

It GPF's windows machines. C'mon, you gotta respect a URL that GPF's windows machines indefatigably... :)

Re:HomeExchange

[Bill Currie]

I believe that would be Home Find here in New Zealand. I found all three of my homes in NZ through it ($90nz for 6 monts iirc). And yes, it sure beat trying to find them in the news paper.

That said, I wound up going through the news paper for my new place in Calgary, but that was only because my cousin was helping me and went through the web version of the Calgary Herald. In case that just confused you, I'm moving in 1 month (eek!!, but they're paying, bwahaha:)

/me is looking forward to moving into his nice 3 br house with basement (hasn't had a basement for 15 years :/ )

It's simple - it's how people are

[Stefan]

People follow the way of least resistance. If they can get something right away, they get it now, if they have to pay up the double but later on doesn't matter (at least not now...).

Of course the few people and companies who are smart enough to take advantage of that wins in the long run and have cash to spare for marketing, lobbying, funding election campaigns etc. (read bribing) enough politicians to make sure the law and society is on their side, preserving the good old system.

Look at the majority of large successful companies, they work on the principle of only lending you stuff and have you pay through your nose.

This is a theme throughout the whole economy! Wish people would get a clue.

Re:return of feudalism...

[spacey]

Well, then the bushido class is growning up and growing out. A lot of the fellow consultants I know have one goal (to quote a very insightful lady): "To make fuck off money and retire".

The most beautiful places in the world call for us to buy some property there and settle and protect it.

-Peter

Re:Privitizing Oppression

[Andrej Marjan]

How old are you? See how the life of an itinerant labourer suits you when you're 40 or 50.

Worried about getting sick? I've got medical insurance.. and I guess being Canadian helps in that the goverment helps with that (generally).

Not for much longer. One of the things that affords you your increased mobility is the abolishment of national sovereignty, and with it the right to protect domestic standards of health care and education. Don't believe it? Look at what's being negotiated through the WTO.
--
Change is inevitable.

Mixed metaphors

[Badger]

I think you are seriously confusing two differing trends: the ability to choose how much you want, and a loss of control over what you can have.

Application service providers, or rental apartments, are good in that you don't have to take more than you need. I could buy a house, but I know I do not want to commit to where I am, so I rent. I don't want to buy an app, but I need it for this project, so I'll rent it. Having these options is a good thing.

UCITA, on the other hand, removes options. You cannot do certain things that you used to be able to do. That is a bad thing.

In short, while I agree that the ability to not commit tends to lessen overall committment, that doesn't make it a bad idea, simply an abused one.

The Unabomber was [partially] right

[Zopilote]

Although what the Unabomber did was really stupid, he had a point: technology really drives us to depend on it, and has many bad effects on our lives in the long run.

Still, I don't want to go back to the Dark Ages, do you? That was his solution.

Re:it's all about -

[jafac]

What a deal! Does that cover MY lifetime, the lifetime of the box, or the lifetime of the TiVo corporation?



I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .

Re:Choice vs Control

[jafac]

yes! It's also often better to buy used than new, as a new car loses half it's value once you drive it off the lot. SCREW the dealers. Unfortunately, it's not always easy to find a used car that's not a mechanical nightmare. We all know the reliable brands though.

I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .

Re:Capitalism

[jafac]

where are the Iroquois now?

The name is used for posh country-clubs in Suburban Chicago.

I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .

Re:Choice vs Control

[jafac]

Hell, these days, even if you BUY a car, you don't really own it.

How many years will go by before you are paying more to the dealer-certified service than you were paying in payments to the bank, because the fucking thing breaks down every 6 weeks? oops Time to go buy another car.

But my 28-year old VW just keeps running and running. No computer chips, no emissions controls, no power steering, no AC, no radio. . . no problem.

I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .

another comment

[jafac]

or as The Tick used to say:
". . .an unsettling trend. . ."

I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .

Re:Choice vs Control

[jafac]

the way cars and houses are priced, the economically challenged (read: poor), quite often do not have a choice.

These laws are just nicking the middle-upper class the way the lower classes have always been nicked.

I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .

Re:The Metered Society

[jafac]

It's not all as bad as that.

Witness the failure of DIVX.

I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .

Re:Capitalism

[jafac]

Not ignorant to the current state of the Iroquois. Just pointing out that all those good social qualities didn't ensure a favorable outcome for them. (and won't for us either).

I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .

Re:return of feudalism...

[jafac]

Hey, you GOT it! Good for you! Here's a cracker!

I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .

Re:What an Excellent Question!!!

[jafac]

heh, check out the lifestyle of the poor slobs in "The Fifth Element".

I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .

Re:Choice vs Control

[jafac]

If you have enough money, you CAN buy software "on the spot".

Look at Corel's acquisition of MetaCreations. Adobe's purchase of GoLive. It can be done.

I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .

Re:Of Course

[Jason Earl]

On the other hand, it is easy to consider yourself a decently moral person if you hold no faith whatsoever. Even atheists believe in something. They believe that God does not exist.

Personally I think that the real problem is that as a society we are becoming more and more self-centered. It is not enough to simply do no ill, a person needs to get out and do some good. When they do, they invariably find that helping people out makes them feel good. Whether you believe that this "good" feeling comes from Jesus, Buddha, Isis, Zeus, or from something more mundane like the biological need that is left over from our evolution from simple herd animals is really quite irrelevant.

I personally believe in a concrete "truth," but most credos get close enough to this truth so that careful adherents make good neighbors. In a practical sense being a good neighbor is what really matters.

Re:Of course we've progressed!

[Evangelion]

fitter, happier. more productive.

Built-in obsolesense

[Tor]

The hi-tech industry, automakers etc need to sell their products to the same people over and over again in order to have a sustained source of income. Thus, there is a perpetual "upgrade" cycle in such products. In order to stay ahead, you cannot hang on to something for too long. Thus, there is no point in owning it.

<P>This lack of reference is also a catch 22; the more fluid your lifestyle, the less likely you are to take care of your environment and property. The less likely you are to take care of your property, the less likely you are to be willing to own it for life.</P>

<P>In a word: <i>affluenza</i></P>

corporations versus culture smackdown

[ehovland]

I recently heard a great interview on Larry Mantel's Air Talk of Jeremy Rifkin. He has just written a new book, titled The Age of Access, which delves into this very topic.

The point which strikes a cord with me is that the ultimate model that corporations strive for is to remove any material ownership from the consumer so the consumer always has to pay over and over again for the 'experience'. This model effectively strips the consumer from creating or fostering their own culture. The internet like any other medium or tool can be used by the corporations to continue this erosion, ala ASP, UCITA, etc. or it can be used to combat this erosion, ala slashdot, usenet, wiki wiki web, rre, etc.

It is probably no coincidence that this ask slashdot comes on the same day as the Scott Reents interview. They are in the same vein both prompting you to think about your freedom outside in the big blue room and how the internet effects it.

There is no doubt in my mind that we as a people should actively work to ingrain our culture into the internet and constantly strive to make life as tangible as possible. The internet should serve as our glue to keep our culture together not be the solvent that rips it apart.

ULAs...

[Chakotay]

There's generally some way to get around it. Here in the Netherlands for example licence agreements aren't valid unless they're also delivered in Dutch - not just in English. Oh, and what about the issue of somebody else installing software on your computer? THAT person agrees with the licence. The person who uses the software has never seen it, and hasn't agreed to it. Licencing in such a way is completely flawed. And that's also why I don't really read them. That, and that the ULA that comes with most software installed on my system is called GPL :)


)O(
the Gods have a sense of humour,

Things are getting better

[Otter]

That's an interesting question. One thing that occurs to me is that products are getting better and cheaper at such a rapid pace that many people are less interested in owning a car or a software app when something better will be out tomorrow. From an environmental point that's bad (the car at least) but it's positive for the standard of living.

Also, improvements in IT are a large part of what enables all these new business practices. The easier and more powerful databases and billing become, the more attractive it is to rent or lease goods instead of selling them and having the item out of your life forever.

Re:Oh BOO HOO!

[spitzak]

Of course, under the Stallman program, you won't even own the music and software you created. You'll be forced to "share" it with everybody else.

I know this is flame bait, but the ignorance of some of these writers is amazing. Stallman does not force everybody to release stuff with the GPL. You can do anything you want with "your" software (your definition of "your").

"Oh but if I include GPL code in my code I'm forced to use the GPL, Oh BOO HOO!!!" you are saying, now, right? But that means you used software belonging to somebody else (again, your definition of "ownership"), yet you don't want to follow the rules they made up for ownership of this software, and thus you want to be able to steal it!

Don't be such a hypocrit (sp?).

Also, I would think Lexus would sue you pretty badly if you happened to own an auto plant and started manufacturing copies of your Lexus. So according to your logic you don't "own" your Lexus.

Seems to apply to society at large...

[Manuka]

Just today, there was an article on cnn.com about a study showing that long-term commited romatic relationships are out, casual short-term sex is in. I expect the general societal trend away from anything long-term is a result of the compressed time scale that we experience in the 'net age. In this scale, a single year feels like 5 to 7 years, because new experiences and technologies are getting thrown at us at an alarming rate. Why think about something a decade from now? that seems like a lifetime away.

My .sig says it all...

[Odinson]

Re:Mud to Mud

[Johann]

Couples that don't want to be together (and remember, it takes two), should be allowed to split up, no matter what.

IMHO - Then these couples should not have married. I agree that remaining married when you should not be is a mistake. The real tragedy is that folks are so cavalier about marriage. 'Until death do us part' is a serious vow. But many people seem to enter into this vow with the idea that 'if it doesn't work out, then we can just get a divorce'. So when the turbulent times occur (like it will in all relationships), how committed are these folks to their spouse if they 'can just get a divorce'? Once again, the standard is lowered and we're all much worse off.

--

Humans != selfless

[Johann]

I think people are born self-centered. Are you self-centered when you wish to feed your hungry body? You bet. This is a simple example, but the premise has become exaggerated in our 'me first' society. Don't like your job? Quit! Don't like your wife? Get a divorce. Mud to Mud...

It is up to our society and our own choices that implore us to be less self-centered, i.e., 'to be a good neighbor' as you put it.

As far as I can tell, religion is the most constructive way to teach individuals how to be less self-centered. I say less because we humans cannot be selfless. Some of us have come real close (Mother Theresa, Ghandi, to name 2 examples).

Of course, just like us humans, religion is not perfect. In my mind, it sure beats the selfish, empty feelings I have had without it (Catholicism).

Later.

--

Living on borrowed everything

[schwantz]

We live in a culture of affluent debt and spiraling pyramid schemes of unimagined scale. Our 401K system has been descibed as "The pyramid scheme that doesn't collapse." We finance even the DOWNPAYMENTS on our houses.

It is not surprising that tech is moving to a centralized model. Just as renting, leasing, and contracting give the (sometimes valid) illusion of freedom and mobility, so do the new content distribution models. Convenience has become our new favorite form of empowerment.

All these things ARE empowering under the right circumstances. When there are lots of jobs, and the economy is doing well, this means rapid upward-mobility for workers, and the ability to purchase items based on that upward-mobility. As for software/content, when there is competition for the consumer, the consumer benefits from all this new convience. He/she never has to worry about upgrading their software, as apps are pulled down from a central server. Music is accessible from anywhere, and if you wish to BUY physical objects, it's only OneClick (tm) away.

However, there's a dark side to both of these forms of fluidity. When the "new" economy tanks, employment-at-will becomes much less attractive. Things like job security, rent control, social security and welfare start to seem much more sensible. Having all your life's savings tied up in a mutual fund starts to seem a bit riskier.

Similarly, convenience in the world of bits starts to lose its appeal when competition is stifled, and the number of producers shrinks. All of a sudden, you can't view something you bought. Or maybe you become forced to pay a subscription fee for something you don't need updated. Or maybe you give up your privacy because the alternative is prohibitively expensive or inconvenient. Or maybe you give up your fair-use rights to all media because the 5 companies at the top have decided they don't want you to share "content."

In fact, the very word "content" really sums up our rent-not-own culture. Not "art," or "ideas." CONTENT. Nothing designed to have any lasting value - just stuff to fill a hole in a marketing plan until the next fad rolls around.

Are you content with "content"?

two curves intersect: privacy as fungible

[gelfling]

One curve is the decreasing cost of ownership over time (present value for example); the other curve is the risk cost of managing or upgrading that ownership. When the second curve crosses over the first then it makes more sense to not own. I've always wanted leases for depreciating assets that have little or no residual value like a car or computer because in the end the cost of upgrading is more or less equal whether your current cost of ownership is zero. For example if you own a car for 14 years your cost of ownership is pretty low at the end because you basically only put gas/oil/tires BUT the cost of replacing it higher than if you got rid of that 14 year old car after 3 years instead because the 3 year old car has a residual value which subsidizes the cost of the replacement whereas the 14 year old car does not.

Now for intangible assets like privacy the cost of maintaining it in fact does increase over time just like a physical asset. The more you expose your privacy to invasion the more effort and vigilance you have to expend to protect it. That is, the more you buy online the more junk mail you get for example. Now what is the cost of replacing or upgrading that privacy? Well for one you'd have to acquire a new email address and tell only the people you want about it. That could get pretty expensive actually. And so on. The problem is that we can't package our privacy assets and make them actually fungible. If we could create a packaged unit of privacy or more correctly a unit of information about you then you could buy, sell, lease, trade, transact it couldn't you. I mean if spammers make money off me then why shouldn't I be able to put that information on ebay and barter it for something else??

Go read...

[roderickm]

"Age of Access" by Jeremy Rifkin.

This is off-topic, but I don't mind if it's modera

[kcbrown]

This is off-topic, but I don't mind if it's moderated that way...

Complaining about a person's actions? Fine. Or a whole group's actions. But invalidating a set of beliefs due to bad experiences with a few people who hold, or claim to hold, those beliefs? That's flat-out narrow-minded.

Agreed. But regarding Christianity (or, at least, many forms of it), the reason it's invalid is that it's a logical contradiction to believe in a God that has all of the following attributes:

1. All-knowing (knows everything).
   
2. All-powerful (is capable of everything).
   
3. Actually cares greatly about the welfare of human beings.
   
4. Created the universe we live in.
   

The reason is that if (2) and (3) are true then (4) cannot be true, for the universe we live in is capable of causing us pain. (1) means that this God knew exactly what it was doing when doing (4), and (2) means that this God was capable of building a universe that wouldn't harm us.

The fact that our universe is capable of harming us means that one of the assumptions in the list must be false. But most forms of Christianity that I'm familiar with assert that all four items are true, and hence those forms of Christianity are logically invalid.

None of this means that there aren't useful lessons to be learned from Christianity. But it does mean that the belief systems as systems are compromised. If they can't even get the basic logic right, what can they get right?



--

Re:This has been going on for a long time...

[kcbrown]

Specifically regarding maintenance, there is a certain amount of economics that should be going into these decisions.

For example, the oil change on my car. Yes, I could spend 20 minutes changing the oil myself, but it's really going to take me more time than that (I have to purchase the oil and filter, change into work clothes, change the oil, clean up, change clothes, take the oil to a recycling station), probably at least an hour.

Now, if we break out my salary into a monthly wage, I make over $20/hr post tax, doing what I know how to do well. Thus, that oil change cost me $30 to do myself, as opposed to $20 from the oil change shop.

Given the choice, I will have someone else change my oil.

A lot of people seem to make this mistake.

Your analysis is flawed. The reason it is flawed is that you are being paid a salary. That means that the amount of money you bring in is fixed and independent of the amount of time you spend on the job.

So you will save money if you to do the job of changing your oil yourself, since the time you'll spend doing it isn't time you could be paid for anyway.

Now, if you were a contractor being paid by the hour, your analysis would make a lot more sense.



--

Your frog is as good as cooked

[leonbrooks]

And how do you cook a frog?

Start with a frog in cold water (a nice, uncrowded, unhurried place). Heat (stress) very slowly. Perhaps the frog is thinking of other victims, "hey, maybe they should live in my pot, where it's cooler." All of our pots are getting warmer. The frog adjusts and adjusts to the slowly rising temperature (more frenetic social conditions) until it dies of heatstroke.

You may think that corporatism would be happier if the frog doesn't actually get cooked, just run at the thermal limit - but corporatism isn't collective bright enough to avoid killing off its customers (in the real world, bankrupting them or driving them nuts in one way or another).

And why do we let our frogs get cooked?

1. we're not paying attention (or in some cases not even aninetion);
2. we are continually having it drummed in that we are accidents, valueless, not important in and of ourselves and with a uniqueness which is only a mathematical curiosity, not a fundamental fact of life;
3. relativeism pervades everything. There are no permanent standards, or at least so we are frequently told (and shown); "nice guys finish last" is the message, and it is a false one.

Technology

[Erore]

The short answer is Yes, there is a connection between technology and society. The long answer is it has always been this way.

A stone became a tool in the hands of primitive man and he could use it to crush, kill, tear, shape, etc. This was technology at work and it changed primitive man's life. Made him capable of killing more effeciently so less time was spent hunting, or to say, less time was spent dying because of lack of food.

Agriculture was an invention that led to towns and cities. More food for more people led to more population growth. Technology once again affects men and helps to create society.

Writing still another advancement that led to knowledge continuing past a persons lifetime. This knowledge led to faster improvements in other areas. Society adapts to this new technology.

The Printing Press led to writing being available to everyone. The literary society is born, the Protestant Reformation occurs, scientific growth and understanding increases. Technology shapes nations.

Modern day, we have become a society who revere technology. It has upsurped the role or religion in many people's lives. It holds the promise to our future, the solutions to all of our problems, even the ones it helps to create.

Technology is not a benign thing. It has the potential for good uses, and the potential for bad uses, but either use always has consequences. A nuclear bomb can be used as a weapon of war, or as a deterrent. The deterrent would seem to be the better use, but it led to the Cold War and all the economic and social ramifications of that.

It is only natural that things happening in the realm of technology are reflected in society. Or vice versa since neither exist in a vacuum.

Leased.

[seeded]

-- This rings right along with Fight Club. The idea that the things you own end up owning you.
Evolution is exponentially increasing, compaired to say, the 1700's > prior. I think that with the transient lifestyles we choose to life, leasing is the longest commitment anyone can afford to make. Is it unfortunate? I dunno... I know i don't wanna be stuck with my efficiency apartment and my k6 2 400 forever.

[sorta OT] The Onion's insight...

[artdodge]

I'm reminded of this point-counterpoint article from a few weeks ago.

On one side: "The Future Will Be A Totalitarian Government Dystopia".

On the other side: "The Future Will Be a Privatized Corporate Dystopia".

This may very well be the future.

[joshy]

I see a couple of trends here:

In the business world: Companies are getting smaller and faster. That means your resources need to be more modular and hot swappable (to put it in programming terms). Everything is transient and recycled: the cars, the copier, the cubes; everything. This leads to lots of leasing and contracting.

In the personal world: Consumer products are increasingly commoditized. anything you buy has three competitors, is consumable, and wouldn't last very long anyway. We no longer have such attachment to personal posessions over the long haul. Nobody cares about a hand crafted table that has been handed down from generation to generation. All products are effectively commodities. This will only get worse when bio and nano-tech finally hit.

Why own something if you will get rid of it in the future anyway. and half of what you would want to own doesn't exist in a physical sense anyway. I recently looked at my finances and realized that the vast majority of my purchases were for empheral consumables: movies, CDs, software. About the only physical thing I buy is food and clothing. (hmm... "movies, music, microcode, and high speed pizza delivery." :)

I'm not going to take a stand for or against this lifestyle, but it's interesting to note that it has some difficulties to be resolved. The average person has many more choices to make. And for any particular choice (say, which bank to use) there are many more alternatives. Add in a constant stream of advertising and distractions and you end up with a country full of nervous breakdowns.

How do you solve it? I'm thinking of a few things. Everyone will need a personal assistant, digital or real. Everyone will have a expert/broker to assist them in a particular area. Imagine having not only legal, medical, and financial consultants, but also ones for planning your meals, purchasing audio equipment, designing your home decorations, and teaching your children. And of course if you have too many assistants then you need another assistant just to manage it all.

It may be a strange vision, but it's certainly a possibility with the way things are going.

In the future everything will be outsourced.

- joshy

Re:Argh!

[Hish]

Thank you

Re:The difference is pay

[cgori]

On leasing -- you are not the target market for a lease. The target market for a lease is the person who would be trading in the car around the time (or even before) he/she finished making the payments to BUY it.

In that case, what is the difference between leasing and owning? Why bother building equity if you are just going to turn around and trade it in? The interest used to be tax-deductible but that loophole is long-gone.

The people who lease like driving new cars where the maintenance is (mostly) taken care of. The car becomes an appliance that you pay to own, and every so often you get a new one when the first one becomes "obselete".

I don't exactly agree with this mentality (nor would you, I'm guessing), but I know lots of people like this, and I can sort of understand it. These people want the hassle out of their lives. Something breaks -- take it to the dealer, get a loaner, the dealer calls you in 3 days and you get your car back. If you own it, you have to either have a cool mechanic or a nice dealership (yah, right!) to diagnose and farm out the work for you to the appropriate places, get you the loaner, etc.

It's all about convenience. Of course, if you enjoy solving problems, probably that's not for you. That's why you are a developer/engineer/techie...

Re:But I want this option

[baglunch]

But if you own (finished paying for) the things you have, then if you want to move house or swap cars at a moment's notice, you still can. AND you'll have some collateral to help you get the new things. Or you can just plain SELL your owned things and have more money to apply towards your new leased lifestyle. Ownership allows you more options, not less.

Re:Don't like it? Don't buy into it.

[Kyobu]

Cash is completely irrelevant. In your pursuit of karma by easy means, you forgot to stay on topic. We are talking about ownership of intellectual property, not about data mining. Two completely separate issues, comprende? Anyway, sometimes you really do need something that has to be licensed. Even if they is not fundamental to the contiunation of life as we know it, also, many things are nice to have, and a lot of people prefer not to get into philosophical discussions of the nature of ideas and ownership and the meaning of meaning when they just want to rent The Rock. Or use Office, although God knows why.

Re:credit card consumers

[Kyobu]

A more germane claim would be that a primitive society is more stable than a more advanced one. Social grouping is a requirement for war, because without a government (tribes included), you'd never get enough people who wanted to fight for the same cause. However, most people (though not all) would concede that there are benefits to urban living, writing, art, etc. that outweigh the disadvantages, provided there are checks and balances.
It is misleading to assert that overpopulation, for example, is a result of mobility. It is, instead, a result of depletion of resources, which is rather indirectly a result of mobility (people settle down, they farm, they build cities, they reproduce, there's too many, they die).
Starvation, though, is not at all a result of stability. The opposite, actually. Stability allows agriculture, which allows a steady diet. Huting and gathering is very hard in many regions, and many hunter-gatherers die from starvation. It's easy to overhunt or to eat all the berries, and sometimes there isn't more stuff over the next hill.
As a counterargument, I would point out that archaeologists have also not found evidence of widespread literacy, the building of cathedrals, federal government, rock 'n roll, or cable TV among ancient hunter-gatherers.

Re:Choice vs Control

[Kyobu]

That's not entirely true. If you have enough money, you really can BUY a car on the spot. Anyway, the point about software, etc. (no pun intended) is that with some things, there really is no way to own it. If you buy shrink-wrapped computer program, you do not own the music in any sense of the term. Not only can you not make money off it (which most people would agree is a reasonable restriction), you can't even lend it to someone and then take it back (plus all kinds of other things you can't do).

Re:Cheer up!

[Kyobu]

Well, maybe he's exaggerating, but where I live (Los Angeles), there is virtually no concept of community. Because of the peculiar history of LA (the tire companies bought the entire mass-transit system), you need a car to go anywhere. Even to go to a park big enough to spread a picnic blanket, or to a market to buy milk. As a consequence, everyone is in their own little world and is oblivious to the rest of the city. There is Little League and the Farmer's Market (Santa Monica, not Fairfax), but other than that, there's not much in the way of community. My suburban neighbors never talk to each other, and we have never had a block party. My aunt's neighborhood in Ann Arbor, MI, is just the opposite, but sadly AA is getting ultragentrified. It's too bad. It's a cool town with the best deli on the planet (this is scientific fact).

Re:You've hit on something crucial, behind HOW is

[198348726583297634]

What happened to the 30 hour work week? When the hell are we going to enjoy this 'prosperity' that we've created?

I don't know about you guys, but I enjoy it right now. I'm paid hourly, and I'd much rather have my time than the money they give me for it. I've put in some overtime occasionally when there's a big project I get really into, but I choose when I put in that overtime (and, of course, I tend not to overestimate my skills, so I allot enough time for projects.) You can choose your job; if the enjoyment you get out of life is worth it, you'll take a lower-paying or a less prestigious job in order to spend more time doing more of the stuff you enjoy.

Whoever quoted Tyler Durden was right. You're not your job, you're not your Acura, and life sure isn't about possessions. Lease what vs buy what? Who cares!

Re:...lack of community, lack of continuity

[Skeezix]

Leased houses, apartments, cars, etc just fit into a sense of never quite belonging, or being there. We develop online communities (like Slashdot, or my old MUD, Tsunami) to combat the transience of the of our lives. As long as I can get online, I can be with my friends, I can be informed, I can be part of a group

Indeed. And it's a group that spans the globe and never sleeps. People may change jobs, move to another city, state, or country, but they'll always be online. While the cyber world increasingly mimics the "real" world (with its many, many subcultures that often never cross), there's something a bit disconcerting about the whole thing. It's just not real. To borrow the phrase from the original poster, it's part of the "Leased Life." Do you really know the people you chat with, email with, submit patches to. In some cases, yes. But more and more people are retreating to their leased homes after working all day at a job (where their efforts ultimately benefit a corporation but provide little or no personal benefit) to sit online and participate in relationships that for all intents and purposes aren't real. We eat preprepared food, watched prepacked entertainment, and enjoy conversation with people we don't really know and will likely never meet in person. The work of our hands only serves to provide money which we use to lease the rest of the things we need and want in life. Is it any wonder that depression has been steadily on the rise?
----

Re:zippy

[Skeezix]

Out of curiousity, why did you copy comment #29. Why not come up with your own comment?
----

A paranoided society?

[Cool Hand Luke]

This is just an idea, but does anyone think living years and years under the threath of fiery nuclear death from above has any to do with this?

Here's where I'm coming from: When I was just a wee little geek (back in the 80's), the biggest threath to our little green planet wasn't pollution, nor overpopulation, nor Microsoft, it was that the USA and USSR got into a game of red rover with their IBMs. Sort of makes one think twice about investing in long-time projects, like CDs, mortages, husbands/wives, etc.

And all of a sudden, *poof*, the USSR turns into a bunch of small, third world countries with little of the international clout the USSR once had. Now what? Well, for the past ten or so years (the 90's), we've been hunting for the next big bad boogie man, wheither it's a rouge nation (hi Saddam), terrorists (from both beyond and within our borders), our kids, our food, our companies (hi Mr. Gates), or even our computers (hi Melissa) and the folks who run them(hi 31173 d00Dz). At least with the USSR around, you knew who could do us all in. Now, our society is paranoidly looking over its shoulder to see who's going to slip the knife in its back.

"Sorry honey, I can't go out tonight. I could get AIDS, bombed, shot, sued, poisoned, hacked, downsized, policed, profiled, or spammed.

How about watching an video instead?"

(An aside, doesn't the game show Greed seem 15 years too late? They even have Chuck Woolery hosting it, for Christsakes!)

George Lee

Free Software/Free Art

[Felinoid]

One parellel is the software community and the art community.
As one profesional programmer put it.. programmers are artists...

Right now programming is treated as a comodity not at artform where as paintings and sculptures are treated as pure art. The reality being they are all comoditys and art.

Byond the "comodity" vs "art" market they end up being pritty much the same.

The commertal software community says bad things about open source and open source says bad things of commertal software...
In art the artists community seeks to go after artists who give art away. It's "unfair" to other artists when one artist gives his/her work away.
If you lissen to the comments from the commertal software community you'll hear a re-occuring theam. Copying software is illegal... A radio ad is asking teachers and parents to punish children if they use ANY software they did not pay for. Even if that software is public domain, freeware, shareware or demoware.

In the other end... Open source would have you believe selling software is evil. Free artists seem to have a similer opinion of comertal artists.

Also expensive software develupment tools and unusual liccens agreements restrict if not prevent free software develupment.
Simillerly it is difficult if not imposable for a free artist to have his/her work displayed at art shows.

Also commertal software develupers at times are treated shabbly by some VARs (selling copys of commertal software or worse giving same away). Commertal artists get simmiler treatment by art shows with volintears returnning art damaged after the show.

I'm sure other parellels can also be drawn... But I've more than made my point..

McDonald's Coffee [OT]

[Sancho]

It's hard to document "common sense" but lawyers make it a requirement. Most people -- one would assume -- know their coffee is hot. So when you sterilize yourself in a hideous coffee accident, you get to sue McDonalds because they didn't put a flashing neon sign on the cup to the effect of "Hey, dumbass! This coffee is freakin' hot."

To be fair, it wasn't so much that the coffee was scalding hot as that it was so hot that it melted the bottom of the cup off, thus spilling the coffee and causing severe burns.
The liability in terms of not mentioning that the coffee was hot was a side effect and a spin that McDonald's put on the story, to partially discredit the person this happened to and to make it look like THEY were the ones that justice failed.

Re:McDonald's Coffee [OT]

[jpowers]

My mom always bitched about how hot their coffee was. I guess they keep (kept?) it that way so it tastes fresh a little longer.

-jpowers

Re:McDonald's Coffee [OT]

[luckykaa]

I guess they keep (kept?) it that way so it tastes fresh a little longer.

You guess right.

Re:return of feudalism...

[Midnight Thunder]

The most beautiful places in the world call for us to buy some property there and settle and protect it.

True, but then everyone follows your move and the most beautiful place is no more.

Re:Yes.

[aphrael]

Ah, but *all* of those depend on people having different definitions of "self interest" than yours.

I use Windows; it's in my self-interest, as it earns my a paycheck. I smoke pot; it's in my self-interest, as it's often the best way available to relax. I occasionally drink to excess; at that time, I think it's in my self interest.

That you define *your* self interest differently than I define mine doesn't obviate the fact that i'm not acting contrary to my own self-interest, as I define it. :)

Re:credit card consumers

[aphrael]

Because of this, I claim that a mobile and fragemented society is more stable and more congenial then one which is locked up in position and with roots.


Certainly a taoist would argue this: it is only by seeking to preserve *the present* that we introduce fear and jealousy.

Re:Yes.

[aphrael]

You're simply making a distinction between short-term self interest (immediate gratification) vs long-term self interest. In the long run, it's the latter that counts.

Sure --- but there's a trade-off; it's not in my long-term best interest to never do the things that bring me short-term gratification; i'd end up committing suicide from depression that way.

DIY

[ibodog]

If you want to own something, make it yourself. Start small and work your way up. Maybe you'll even be able to profit from selling the something you made someday!

Even the internet was made by big government and big companies. Who's twisting your arm to use it? There are alternatives.

Re:Mud to Mud

[Paul Wright]

I do think there is some validity to the notion that the moral decline in our country is very much due to the mindsets of people who have abandoned any Code, who forsake all religion, just because the primary religion observed in our country (Christianity, but you knew that) for such a long period of time was realized to be tainted with holes, contradictions, and hypocrisy. This strikes me as throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I've been thinking the same thing for some time. A code to live by is important. Spirituality is also important. I know religion is not for everyone, but there is also a lot to be learned from non-religious philosophies (eg: Taoism) that help people put things in perspective. Good role models also help.

I've just read Neil Stephenson's The Diamond Age again. In the book, the societies which have unifying beliefs and social norms are those which do well. I think Stephenson is right (he makes a similar point in Cryptonomicon, in relation to Christianity explicitly).

Of course, the reason for believing any given thing should be because you think it is true and good, not because you think it will benefit society. But ISTM that good belief system will have benefit the society which believes it. Stephenson envisages people realising these benefits and choosing to live in a society which has rules and in which it is OK to say that some things are right and other things are wrong.

What put me in mind of Stephenson was the discussion on hypocrisy further up the thread. There's a nice bit in the book where the point is made that if you want to say someone is bad but you've got a relativist viewpoint, the only thing you can do is accuse someone of hypocrisy. (I'd add "intolerance" too, especially when it is used as a code word for merely saying that some things are good and others bad). That's why hypocrisy and intolerance are seen as the worst possible sins today, I suppose: there are no others left.

Note: I'm not saying hypocrisy and intolerance are good things, but there are worse things which seem to be taken for granted. Materialism and selfishness, for example.

A number of problems

[Phreek]

There are a number of causes for the effects that cliff is seeing. First, people are just plain lazy. It takes too much effort to figure out the best deal, read the license, comparison shop, etc. Second, as a poster above noted, at least on the consumer side, renting and leasing allows one to get more than one could otherwise afford. Third, people are impatient. Instead of saving in order to buy that nice expensive car, we lease it, so we can have it NOW. Forth, on the coroporate/merchant side, renting/leasing is good business--they get to both keep the merchandise AND "sell" it. Think about cars, for example. A dealer can lease it for a number of years, making quite a bit of money from it, and then sell it as a program car for more than the same used car would go for if sold by an individual who had purchased it new.

This whole trend is scary for another reason: in the software industry, the company gets to keep their product, license it for $$, and then charge for tech support. If the rest of the commercial world follows suit, we might see other companies trying to cut costs in the same way. For example, no longer will the dealer of your leased car take care of maintenance, nor your landlord maintain your apartment, etc. In the future that cost and responsibility will get pushed off onto the consumer as well. In such cases, we will not own our "stuff", will pay someone else for letting us use it, but at the same time hold all of the responsibilities traditionally held to belong to the owner.

Re:Life Imitates Art?

[Vagary]

Okay, in the case of houses I've seen the math done, so I know it's just barely not a good example of this, but I'll go for it anyway: presumably renting is cheaper than paying a mortage (otherwise it would be even more foolish than you suggest) so what if you took the extra money and invested it in the stock market? Only the desperate think that their house is also a real estate investment. Your house may go up in price, but so will everywhere you'd want to move. The only time this works is when you're moving to a cheaper dwelling or a different type that's in lower demand (although this is something the Baby Boomers may be doing fairly soon, their doing it will depress house prices and raise condo prices).

As for rent being tax detuctable, the very existence of income tax suggests that the government doesn't listen very hard to their economists.

Re:This has been going on for a long time...

[drewish_princess]

Your analysis is flawed. The reason it is flawed is that you are being paid a salary. That means that the amount of money you bring in is fixed and independent of the amount of time you spend on the job. So you will save money if you to do the job of changing your oil yourself, since the time you'll spend doing it isn't time you could be paid for anyway. Now, if you were a contractor being paid by the hour, your analysis would make a lot more sense.

Actually he's correct. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act working more than 40 hours in a week entitles you to overtime pay (pay and a half). Salaried workers are also entitled to overtime, to quote from a Dept. of Labor fact sheet:

Salary for Workweek Exceeding 40 Hours: A fixed salary for a regular workweek longer than 40 hours does not discharge FLSA statutory obligations. For example, an employee may be hired to work a 45 hour workweek for a weekly salary of $300. In this instance the regular rate is obtained by dividing the $300 straight-time salary by 45 hours, resulting in a regular rate of $6.67. The employee is then due additional overtime computed by multiplying the 5 overtime hours by one-half the regular rate of pay ($3.335 x 5 = $16.68).

So assuming your salary is based on 40 hours a week, as most are, monthly salary / (40 hour a week days * 4 weeks a month) will do nicely for purposes of computing an approximate hourly rate.

drewish

addendum

[drewish_princess]

the formula should read: monthly salary / (40 hours * 4 weeks)

Re:Yes.

[Rombuu]

The original premise of the market economy is that customers would be smart enough to choose the best service over a weaker service. Now, that's not the case anymore.

What evidence do you have for this statement?

Nobody reads the license agreement before they hit 'OK'. Is this good for the consumer? No!

Oh really? Can you tell me any other instance where people act contrary to their own self interests? I can't think of any.

Is this what corporate america wants? Yes!

Ah, here we go.. the so insiteful, anything good for business is bad for us mentality.

Re:What do you expect......

[Rombuu]

We are becoming a society that wants things easy and as cheap as possible...


What's wrong with that?

Re:credit card consumers

[Rombuu]

You can get a job making buggy whips if you don't want to move around as much.

We, as the technical class, should steer technology towards improving stability in our lives, not undermining it

We (whoever that is) should do no such thing. Your job is not to be a social engineer, nor is mine.

Re:Yes.

[Rombuu]

How can you say that? Most people know software piracy is wrong, etc, etc, etc...

Do you have any statistics to back your statement?

Re:Yes.

[Rombuu]

but the idea that that don't actually own what they paid for is lost on them

Hmmm, the video rental business seems to be doing fine on the basis of licensing and people not owning something they pay for.

Re:it's all about -

[Rombuu]

The box (well, I guess if TiVo goes belly up before the box breaks, the lifetime of TiVo corp).

It's a good deal if you plan on using it for more than 20 months.

Re:it's all about -

[Rombuu]

This is the ONE reason I will not buy a TiVo. I will NOT buy into their monthly service crap.

Lifetime service: $199. That's what I signed up for.

Re:Hey Molly!

[angst_ridden_hipster]

Sing it!

And if you want more, visit:
http://www.fortunecity.com/tinpan/parton/2/hill. html
-
bukra fil mish mish
-
Monitor the Web, or Track your site!

Re:Life is more than things

[Killean]

While I have benefited from my father's stuff, I have more benefited from his love and wisdom.

Well yeah, I hope so... but to me that just part of being a parent. Of course you're going to love and cherish your kids, teach them morals and respect, philosophies on life blah blah blah..

I had a good friend I used to work with who had a serious genetic disease (marfan syndrome), and he knew it, and lived his life like he was going to die soon (most of them don't live past the age of 40). He ended up being a father too, a little girl, and when he died at the ripe old age of 26 he left behind squat - no college education fund, no special wedding day for her, no little cute dresses with pink bows for her to wear to sunday school classes.

Love and wisdom and the stupid psalm crap matters in the end, but when my son is sixteen I don't want him driving the piece of crap that I'm driving now...

Re:Life is more than things

[Killean]

blah.. you may not be able to 'take stuff with you' but you still can pass things on to your progeny to make their existance a tad more pleasant...

I'm going to be a father for the first time in about 6 weeks or so, and I've begun to really appreciate the material equity I'm aquiring.

outdoors, life and a few quotes to boot

[J.J.]

As well as a computer nerd, I'm an avid outdoorsman. I try to get several weekend backpacking trips in each year, and at least one week-long trip. Over the years, I've found that it helps me keep myself sane. The "Big Blue Room" helps me keep my perspective of the world in check - specifically my place in it. (and how small that really is)

In college, I spent several summers as a backpacking guide in the Rockies... over recent years, I've been toying with the idea of quitting my job, and doing my best to find some type of "seasonal" programming positions - using the off-season to work in the outdoors. At this point, I don't really care what it is, as long as I get the extended time off to work as a guide of some type.

On another note, I've always been a fan of quotations. There are people in the world that are far more intelligent and eloquent than I. Why use my words, when they've said it before?

I went out for a walk, and finally concluded to stay out until sundown; for by going out, I found I was really going in.
- John Muir

And this, our life exempt from public haunt, finds tongues in trees, books in the running brooks, sermons in stones, and good in everything.
- William Shakespere

There is more to life than increasing it's speed.
-Ghandi

J.J.

Re:Totally offtopic

[J.J.]

Heh. Not sure, really. But I doubt it. This John Muir is most remembered for founding the Sierra Club - he was born in 1838. Since the "Idiot Book" was published in '69, he would've had to have been 89 years old at the date of publication.

Here's a bio, FYI.

proofing

[quux26]

Ah, the joys of proofreading.

My .02
Quux26

this is america

[eMBee]

you are describing the united states, what you say does not hold true in western europe.

common standard there is to lease appartments, but lease is secure, that is, to limit the lease for a certain amount of time with the option to renew is even illegal in most places, normal lease contracts are unlimited, and there is almost no acceptable reason for the landlord to terminate a lease. landlords also can not raise the rent at will. there are laws to safeguard tenants.

you can not be laid off at will either. companies must have a strong reason to layoff people (and be prepared to prove the need in court), employees hae a lot more rights than in the US.

greetings, eMBee.
--

Re:this is america

[eMBee]

if you lease, you are taking responsibility for the tenant. if you own a single house you can certainly rent it for a short period, because you can claim personal need.
however of you own a dozend houses or an appartment building, you can hardly claim that, and therefore have to take the full responsibility, not to do as you please, but to act in the tenants best interest.

greetings, eMBee.
--

Re:this is america

[eMBee]

see, that is the difference, you only give security to the rich, worse even, in most places in europe i don't need to pay guards to safeguard me, the notion of 'bad neigborhoods' hardly exists (it does exist, but is by far not as common as here in the US)
i am not at all interrested in wasting my money for security.
freedom means that i can go anywhere and do what i please without having to fear for my life.
i do not have this freedom in the US.
freedom also means that i can live a decent life even with a low paid job, and that i do not always have to try to make as much money as i possibly can.
freedom means, not having to be a slave to money.

greetings, eMBee.
--

Re:Yes.

[alkali]

Secondly, the documents seem to be written intentionally so that most people are unable to read them without a couple of years of law school training. They're loaded with legal language and as much fluff text and obscuration as possible, burying the terms of the agreement and making it a burden to read. The textual equivalent of having to travel several hundred miles through difficult terrain in order to retrieve the easy to read version.

I'd agree that the licenses are difficult to read, but not just for non-lawyers -- they're hard for anyone to read. It is not unusual for junior lawyers to be assigned to spend hours summarizing contracts so that lawyers with decades of experience can understand what they mean. They don't give you a secret decoder ring when you pass the bar.

Damn Extrans to hell!

[TheDullBlade]

Why the hell is the default setting to convert HTML tags to plain text?! And why isn't it labeled "Plain Text"?

Anyone else remember the good old days before "Extrans" and "Plain Old Text" inexplicably swapped functions?

Of course we've progressed!

[TheDullBlade]

We have much better toys now, and more people are flossing.

Re:Of course we've progressed!

[B. Samedi]

You also forgot living longer and healthier.

Re:Of course we've progressed!

[B. Samedi]

There's far, far more free-floating existential angst around these days than there ever was when we were hunting and gathering in small tribal societies.

You can prove this? How do you know that these people weren't miserable? The only way you could argue they weren't is the fact that they didn't know a different life so they couldn't be angst ridden about it.

As for obese Americans... yes that's not incredibly heathly but you don't see them keeling over at thirty or forty from smallpox, the common cold, or the flu do you? We really are better off then we once were. We're better educated, wealthier, and healthier. If I had to chose a time in history to be alive it would be right here and now.

Corporate communism!?

[patrixx]

Maybe this trend will come to a point where corporations in the US lobby the congress to legislate all private ownership as illegal.

Non private owned intellectual and other property is soo much easier for the corporates to control. Like DIVX and DVD or software that you buy, but don't own the right to modify or do whatever you want with. You've only bought a LICENSE to use it.

What an irony, if the country that fought for individual freedom and against communism so boldly would end up like this, betrayed by the very institutions it protected...

WHOWHOWHOHAHahah! - Carl Marks in his grave ;-)

Cheers! /Patrix, Sweden

Re:Hey Molly!

[_Lint_]

Yeah, in the fifties, one could buy a good house in the suburbs for about half one's anual salary.
Now, you have to save for years to put a down payment on a house, with a morgage that won't be paid off until you are retired.
Of course, by then you will probably be in a different house, so you never really did own the first, did you?

Oh BOO HOO!

[DonkPunch]

In a few months, I will own my car. Completely. All mine. I don't do the leasing BS. That's for people making 30K a year who still want to drive a Lexus.

"I don't own my music. I don't own my software."
WTF are you talking about? I own the complete rights to every song I've written and recorded. That's MY music.

I own the complete rights to every piece of software I've written FOR MYSELF (versus software I was PAID to write for somebody else). How is it I don't own my software?

Copyright law says: I created it. I didn't create it as a work for hire. I own it. Simple as that.

Unless you're still buying into the Stallman anti-copyright philosophy. Can't help you then.

Of course, under the Stallman program, you won't even own the music and software you created. You'll be forced to "share" it with everybody else. Good for the freeloaders; bad for the creators. You'll forgive me if I think the current system is better -- I'm a creator.

What your article really meant to say was, "I don't own OTHER people's music. I don't own OTHER people's software." But that's not nearly as slashdot-worthy, is it?

Re:Oh BOO HOO!

[cpt kangarooski]

Again?

You can't own information. You _CAN_ be the only person allowed to do certain things with it, but that's not at all the same. (copyright is: a temporary monopoly on the distribution of copies of the music, sometimes)

However, what he was complaining about was that copyright holders are attempting to control how he can use material he paid for a copy of which flies in the face of the first amendment and the tradition of first sale.

As for RMS, you're missing two issues. First, that the GPL only kicks in if you want to redistribute someone elses' GPL'ed code. You may of course use it in any other way you want, which is traditional for all copyrighted material. Copyright has nothing to do with use. It concerns itself with some, but not all cases of distribution of copies.

Moneyed copyright holders are trying to change this even though it's unconstitutional. Their efforts are a Bad Thing.

And of course, if there were no copyrights on software (personally I can accept copyrights, but the current system both sucks and blows) then while the GPL would no longer work, there would be no point in hiding source code - people could legally copy everything anyway. I suspect RMS would not have as big a problem with that as you might think. The GPL is only a good solution within the current rules.

But the point remains, no one owns information. It's not property. It's nothing like property. Attempts to treat it as though it were are doomed to failure, which is why the law doesn't do that anyway. Copyright isn't property law.

Re:Oh BOO HOO!

[DonkPunch]

I don't own my music. I own copies of my music. I don't own most of my software. I believe that I own copies of my software.

Wrong. You own copies of someone else's music. You own copies of someone else's software.

This "my" business is important. The only transfer of ownership was materials -- the box and the CD. The bits encoded into the CD are the product of someone else's hard work. They are not transferring ownership of those bits to you because $13.95 is not adequate consideration for x hours in a studio. $89.00 is not enough to repay dozens (hundreds?) of developers working thousands of hours.

Therefore, they loan you the bits. They let you use them.

I agree some of the new copyright terms are onerous -- that's why I don't buy the software (and I don't pirate it, either). "Voting with your dollars" and all that. When I really need something, I'll either tolerate someone else's license or I'll write the thing myself. If I write it myself and decide to release it, I'll release it under whatever terms I damn well please. Why? Because I still OWN it.

Oh, and to mister downmoderation, I'm terribly sorry. I keep forgetting that Slashdork won't tolerate dissenting opinions because it thinks it IS the dissenting opinion.

Re:Oh BOO HOO!

[remande]

There is owning a work, there is owning a copy of a work, and there is leasing a work.

Next to my keyboard is a CD of Devo's Greatest Hits. I do not own Devo's Greatest Hits; if I did, I would get royalty checks off of "Whip it!". But since I bought this at the record store, I own a copy of Devo's Greatest Hits.

Owning a copy has legal significance. I can play it all day long, and Devo can't sue me. I can play it backwards. I can reverse engineer the sheet music. I can convert it to MIDI and rearrange it. I can even copy it onto a cassette tape so that I can play it in my car. I can't play it publicly, I can't make a copy for my friends, and I can't take any derivative work and hand it to others.

Some software companies are trying to eliminate the concept of owning a copy. They say that they are granting you a license to use. This is entirely different. Microsoft wants to tell me that I don't own Windows (I agree; I wouldn't want to), but even that I don't own the copy of Windows that is on the CD that shipped with my computer! They want to tell me that I have limited rights to use the software, less rights than I would have if I owned a copy of the software.

AFAIK, this is all legal posturing and bull. If you make a CD with your copyrighted property on it, and I legally buy it, I have bought a copy of that material. I have a very limited right to copy, but a fairly unlimited right to use.

I don't own my music. I own copies of my music. I don't own most of my software. I believe that I own copies of my software. Some vendors disagree.

YES!

[jpowers]

WTF is with helmet and seatbelt laws, anyway? How can you expect people to take the decisions they have to make seriously if those decisions have no real consequence? "Look, kids, that man didn't wear a helmet on his motorcycle and now he's smeared all over the street. Make sure you wear yours, okay?"

And drug law: why? What if they made heroin legal tomorrow? The overdose rate would go up 10x for like a year, then drop back down as all the idiots killed themselves off.

It's time self-concerning actions went back to being rights.

-jpowers

Re:YES!

[jpowers]

Death penalty? There's a difference between letting people die and killing them. The crack addled theives should have no problem getting their drug, since high availability will keep it cheap, instead of the current "first-one's-free" method of distribution. Almost MS-like, really.

Then they can OD and die without any help from us. Only if they want to, see? That's why they call it natural selection.

-jpowers

Re:YES!

[Tower]

Yep - let the idiots burn their brains out with the drug of choice, but add a law (this is my favorite part) that allows any drug-related crime (say shoplifting while high on crack so one could buy more) to warrant the death penalty. Self overdose or something kind (like skinning). Enough cocaine to kill a horse. Then they die happy and get the heck out of the gene pool.

Meanwhile, the tax income from sales would be nice...

(in a perfect world, this might work......... of course, in a perfect world, we wouldn't have 10yr old addicts, either)

Re:YES!

[Tower]

hmmm... my sarcasm must have gotten a little carried away there 8^) It tends to do that from time to time if I don't keep it well fed. Better put it down for the night - no telling what it might do later.

No relation or "The death of privacy and pr0n"

[Obiwan Kenobi]

There are certain corrollaries. But these, if anything, are stretches to see if we can compare apples with oranges. The fact that you lease cars and the fact that you buy licenses for software (even if you buy them for free...there's an oxymoron) have nothing to do with one another. Your music is yours. If you bought it and own the CD, you can MP3 it all to pieces. We don't lease software (yet!) and hopefully never will.

Privacy however, is a whole other can of worms. Spam and junk (snail) mail are the same thing. Useless ads and trash that we throw away (most of us) the instant we recieve it. Nothing is done to stop it, but nothing is done to further it either. You don't see ads promoting or discrediting it. People may hate spam, but do you see anyone actually doing anything about it? Nope. Our privacy, as far as the "real" world is concerned, is a moot point. We have police records and fingerprint records and birth certificates and (not to mention) social security numbers, the most privacy-invading thing that the internet (as of now) is free of. Just wait until each person is assigned an (Ipv6?) IP address at birth. From then on, when connected to the "Net" you must use that IP address on the "Terminal" you're currently located at, and everything you do will be recorded, studied and analyzed (Orwell knew what he was doing...). We're entering a scary world where everyone is beginning to know everyone elses business on a very intimate and personal level, and this trend we're seeing about cookies and form-filling and spam mailing lists is only the beginning. The government will (hopefully never, but probably) catch on and begin to control it the same way they try to control everything else. Then we'll have to register our computers with Deeds Of Merchandise as well as forms upon forms of why we have it and what we're going to use it for (visions of Brazil pop in my head).

In short, this question is irrelevant to the fact that we buy licenses to something basically intangible. We cannot hold a program, or feel it, or appraise it. Think of a bank trying to give you a loan to finance a program. They can't appraise a past work and use that as collateral.

In shorter:
Leasing isn't licensing, your music is yours, and privacy has been dead for a while now.

The matrix has you...

[Streiff]

Maybe this is a case of the Matrix...

Think about it, what if the machines had self
modifying code that depended on a set a variables. One wrong pointer and the new set of variables depends on the technilogical trend...

The Matrix has you, and there is a bug in the program. Be afraid, very afraid. :)

Come see my website.
http://come.to/streiff

Re:How Many People Feel This Way?

[hemanman]

That your place in society is based on your own abilities.

Don't forget luck... your place in society can easily be put into this calculation:

Place in sociey = Luck * Abilities * People you know in higher places * Asslicking
-H

Re:Alvin Toffler's "Future Shock"

[hemanman]

What about a Slashdot interview with Mr. Toffler?

I'll vote for that anytime!

-H

Re:People are not stupid

[Snafoo]

I don't share your respect for (or estimation of)
'collegiate-level' education.

Undergrads are IMO frequently quite dim. And don't even get me started on the pap that some technical/career training colleges churn out.

IMHO, most the material in most undergrad courses can be successfully assimilated in a week or less, given proper motivation. But no. Our semesters are filled with busywork and time-wasting lectures.

The University Idea continues its hundred-year decay....

Re:What an Excellent Question!!!

[slockhar]

Will this all come to a head? Will there be a point where a revolution will take place -- blaming technology, rather than our ability to control our lives?

Rifkin's The Age of Access is Very Relavant Here

[monopole]

This issue is the central thesis of The Age of Access : The New Culture of Hypercapitalism, Where All of Life Is a Paid-For Experience by Jeremy Rifkin, ISBN 1585420182. I haven't had a chance to read it, but from an interview with the author it seems to directly address this issue. Rifkin argues that we are transitioning from owning tangible items to paying (continuously) for experiences, such as the experience of riding your leased Lexus. He argues that the salesmen now want to enter into ongoing relationships (rather than simply selling something to you free and clear, they want to sell servicing [Mr. Goodwrench], upgrades[Trade ins], and subscriptions[On Star]). He argues that there are many downsides and a few upsides. This article (http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151 ,12726,00.html) provides a good synopis of his arguement.

Re:Do not rent or lease.

[B. Samedi]

Oh I fully intend to drag them to court and maybe the wrecker company that has the car. I was posting as a example of what landlords will do if given the chance.

Terraform Western Civilization

[Error 404]

This slogan available for rent.
Our secret is gamma-irradiated cow manure
Mitsubishi ad

Re:Terraform Western Civilization

[ComradePenguin]

Western Cizilization?
I think it would be a good idea. ;)
------------------------

To quote "the Old Man"

[ronfar]

...from Robocop, "Nowadays, neighborhoods just seem to be places where bad things happen, don't be sentimental."

Of course, he was just excusing the destruction of the concept of neighborhood because it favored OCP's corporate goals.

I think we are seeing the rise of corporation based tyranny, in which property is owned by corporations, not individuals.

IamnotanumberIamafreeman...

hahahahaha

Leasing is a corparate, not tech, ideal

[Phallus]

Look at where the trend toward ASPs, UCITA, DMCA, and etc is coming from. It's from the big corporate technology players. And they're certainly not in all this leasing stuff because that's the natural direction for technology to go. It's because the rights of ownership, fair use, and etc make it harder to sell us more product. The less rights we have over the products we use, the more power big business has.

This is nothing to do with technology, and everything to do with economics.

tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose

The other side of the coin...

[ericfitz]

With ownership comes a number of responsibilities that don't go along with leasing/renting: maintenance and upkeep.

Why should I spend twice as much per month to buy a car rather than lease it? I intend to change cars as soon as the warranty runs out, so ownership is little advantage if I get favorable lease terms. In the meantime, I get lower payments during the time that the car is under warranty. At the end of that period I get a new car and begin again. I never have to pay for repairs (I have a car with bumper-to-bumper coverge for 3 years including all routine maintenance), so my budget is much more predictable.

Similarly, I'm a homeowner but I don't like having to mow the grass and so forth, and I dread any big repairs and what they'll do to my budget. If I had an apartment I have more restrictions (not many, I'm in a homeowner's assoc) on what I can do but I get more of my free time back and my budget is more predictable.

All I'm saying is that ownership is not a panacea, especially when durable goods are not as durable as they used to be and maintenance costs are astronomical. In many cases I choose to trade ownership for reduced time investment or reduced risk of large expenditures for repairs.

Just some thoughts.

Re:Hey Molly!

[MrEd]

We have progressed, right?

Well, as long as we forget the very-hard-to-comprehend facts about our destruction of the rainforest, extinction of species, depeletion of oil, creation of air and water-borne toxins, and the enormous human suffering still going on outside the First World, yep.

And yes, I know that you're not dumb and that you were joking... just feel like posting this for some reason while I was metamoderating those +4 Insightfuls of yours.

On the other hand...

[GooseKirk]

Fight Club. American Beauty. Three Kings.

Fight Club. Just out on DVD, for those that aren't boycotting, and it is one HELL of a package. And who can forget the comparable Trainspotting.

The Resistance starts here. It is a battle for mindshare, a cultural revolution in the truest sense. Popular film is the thermonuclear device of this war, but there are many alternatives for the rest of us... websites, Flash, short films, pamphlets, email, music, comics, software, even just talking with your friends and family... whatever you can do, you can do it subversively. And you can have a positive effect.

I recommend reading "The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements" by Eric Hoffer, very much not politically-correct and over-the-top, but Hoffer brings some interesting concepts to the table in short order. How can we teach people to distrust the corporate order? You'll find some ideas here.

I recommend Jack T. Chick, the sick bastard. www.chick.com - order the complete set of Chick Tracts for $10. It's cheap education... these things have been around for a long time for a reason. How could someone use the Chick concept in a positive way? Hmmmm...

www.adbusters.org
www.rtmark.com

Where's your head? Do something!

Re:Cheer up!

[GooseKirk]

But it's too damn cold there!

Take some account of the future, please

[Mr_Ceebs]

You cite slavery as immoral, but seem to forget that everone at the time thought it was quite acceptable.
isn't this an argument based on 'the notion that any individual can set their own standard'?
When we say that we are sinking to thw lowest common denominator, that is only because we are in a process of adjustment. Any time two moral systems collide you are going to get at least a degree of friction. Moral chaos was caused for several hundred years by the introduction of Christian morals to Africa and the Americas. Modern Communications technology enables all cultures and moral systems to impact on each other at once. This does not just provide the individual with choice between moral systems, It in fact shows them that their own societies moral systems are not carved in stone. (If you want to look for a historical precedent for this look at the Sophists, a group of travelling thinkers in ancient Greece they are the first known people to disprove the existence of gods and prove that morals are whatever humansmake up, needless to say they were not very popular)

As our culture is built on the basis of the moral system that we have been using for the last several hundred years. So whatever changes are made to that moral view, it will appear from our viewpoint within the moral society that in fact morality is going downhill because it is going away from the moral standard we think we have.

Re:Life Imitates Art?

[bungalow]

When you own you are building value.

And obligation. You own the dishwasher, and are required to repair or replace it at your own expense, or live with the fact that it is broken. (insert sexist comment here, those that will) Likewise the air conditioner, heater, leaky roof, et al. As a single man with very limited time and not-quite-as-limited resources, I recognize that the premium that I pay for my apartment is a convenience fee.

Why do (some, not all) people not grok that?

leasing and owning stuff

[cute-boy]

We lease becuase it's an ongoing affordable expense rathger than a large captial outlay of stuff that depreciate, or is generally to expensive to afford even if it appreciates.

In reality, we have, with capitalism, and the technology which supports it, simply built a house of cards. One day our cilizisation will end, as many others have before us.

Yet we live in the world we live in, we can't choose to ignore the rest of our poeple, becasue the rest of our poeple simply won't let us.

Productivity

[Elyssan]

Hate to disappoint you, but working 2/3 of your paid hours isn't all that unusual. It may, in fact, be unusually high. I work for an electric utility in a (non-computer) engineering position, and 2/3 sounds about right. Of course, when things come in fast and furious, I work solid all day, while other days I may be lucky to work half of it.

One of the reasons (along with computers) that productivity is going up is because companies are getting better at checking to make sure workers are actually working. Obviously, though, they still have a lot of ground to cover

Choose life

[gurgi]

You make your own life. No matter how bad things may ever get, the choice to live a happy life is yours. I spent the time to find a good tech gob in a small town (less than 4000) but is about an hour and a half away from a large town (aprox. 500,000) Living in the small town allows me to get a house out in the woods and setup my own little kingdom where I can do what ever the hell I want.

Be willing to work for what you want. And do not put up with what you don't want. Sort of like running Linux instead of win98. (grin)

Re:Your penis can be controlled by your frontal lo

[Kalani]

You really are a babe in the woods, aren't you?

Well I'm actually in the woods (a very very small town in the woods) so ... yeah, I guess -- in a literal sense. I've lived in just about every state within the USA though.

Take a hypothetical situation:

Weren't you supposed to follow that up with "please?"

A woman and a man are in a relationship. Woman uses birth control. Birth control method is not 100% effective. Woman gets pregnant. Wants to keep the child. Does not want to marry the man or the man does not want to marry her. (Either way). She has the child, breaks off the relationship with the man. Man gets sued for child support, loses big, and gets labelled as a deadbeat dad, gets to pay, and never sees his child once.

So don't have sex until you're married. You know what the conditions of it are ... it's not as if you've been walking around with your eyes closed (hopefully for the other people on the streets of your hometown). I never said "people shouldn't fuck if they're not both willing to take responsibility, oh and by the way: the court systems are fair." I said "people shouldn't fuck if they're not both willing to take responsibility." Taking responsibility also means shouldering unfair judgements of our country's legal system if they've been levied against you. It means judging your "mate" (cough, cough) and deciding whether or not she is responsible, is she an adult? If she is still a child, mentally, then it's not unreasonable to expect her to use the court system as a lever to provide her with the childish (all benefits, no responsibility) life that she'll want.

Your argument, to me, indicates your lack of willingness to take responsibility (or at least the man in your hypothetical situation). Even if you're the father of the baby, you have no right to demand that the woman have an abortion (and if she DOES have an abortion just because the child would not be convenient in her life then she's irresponsible too -- abortion is a priveledge that ought to be used only in the proper contexts, IMHO). Essentially, it is shirking responsibility to expect the woman to have an abortion ... that's really child-in-the-woods'ish to me, to speak in your vernacular.

It happens. You might be shocked at how often it happens, how expensive it can be for the man, and how universally frowned upon any dissent to this situation is.

Shocked? You must not have read my whole post!

Of course it happens, I never denied that ... I only took issue with the overall childishness of the majority of relationships I've seen. I was almost an abortion (yes I can almost hear you saying: "Almost? I'd have been better off if the slut took a knife to you." -- but that's a sentiment better addressed somewhere else). When my father and mother divorced (I was 2 years old at the time) custody was awarded to my father. Neither one of my parents were really fit to be parents ... but that's only a judgement I can make in retrospect and it really has no relevance on my life today (though it would have been nice to have had a stable and loving family).

How old are you? My post (the post to which you responded) was about accepting responsibility ... even if it's not particularly what you'd like to do (as in the case of child-support). Nowhere in your post did you address the issues which the child would be facing ... but that's really the crux of the matter. Once a child is born, the lives and disputes between his/her parents are not relevant. The welfare and environment of the child are of the most importance, for those caretakers who understand their responsibility.

If your mindset is of pity for yourself, or for rage toward your ex-lover ... then it doesn't matter what I say in this post, I could be Anne Landers and you wouldn't give a damn. The real lesson will come when your kid grows up and understands that you were a selfish, insensitive, uncaring, bastard-creating, lust-driven, worthless parent (whether or not you think it's fair). When your kid figures that out, you'll be beginning to realize that your life is passed on in this child and that you'd really love to instill compassion and wisdom into the kid; by then it will be too late and he'll never want to speak to you again.

I might be living in the woods at this point in time ... but I haven't lived a happy, easy, sheltered life. I don't talk to either of my parents and I'm 20 years old. I won't get into relationships because I can't stand the self-gratifying and thoughtless nature of it all. I don't intend to grow up to be my father and until you see the situation about which you speak from the perspective of the child that is created, you aren't seeing the important part of the situation. Some young minds are broken by things like this.

You *NEVER* hear of the man getting to keep the child and receive support payments from the woman. *EVER*.

My dad's getting child-support from my ex-step-mom for my two half-brothers. He'd have been getting it from my mother but I didn't want to have anything to do with either one of them (and my father didn't really want me around either -- I was a bad reminder of a mistake, an "oops," that he'd rather forget).

So, I suppose that you're the babe-in-the-woods from my perspective. If my story is innocent and naive, I'd like you to tell me one that's brutal and unfathomably heart-wrenching.

-Kalani

Your penis can be controlled by your frontal lobe

[Kalani]

Spoken by somebody who has never "oopsed" himself into child support.

Right ... so you just proved his point. Firstly, you can't "oops" yourself into child support (unless you fall down on top of her in some kind of innocent streetwalking incident -- which isn't likely). Secondly, the issue of flighty relationships has nothing to do with child support checks, per se. I would speculate that the reason there are so many reckless relationships is that most people are increasingly selfish. I'm not a religious person by any means, but I've recognized this plauge of selfishness in society (I've lived in various cities all across the U.S.A. as I grew up) and this sort of thing is exactly what comes out of it. It's very frightening to me. I think that emotional bonding and companionship are very important to us, naturally. This barrage of self-gratifying people breaks that, the most intimate and lasting desire a person will have in his/her entire life, and we become a society of scoundrels. It'd do animals injustice to call this sort of behavior animalistic. From my own observations (and I'm no Desmond Morris or anything) I think that humans act much more recklessly in this regard than apes in most other ape cultures I've seen. In fact, I left California because my (married) mother fucked all of my friends, one of my coworkers, some ex-con who was passing through town, and a (married) Engineering Prof at Cal Poly SLO. My father (recently divorced from my stepmother -- who was my mother's best friend) dumped his family for a 17-year-old girl who was just about to graduate from high school. I'm only 20 and I know that mine is an extreme case ... but I'm tired of this notion, I'm sick of these stupid virtueless pitiful creatures. Responsibility is the means by which you can achieve a happy life, no matter what any totally-fucking-crazy psychologist will tell you (my mother is a psychologist). If you can extend your world-view beyond yourself and accept responsibility for your own actions, your familial/friendly ties, and for your declarations of love (yes, fucking somebody is a declaration of love) then you can probably die a happy man/woman, knowing that you've left this world with some benefit instead of spreading the ugliness and pestilence that permeate so many families. If you can't do this, if you grow up to be a child in an adult's body and you cannot bear to accept responsibility for your own life then I suggest that you end it ... we're not automatons and our pasts (however bad they may be -- even if your mother fucked all of your friends too) are no excuse for our present behavior.

Sorry this wound up being so long, I wasn't even going to comment but this really struck a nerve with me. I honestly believe, and I have no scientific evidence to support this assertion, that this trend will lead to a society in which beauty (the most naive and childish human concept) will rule the land ... that is, you men may find the love of your life out there but she'll never be yours and once a more aesthetically-pleasing man comes along, he'll fuck her until he's used her up. The same notion applies to women with regard to their husbands ... it's a terrible thought but it's very real.

I'd better end this now, I've got a lot to say on this particular subject and I guess that this isn't really the forum for it. Thanks for reading this, if anyone actually reads this far, it's just my young, pathetic, hopeless whimpering ... but I accept responsibility for it. ;)

-Kalani

Re:I've been pondering this very situation....

[UnknownSoldier]

> nothing left but the $800 rent (we live in a semi-rural southern California area), etc..

Sounds like you went Sovereign, and/or simplified your life and are finding it much more rewarding. Very COOL.

Re:Mud to Mud

[apostasy]

I am not advocating a return to the status quo, by any means. There were injustices and inequities and all sorts of problems with the old system. But I don't think that a sense of wonderment or a sense of spirituality were amongst those problems. People know right and wrong. They need a reason to care.

Ye gods. When we as a culture start openly promoting the notion of believing certain things to be true (read: religion) based on the pleasantries and conveniences they entail, that is when I truly begin to worry.

Plenty of individuals waddle through life holding the "from mud to mud and nothing else really matters" as generally true, and still live happy, healthy, and fulfilled. Life is what you make, meaning is what you bring...ad nauseam.

We've managed to extend the speed of light from a highway speed limit to well above the established norm...I think there's plenty of wonderment left in the mud.

And...there was a topic here somewhere...*rustle*

Trends such as this one always give one pause, but the widening of use of leases, rentals, etc., should be viewed more as a widening of opportunities rather than a harbinger of Corporate Doom (Deathmatch disabled). My family has rented, leased and purchased a number of different items at various times, dependent on the needs, desires and abilities of the time. So long as outright purchase remains a viable option in the physical world, I tend to view it as a positive.

Re:What an Excellent Question!!!

[Cramer]

Re: American Beauty... Modern medican calls that a "mid-life crises". And it is fairly true. I know a family that's very much like that movie (aside from the ending.) [No, it's not my family.]

As you get older, you "mellow"... some better than others; some faster than others. I'm 28 and I'm already (thanks primarily to working for an ISP for several years -- and watching everything I'd poured my life into destroyed in short order) well across the "ah, f*** it" line. [insert life story here.]

In the immortal words of Shatner... GET A LIFE!

Leased Life

[Ribo99]

I was looking for a life with hardwood floors but I couldn't afford the lease. Having a life with carpet is OK and it's much better then having no life at all... :P
---

Stop analyzing

[supz]

There are so many ways to look at the world. Just in these comments alone I've seen people say that the world is turning to shit, that the world is better now, that nothing matters at all, etc, etc.

I think the problem as of now is that we all analyze everything so damned much, that it looses all it's meaning, and that is why we don't care. We analyze being good, being bad, and everything in between until the lines are so blurred that we can't determine what is what.

Did our ancestors ever analyze the shit out of their world/culture? I'm guessing the world and society is more diverse today than it was 100, 200, and 300+ years ago. That means there are more beliefs and more people thinking up these beliefs. Maybe our ancestors all thought alike, so it was easier for them to believe in one thing. It's always easier to conform.

Now that there are so many different 'cultures' or ways of thinking, there is no one way to think, so I guess no one can really get secure with their views, cause none of their friends share them.

Of course this is all rambling out my mind, and I'm still (not legally tho ;( ) a kid, so my mind is still jelly. I guess the last idea stuck in it, before it turns to stone, will be the one I believe in the rest of my life.

Now unleash the moderato... err hounds.

Re:Stop analyzing

[Graymalkin]

There has always been a number of subcultures living within any larger culture. In the past as well as in the present, not all of these subcultures make it into your high school history books though. Go to college and learn something.

Totally offtopic

[zantispam]

"I went out for a walk, and finally concluded to stay out until sundown; for by going out, I found I was really going in."
- John Muir

Not the John Muir of the Idiot Book fame is it?

Here's my copy of DeCSS. Where's yours?

Re:Have comsumers lost something?

[randombit]

Maybe I don't own my computer's OS. But do I care? I probably don't even realize it. All I know is that I can use my PC for the things I think I need it for. It's convenient. Life is good.

That's why I'm glad for UCITA, it makes licenses enforceable. Have you ever read a commercial license the whole way through? The restrictions are insane. If MS ever tried to actually enforce them, people would start using [insert favorite alternative OS here] in droves. Eventually, it becomes more convienient to use something else then get milked by a system that's ripping you off (for many people on /. I suspect that happened long ago).

*whine* *whine* *whine*

[donutello]

You sound like a spoilt kid. You don't have to have a car, a computer or a house. Your ancestors in the "good old days" you wax nostaligically about didn't.

People who whine about corporations making things they can't afford to buy sound like spoilt kids who want to eat the cake and have it too. You have the choice: "work hard and make the money for the stuff you want", "lease/rent the stuff you want" or "live without it". Claiming that society makes it necessary for you to have something is bullshit. You don't like modern society? You don't _have_ to live in it!

Re:*whine* *whine* *whine*

[Steeltoe]

"You sound like a spoilt kid. You don't have to have a car, a computer or a house. Your ancestors in the "good old days" you wax nostaligically about didn't."

If he's a whiner, you are whining on the whining.

The claim here is that you usually DON'T own your car/house/computer. While I don't agree 100% with that, there is some truth in it. What happens is that you take up a loan (owing your bank), to purchase the expensive stuff. You pay for this service to the bank in form of monthly rates. In the end it's a feudal contract that people sign to get to live in luxury too often taken for granted, by devoting their lives to working paying for that standard of living. In the end, it's a choice everybody must make. You can't blame your bank, employer or car-salesman, but I wouldn't call it whining. It's healthy to give this some perspective, and question things.

It can even be economically rewarding to take up a loan, but if that is worth 30-50 years of your life is a personal issue. What to do with all your money in the end? Spoil your children?

Likewise, it can also be economically rewarding to lease for shorter periods of time. What's important is to make people aware that they should choose what they think is best. You don't go out and buy a car in a foreign country just to drive around on your holidays.

However, the downside of all this is commercial feudalism. We bind ourselves to contracts, and are expected to do this by everybody. Blaming others than yourself is futile, but you can "whine" to make people aware of what they choose.

Leasing on a long-term IS feudalism, and in history class we easily saw that this was bad. Today, we want to own as many things as we can, but forget that we're not gonna keep them forever. In my opinion, BOTH sides of this issue are wrong and need to look a little further.

"You don't like modern society? You don't _have_ to live in it!"

It's phrases like this that makes me wonder what intelligence certain people have... Why should people be forced to leave and corporation and governments be allowed to dictate everything?

The house/car/computer issue was a bad example. A much better example is information, art, trademarks, copyrights, patents, ideas. We lease these without thinking about their licenses, because we're not very mature in dealing with this new technology. However, corporations having monopoly on names, phrases, implementations, ideas will only continue to exapand until we lose the right to question it. People are not "whining" because it is so bad today, they are "whining" because things are getting worse all the time as corporations hijack the Internet.

- Steeltoe

Definately

[Yhcrana]

I completely agree, but in the same breath there is a correspondence between this and the rise of the stupid american. What I mean is that American children are being spoon fed the world through MTV, Teen magazines, 90210 type shows, and over-protective parents.

American society has become stupid and dependant on someone else doing their work for them. From what I have seen at my college the students can call home if they need money (not all of them mind you, but alot will, and alot of parents will cave in)

This whole problem right now is stemming from our inability to draw ourselves out of our little materialistic world for long enough to care about anybody else. We are living in a society where what you have in your home (hell even your home itself) is more important than making sure you have those things a year down the road. I've seen studies that in recent years even though the economy has been the strongest it has been in decades most people haven't been putting money away for savings. To quote my father "It's the ME generation"

SUV's, Big screen TV's, hot clothes, hot cars are more important to people than making sure they have retirement money. These are going to be the people singing "Oh the world owes me a living" when they get booted from their jobs in thirty years and expect the rest of us to make up for their slacking.

You can rent just about anything now and it makes you look important. Just how important will you be in thirty years when you are a nameless faceless moron with no savings, no house, nothing to save your ass because you didn't save it yourself.

Don't come crying to me because I won't help you.

End rant

Yhcrana

I Hate Stupid Fscking Legal Contracts

[Redking]

Get your first name legally changed to Manager. Then, you can "retain the right to remove any vehichle for any reason you deem appropriate".

Help yourself to all the vehicles you'd like. That should make those fsck heads think twice.

Re:Not a matter of influence

[aclute]

Not to sounds rude or anything, but *why* can't you afford to buy a house? Where do you live? $1300 a month in mortgage is a nice house, plus there are plenty of first-time homeowner plans that let you put little of no money down. I understand the lack of a bank willing to give you a loan if your income is flucuating widly.

But back to my point, why can't you afford a house? How is your money spent? I am geniuly curious.

Re:Yes.

[patrick_jones]

But its not the corporations, it is the investors who have pushed for pure increase in stick prices over everything else. There is a quote by Noam Chomsky, i can't quite remember it, but it goes something like this:

"Unless you get to the source of power, which ultimately is investment decisions, other changes are cosmetic and can only take place in a limited way. To challenge the right of investors to determine who lives, who dies, and how they live and die - that would be a significant move towards the Enlightenment ideals. That would be revolutionary."

That is what we should be doing, stopping the pension funds and insurers and investors. Here in Britain they are talking about stopping state pensions in the near future and making everyone use private companies. This will only speed up the rot. At least, IMHO :)

everyone here has this all wrong!

[thissurfer]

From what I've read so far out of all these postings...there is a theme that rings true. Your all looking at this issue from a software license point of view (which is understandable...after all this is /.), but your not seeing the overall, broad picture that the "Leased Life" article is trying to show you. We (society) are letting things get out of hand ourselves! We don't read the fine print anymore....let alone the main clauses in the contracts we sign. Often they are riduclously long...and incomprehensible, so I don't blame you. Who has the time in the society we live in today. Besides, with the little time we have who wants to fight over a disagreement you have with the license or contract. No wonder why consumers are being taken advantage of everyday. It is far too easy for corporations. Let us not forget it is our dollar that ultimately gives them thier power. Beauracracy has its place, but it is killing our freedom and adversly affecting our personal lives more than ever! --> you can quote me on that! Economic trends reflect society and society doesn't have time for bullsh!t contracts and license agreements. People will sign away their own mother to a Corporation one day and never know it! As far as the "Leased Life" article is concerned....I would like to answer the question they pose: "Is there a relationship between tech patterns and what's going on outside [i.e. the outside world]?" Guess what guys, we as a society decide what is appropriate for us (just whats going on outside). If we keep saying "f-it!" to those contracts and agreements (beauracracy) we sign everyday.. ..you might as well move to a communist nation, cause you certainly will never be free! A long time ago Americans had the dream of owning their own land and being their own men (and women), with no King (or Queen) telling them who to be and limiting thier freedoms at will. I wonder where that dream is today! thissurfer

Re:Mud to Mud

[Steeltoe]

You're talking of divorce as a bad thing, but that's a value from conservative viewpoint. If you look a bit further, you'll see that peoples notion of marriage, or rather the notion of _real love_, that is flawed.

People seem to think that a couple consisting of only two people _should_ stay together for the rest of their lives, or else their love is not "real love". So if my grandparents never divorced, it must have been Real Love, mustn't it? Not just a result of habit, expectation and sacrifice? No marriage/relationship is the same though, so neither you or I should judge too much.

However, when you start dissecting this "real love"-thing, you'll see so many variations self-depriving views all around this world, you may very well want to cry, especially as you find this in yourself too. We're in a process of turning this around and make new rules, but don't expect a New World Order to come around at the year 2000. In fact, hope that it doesn't since revolutions and fast changes too often become too extreme.

- Steeltoe

Just look further

[Steeltoe]

Simple: We learn and grow from pain and struggle.

God may very well have created this universe, be all-knowing and all-powerful yet still not helping us directly. That's because he made us in HIS image, not like puppets (which is a strong indication that God may also have a God btw). What are we here to learn do you think?

If you take christianity further you end up in spiritual beliefs, although you have to cast away alot of ego. Debunking a set of beliefs just because humans interpreted an avatar/miracles/ufos/whatever wrongly, is limiting.

- Steeltoe

You forgot one thing...

[Steeltoe]

Religion > Christianity

There's alot of more saner religions out there than pure Catolisism and Protestantism.

- Steeltoe

Re:Mud to Mud

[Steeltoe]

No religion can replace human involvement, personal development, tolerance, understanding and love. The solution isn't One Religion or Conformance at all, it's making people care about themselves and others.

Religion is on the downrise nowadays, that's why people are saying moral is on decline. They equate church going with morals, which is of course absurd. No matter how much one cling to old values and power-structures, they will eventually vanish or get transformed.

Now, people are selfish these days, but it's a sign of things-are-gonna-get-worse-before-they-get-better. It's when a situation becomes intolerable people begin to realize things and change. As more people come in contact with their true feelings, they're gonna break apart and search for other answers.

- Steeltoe

Very well written!

[Steeltoe]

First I must say this is a very reflective and good post, which I agree on many accounts. I have just a comment on these last lines:

"I truly believe as the economic model removes the last vestiges of individuals owning anything, the hackers of society will just come up with bigger, better, faster, and more twisted ideas. Life will go on, but the old ways are dying fast, and the new ways are always being defined by those who get there first."

This is a bit pessimistic. We don't have to conform to these twisted ideas, we can make our own future. If we're gonna do it together, it takes creating a community for it. Talking to others about your opinion helps spread the information about what's going on. If we see ourselves as helpless, we will be helpless. However, being a martyr is overrated, we can do better.

Next, the Internet was first founded by geeks and professors at universities. But I have to disagree that the first-one-to-the-mill is the one who have everything to say. It's the one applying most violence that creates the rules. Violence may look different today than before, it's called economy and law today. Just as violence was an accepted fact before, with worshipping of conquerors etc, we now worship those who conquer the economy and law. (Just look at all the fuzz all those lawsuits and IPOs bring about here on /.) Not as saviours or heros mind you, but a "necessary evils" in commercialism, just like violence was a "necessary evil" centuries ago in making countries and prosperity "for all".

Why? I think it's part of our evolution. A child that never experiences pain and struggle, doesn't really learn much about life and grows very egocentrical and demanding. We call it becoming spoiled.

- Steeltoe

Re:Very well written!

[anticypher]

We don't have to conform to these twisted ideas, we can make our own future. If we're gonna do it together, it takes creating a community for it.

That is what I meant, but you said it much better. I'll plead exhaustion after spending so much time on such a long post :-)

I've had this conversation with many economists before, but always in a social context over beer in the evenings. At one time I had honed my argument to be fairly concise and thought out, but it was never on the professional level of those who do it as a day job. Beer helps the loquaciousness (is that a word in english?), but not the razor edged rationalisation needed to hold the conversation.

With your ideas on violence, I've got some new arguments for friday night.

The wild west was defined by those explorers and early settlers who got there first. What it resembles today is just like every other part of american society, which has its good and bad points. Violence came to the wild west in the form of lawless lawmen, who imposed their own forms of justice on a citizenry who mostly wanted to be left alone. Look at the L.A. police scandals today, they are the results of 90 years of wild west style justice, with no reprisals possible against corrupt cops.

The internet was defined by altruistic university researchers and hackish corporate developers. What it resembles today is a frontier being tamed by greedy corporate bean counters and suits. Violence is coming to the internet in the form of a corrupt judiciary, imposing the will of deep pocket corporations, using the courts as a weapon to punish and kill the opposition. Victory always goes to the rich corporations, and justice is almost never served.

the AC

Re:Life Imitates Art?

[thc69]

I would rather sell my house and move than try to break out of a 6 year lease. One can sell just as easily during or after a mortgage, and it doesn't hurt.

Same goes for the car. From what I understand about leasing, you're often stuck with strong penalties if you try to break out of the lease early...whereas, if you are paying on a loan for the car, you can just sell it. Of course, if you're like me and you put on miles so fast as to make the car devaluate faster than you can pay off the loan, then you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, and should just buy an old Chevy and learn to fix it yourself. ;)

How does this tie in to computers? Personally, I think that it's not one imitating the other, but rather, what happens in the tech world is happening somewhat paralell to what's happing elsewhere. Of course, the main difference being that in the tech world, laws are being made that leave no choice; elsewhere, much of this is just a choice between buying an item or buying time of that item.

Compared to what? And when? And where?

[Nova Express]

" leased cars, rented houses, long term apartments / condos / duplexes...your employment is at will and can disappear anytime, and your cities seem strangely hostile to you doing anything other than working, sleeping, or spending."

There are so many flawed assumptions that lie behind this question that it's hard to know where to begin. But here's one question: Compared to what?

Compared to when? 100 years ago, chances are you wouldn't own your own house either. You might be a sharecropper working land that didn't belong to you. In fact, if you were a single male in your 20s (as so many geeks are), chances are you would be a fieldhand working 14 hour a day on your parent's farm, or possibly living in or above the shop you worked in, or lived in the servants quarters of wealthier households (servants for the rich were a much more significant portion of the working population than they are today). Or you rented a room, or, if you were poorer, a bunk in a boarding house. You didn't own your home then, and you certainly didn't own a car. Chances are that you didn't own a horse either, unless you worked a farm or ranch, or were better off than average. You did a lot of walking. Your employment was at will then, and 12-14 hour workdays, 6-7 days a week, were common.

As for "cities seem strangely hostile to you," its seems more a state of mind than a quantifiable problem. 100 years ago, in most cities, horse shit lay in piles on every street. People emptied their chamber pots in alleys. You burned wood or sulferous coal to keep warm, and dumped your ashes (and the trash) in the street. Typhoid and influenza were fairly common (in 1918, an influenza epidemic killed more than half a million people in the U.S. alone). Indoor plumping was around, but far from ubiquitous. Refridgeration was non-existant. Infant mortality, though already dropping, was still sky high compared to now, and many women died during childbirth.

One big difference: the average city was much smaller, and you were more likely to know your neighbors. You probably went to church, and possibly social clubs, with them. These were the things you could do instead of "working, sleeping, or spending." Of course, you really didn't have any choice, because there wasn't anything to do. No TV. No radio. No computers or Internet. You could, of course, get stinking drunk (that much hasn't changed). You could read books and periodicals. When you could find and afford them. Or if your town had a lending library (usually paid for and supported by membership fees and dues).

We are so much less connected to our neighbors now because we want to be. One of the greatest freedoms of the late 20th century is the freedom from interaction. We don't have to make small talk with the mouth breather, or the guy that really smells funny, or the women who spends ten minutes talking about her damned cats, just because they're in our church choir or glee club. We have the freedom to disconnect and avoid interaction, because we have a million other things we can do. If we choose, we can avoid other people merely because they annoy us, or take up our valuable time. We can choose to overthrow the tyranny of proximity, and to form our friendships and allegiances with people around the world based on common interests rather than our fellow tenants based on geography. Have we lost some socialization because of this? ProbablyAre our cities pooerer for it? In some ways yes. But we've gained the freedom of not associating.

Compared to where?Certainly in any of the few remaining communist countries, you can't, by definition, own any property. (Though members of the nomenklatura, of course, do. Just before the Sandinistas relinquished power in Nicaragua, the last thing they did was deed title to some of the fanciest mansions in Managua to members of their own ruling junta.) In urban Japan, home ownership is so expensive that during the boom some banks were offering 100 year mortgages. So, if everything went right, your children or grandchildren might own your home. You certainly won't.

In many counties in Europe, it is, in fact, much harder to fire you from your job. Of course, this goes a long way toward explaining why their productivity is lower and their unemployment rate is 3-4 times as high as ours. Which would you prefer: A hot job market, where you might be laid off or fired and have (especially if you're a programmer) 5-10 job offers in a week, or a stagnant economy where you have to look months to find even an entry level job? And, even when you do find it, job promotions are generally based on seniority rather than merit? And stock options? Fergitaboudit!! If you pick the right company in the U.S., you might be able to retire by the time you're 35. In France, well, I hope you enjoy that government pension. You won't be paid as much, and you'll pay much more in rent, assuming you can find a place to live. (How do you think landlords make up the money they loose on rent controlled apartments. And if they can't make money, why on earth would they build any more?) If you're lucky, you'll get to spend your life in a safe, modestly profitable (or subsidized company in a heavily regulated industry and watch while faster, leaner, hungrier, more nimble American and Asian countries eat your lunch in the global marketplace.

For all Americas flaws, it is the richest, fairest, and possibly freest nation in the history of the World. And if you work in a high tech industry, you're probably a primary benificiary. Don't like the pace of modern life? Fine. Go pay $5-10K for a small subsistance farm in Montana or North Dakota. You'll own your own house and land, and nobody will be able to fire you.

And if you don't choose to drop out, remember: it was your choice. Nobody put a gun to your head and made you keep programming or living in silicon valley. You can quit and/or leave anytime. But stop whining. 95% of the population of the world would love to live and work under the conditions you whine about. You can always chose to live or work somewhere else. You're the only one that can decide what's most important in your own life. No one else. You choose, and you reap the rewards (or pay the consequences) of your actions. It's as simple as that.

"You were born. And so you're free. So Happy Birthday." - Laurie Anderson

How do you squeeze blood out of a stone?

[Vertex Operator]

Answer, you start with a person, and keep squeezing until you've squeezed them dry. Society has to keep coming up with more, and more creative, ways of squeezing money and productivity out a person. Hence, longer working hours, products which you rent and no longer own (once you own something, the revenue stream dries up). So now, even products which traditionally people have owned are moving towards being leased and rented (houses, cars, software). It's a sad, but predictable trend.

What's a gimper?
--
Chris Long, Departments of Mathematics & Statistics, Rutgers University

so what ARE we buying?

[davebooth]

The trend to leasing rather than buying goods is very real but the technology is only driving it indirectly. Look at it this way: The productivity per worker of every manufacturing industry has skyrocketed with every advance in technology since the industrial revolution. The price for the goods has reduced in real terms and the percentage of the workforce employed in manufacturing has gone down. All these guys wanting jobs so they can actually afford the things they want cant work making those things anymore, they go into the service sector. They are no longer selling goods, they are selling a service. You license the use of a program you are leasing the binary data that sits on your drive after you install it but you are buying the right to use it within certain limits. You only lease the software but you buy the service.

Now heres the rub... Anyone but a software company sells you this sort of service and then fails to deliver you can get some kind of redress.. very few other services can get away with not delivering what they promise. The only reason software companies get away with it is because they are hoodwinking their users into thinking they've bought a program "as is" and have to cope with the bugs instead of purchasing the right to use a program that will do XYZ... This is why I prefer not to pay for software, and use GPL'd stuff if I can freeware if GPL aint availale to do things the way I want. Paying for such a non-service, leasing a piece of code I cant poke and prod at if it misbehaves is a real last resort.

But then you all know that last part, this is /. after all...

# human firmware exploit
# Word will insert into your optic buffer
# without bounds checking

Re:Mud to Mud

[PerlGeek]

Whoever you are, I agree with you. I also don't care about my karma, so I'll put my name on it. :)

Christianity has got to be one of the most misused religions out there. People say they're Christians, then kill abortion docters, or mock gay people, or launch several violent Crusades against muslims in the middle ages, or say cloning is "contrary to God's law," or sell indulgences (quite common in Martin Luther's day)...

(Romans 2:17-24) Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law; And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

Yeah, I can quote scripture, too - anyone can. I sin, too - everyone does. If people in places like Slashdot hate Christians, well, I can't blame them, really. Speaking for people who call ourselves Christians, we brought this on ourself.

Re:Yes.

[RickHunter]

Normally, I'd consider a user signing without reading to be their problem. However, in this case, there are several facts that change things.

First off, in most cases, the user technically isn't signing anything. For software, they click Ok. For a lot of products, I think they get a sheet of some sort when they open the box with a bunch of terms and the line (or something like it): "Using this product constitutes agreement of these terms." No signing anything, yet rights are being removed. Isn't this illegal?

Secondly, the documents seem to be written intentionally so that most people are unable to read them without a couple of years of law school training. They're loaded with legal language and as much fluff text and obscuration as possible, burying the terms of the agreement and making it a burden to read. The textual equivalent of having to travel several hundred miles through difficult terrain in order to retrieve the easy to read version.

I don't think you could hold someone to a contract they had to sign in order to use something they'd paid for that was written in a foreign language. How is this much different?

Note that this post is based on my limited knowledge and the examples used may be somewhat extreme. Constructive criticizm will be considered, flames and bashing will be ignored.

-RickHunter

Re:Yes.

[RickHunter]

Good point. I've actually taken to trying to read the entirety of lisence agreements lately, and I've noticed that a good portion of the text, or at the very least the important bits, is in all caps. I've found that I then have a tendency to skim it or skip it completely, because its so irritating, instead of reading closely. And that's especially evil because, if anything about it ever comes before a judge, the lisencers can say:

"But, your honor, as you can see, this passage clearly states that the lisencee is not permitted/required/whatever to do this. And, to make sure they saw it, we put it in all caps!"

A smart judge would, at that point, proceed to make every document he provided to the lisencer have at least five paragraphs typed entirely in capital letters. ;-)

-RickHunter

Re:Yes.

[RickHunter]

Then how DO lawyers understand any legal documents? ;-) Seriously, I suspect that if you took a lisence a software lawyer wrote five years ago and showed it to him, he wouldn't be able to accurately tell you what a good portion of it was for. Kind of like writing an entire (insert large program here), and not putting in any comments. And if he couldn't understand what he'd written, think about what its like for a consumer to be expected to understand that stuff...

-RickHunter

Re:Yes.

[RickHunter]

Excellent points. Especially your last ones, about all the responsibilities of the owner being shoved onto the consumer. I agree that the problem seems to be a combination of a general lack of effort on the part of consumers and corporations taking advantage of people. Perhaps some kind of easy-to-use comparison service that promotes awareness of these issues and the problems of leasing is in order?

Although, on second thought, that could be trouble too. If the UCITA passes in enough states, and the practices of the computer industry really are being picked up by everyone else... We could see companies banning negative reviews or criticism too. Which isn't good for this situation.

Please excuse any misinterpretation of your points or over-extending of ideas.

-RickHunter

It's all about efficiency.

[zeck]

The "leased life" is just plain more efficient than the old idea of owning things. You live in a rented apartment while you need it, then when you cease to need it you move out and someone else who needs it moves in. Same deal with contract employment; they pay you while they need you, then when you're not needed, you move on to someone else who needs you. Certain things have always been like this. Agricultural workers have always travelled from place to place so as to be there when the crops needed picking and move on when they were picked. But as technology makes both travel and communication much more efficient, this spreads to other areas. Also, as computers and automation allow things to happen faster, the whole world accelerates. Where people used to change jobs once in a lifetime, it now happens every few years. In the IT industry, the closest of all to the new technology, it happens even faster.

The real question is, does it really help? Is all this efficiency really good for the human species? I think so. More efficiency means knowledge advances faster, enabling us to better ourselves. Unfortunately, in the hectic environment of constant optimization, we often lose sight of the longterm and think only about the shortterm. We need to be able to operate in the shortterm while keeping our eyes on longterm, species-wide goals.

Bearing in mind....

[Modern_Celt]

Stepping beyond all of the previous references to Capitolism and the points that this is nothing but the proper functioning of this system; This begs the question of is this where we want to go? It matters not if Tech is pushing society or vice versa. Do we want our surroundings to bear these attributes? If we do not, what do we do to to prevent this? Can we?

Disposable Society

[Understudy]

You live in a highly disposable society. Objects are not built to last for the long term and are eary to replace than rebuild. Watch what happens with your dryer and see what it cost to replace a major part vs. a new dryer. The worst thing about this is we accept and condone it, even encourage it. In this day and age keeping up with the jones's isn't a quaint saying it's the battle cry of the corprate world. Based on the fact that if you don't your competition will eat you. If not them your stockholders who will "dispose" of their holdings if you don't perform to expectations. This day and age want tobe able to go on to the next without looking back, as an example look at the size of your average landfill. Most are at least the size of a football field if not larger. In some areas it takes up the most land in a city or town or other municiplality. This idea of not having any tangiable holdings such as software, music or even money(in this electronic age cash is becoming a non physical item) is going to continue until something dramatic happens. And that would have to be on the extreme end otherwise the effect will become worse. However there are to be positive results with this if it happens correctly(fat chance). They would include a less materalistic society you can't covet something if it is easily avalibile. Also a non-monetary based system(this is about as therotical as the study of quantum mathmatics but that helped find black holes.) If materials are easily avalibile their intrinsict value is reduced and in the electronic banking age and cash not backed by gold, cash as a comodity slowly starts to become unnesaccary. I am not saying what would replace cash this is a lot of theroy and many things could but it would have to get to this stage. If you don't like what you see don't participate in it. You don't have to lease a car you could by it, just don't take a loan out to do it. Same with the house. You could work a job that doesn't involve working on propritary software, but you might have to get your hands dirty and how much would it pay. Even then cashing your check usually invoves a charge if you don't have a bank account(sometimes even if you do.). Your not obligated to participate in it or even like it. Hell that's what the hippy movement of the sixties tried to do. Look at where the Chicago 7 are now.

Re:Mud to Mud

[bartok]

Hey, I don't beleive in god but I have to agree with everything you say. That which you call God, I don't (and won't) have a name for, but it's the same thing for me. There can be spirituality for an atheist too. Higher meaning can be found in anything if your perceptions are "tuned" to sense it.

Re:This has been going on for a long time...

[Miou]

Specifically regarding maintenance, there is a certain amount of economics that should be going into these decisions.

For example, the oil change on my car. Yes, I could spend 20 minutes changing the oil myself, but it's really going to take me more time than that (I have to purchase the oil and filter, change into work clothes, change the oil, clean up, change clothes, take the oil to a recycling station), probably at least an hour.

Now, if we break out my salary into a monthly wage, I make over $20/hr post tax, doing what I know how to do well. Thus, that oil change cost me $30 to do myself, as opposed to $20 from the oil change shop.

Given the choice, I will have someone else change my oil.

On the flip side, I tend to repair my own plumbing. Why? Because I can usually do it "cheaper" than a plumber, including the cost of my time, and I know how to do it. I'm not as fast as the plumber, it takes me 4 hours to do a 2 hour plumbing job. But given the cost comparison, it's worth it for me to do.

Now, if you are going to examine lease vs. own, you need to figure out how much it would cost you to purchase the item versus lease it. Maintenance costs, initial purchase price, finance costs, resell value at the end of the lease terms, lease buyout costs, etc. Most of the time, it's cheaper (in the long view) to buy.

What if you can't afford to buy?

Well, then you need to figure out the costs to you of not having that item/resource at all. If it's a car, you can probably get by with a cheaper car until you can afford the downpayment (or, stick with cheaper cars altogether). If it's a washer/dryer, the cost of going to the laundromat may make leasing the better option (if you can even lease washer/dryers - I don't know).

It's all a question of economics. If you're like most us, your buy your money by selling your time/skills. Thus, "services" should be considered in those terms as well. (Just remember to figure in taxes!)

Ownership and the long term

[Dark Paladin]

What I see the problem approaching capitalism, and society in general, is the idea of ownership. When I buy a house, I'm investing not just my money, but my time, my energy, and something of my life. It becomes a long term investment that I'll pass onto my children (well, for now child, but that'll change in another year ;) ). When I buy a car, I plan on having it for 10 years - yes, that long. With ownership comes responsibility and committment.

With our society becoming so disposible, people have extended this into their personal lives. Marriages don't last - why commit? If it doesn't work, just find a new spouse. Families break apart when parents don't want to put the work and effort into raising children (and leave it up to day care or the schools), then complain when we have children attacking each other or having children themselves because they haven't been taught responsibility. Our elderly are shipped off into homes - why bother taking care of them? It's just too hard!

I know I'm exaggerating a little bit here, and I'm not saying that the Internet or Technology is the reason for these attitudes. This has been growing since the turn of the former century (the 19th Century). Maybe it changed when we moved off the farms and into the industrial workplace, and corporations started on their rise.

The best gift I can give my little girl is to take my responsibility as a father seriously, and to show her to think for more than just this one moment. I admit; I'm not perfect at it, with all the distractions out there. But I should at least try.

After all, she is my most important long term responsibility.

John "Dark Paladin" Hummel
We don't just like games, we love them!

Re:Nothing much new...

[msvaline]

Well, go about 40 years before that and the idea of any sort of regulated day hadn't occured most people. There was a huge expenditure of money and effort by large corporations to get people to start thinking like "employees".

The state in which almost the whole western world lived in prior to the heyday of the Industrial Revolution was one of individual property ownership and complete self-employment. Every man worked at what ever time and level of effort he found necessary to support him and his family.

Despite all the pessimism, it seems to me that workers today in the tech sector have the greatest chance of duplicating that environment. The independent contractor who telecommutes can come fairly close to the lifestyle described above.

More in the US than elsewhere

[elgardo]

I noticed this trend more in the US than anywhere else I have lived. More specifically, I used to live in Atlanta. Could do little other than work, eat and sleep. Getting together with others after work always had to be "consumption related". Couldn't find anything that was free anymore, except Creative Loafing. No sidewalks anywhere but downtown, so you can't just go for a walk. Really badly polluted air. You get the idea.

Having grown up in Norway, lived in Canada and the US, and been on trips to most places in Europe, Australia and New Zealand, having seen most of the US, I have found this disturbing trends more in the US than anywhere else.

In the US, I pretty much had to get an attourney to protect my rights as an individual, to stop large bullying corporations from stepping all over me. I eventually got fed up and moved back to civilization.

Re:Life is more than things

[rjamestaylor]

I'm going to be a father for the first time in about 6 weeks or so

Congratulations! I just became a dad for the first time 7+ months ago. It's one of the greatest things that's ever happened in my life...perhaps the.

you may not be able to 'take stuff with you' but you still can pass things on to your progeny

Well, my second quote (from Ps. 39) was addressing this point: we heap up riches but don't know who will ultimately gather them. I am not only a dad, but I am, obviously, a son. My father has some means and early in my 20's allowed me to live dependently on his means, until he wisened up and cut me off. We have a loving relationship -- he did not do it out of spite or anger. His cutting me off was probably the catalyst for my eventual turnaround.

While I have benefited from my father's stuff, I have more benefited from his love and wisdom.

Ultimately, things aren't enough.

You know this, and I'm sure you'll enjoy your child at least as much I mine (or, perhaps not "mine" but "on lease"). I'm glad to be able to give to my son, but I know from my dad's example the things are not enough.

People ARE stupid (I know I am)

[m.o]

What the hell are you talking about?! The guy's point was that nobody reads license agreement = people are stupid. Hell, when was the last time you read license agreement on software?!?! I know I read something like that only once, the very first time I installed something - so I AM stupid.

As for your logic, it looks like almost all of your statements are flawed.

1. You need a job to live.
not really, not with all the welfare and shit

2. Most jobs require a collegiate level of education.
almost no jobs require it. some professional training - yes, college - no (now, it probably helps to become a well-rounded person, or helps to advance faster, or whatever, but you really don't need a degree to work, even for a high pay. programming is the most obvious example; wall street is also true, though less obvious, etc. - and I am not even talking about McDonalds people)

3. That education is difficult to obtain.
Bullshit. San Jose State accepts everyone, and only a retard can't pass it.

4. Therefore most of the jobs that people have are required to have people who are intelligent.
Education does not imply intelligence (there is probably some correlation, but not causation)

5. Most people are intelligent.
Yeah, right...

Lack of permanent employment

[Giro d'Italia]

>your employment is at will and can disappear anytime

This would be a good thing, if it were true. Unfortunately, most employers are too scared by lawsuits and bureaucracy to effectively deal with incompetent workers.

One company I worked at waited about 12 weeks to get rid of a support fellow who rarely showed up to the office. They delayed hiring a replacement until he was gone, and everyone else (already overworked) had to pick up the slack.

If you want permanent employment, become a professor. Then you can become completely incompetent and out of touch without worry.

Employers should be able to fire you at will, with the usual caveats against discrimination. Just as you are allowed to quit at a moment's notice. If not, you're going to be stuck with incompetents in your office whose messes you will have to clean up one way or the other.

(OT) No GPF here

[yerricde]

Didn't GPF mine (from IE 5). I got the service pack from Windows Update.

Like the leased life... Dammit!

[nwonknu]

I like the fact that I can lease some server space and exercise a certain level of free speech, and I don't have to buy the server, which I might otherwise not be able to afford.

Yes, owning it would be better, but perhaps I've got better things to do with my money.

just my 2 cents.

Increasing transience

[Steffan]

This is one of the things that Alvin Toffler predicted way back in the 70s in Future Shock or The 3rd Wave (I can't remember which, both excellent books btw). In any case, I think it is something that we'll be seeing a lot more of, for good or ill (maybe a little bit of both). From Zippo to bic, from Silverware to sporks, more and more things are becoming temporary, disposed of when they are no longer useful, in fashion, or functional. There are of course some very good reasons to own things - perceived control, equity, and prestige. Gradually, these benefits are decreasing - * Control - Ever buy a house in a subdivision? Most of the new ones have covenants or other types of contracts which can prohibit the parking of vehicles on the street, dictate the colors you may paint your house and the height of your fence. Perhaps not as restrictive as most apartments, but still a far cry from the days of "I own it, it's mine, and I'll do whatever I want with it". * Equity...Okay, in theory that's nice, but with housing prices increasing, there is a limit to how much a buyer can come up with for a down payment - In most home loans, during the early years virtually all of the money goes towards paying the interest on the loan, not to principal. Maybe you'd be better off getting a nice apartment, or renting a house, and investing the rest. Maybe not. * Prestige - Can your friends / boss / the public tell the difference between the brand new Lexus you bought with $1500 payments and the leased Lexus with the $700 payment? No. Most people don't really care anymore. Yes, maybe you are getting shafted with some leases. Others are at least somewhat benign. It all depends. In theory, when you lease a car, you're paying for the depreciation and the interest on the money that's tied up by the owner of the car (the bank / leasing co.). Renting is not all it's cracked up to be either though...Especially depending on from whom you are renting. Some leases are unnecessarily restrictive, others simply cost too much for the value you receive. There are already disposable cameras and cellular phones. Eventually we'll have disposable computers, storage devices, display devices, and any number of other things. As with everything, the technology is advancing faster than we can evolve our culture in order to cope properly with it. Many people are still overly attached to 'ownership'. This is not necessarily bad, but increasingly, we'll need to let go of attachment to particular material things in a world where many of the tangible things we now take for granted will become disposable, single-use items.

Re:Mud to Mud

[ibpooks]

I guess if you think that ending every phrase with, "because we're killing babies in the womb," is articulate, focused speech more power to you. However, I tend to believe candidates have to have a GLOBAL view of many different issues. Moreover, you say that right and wrong cannot be defined for an individual, yet you're supporting a candidate who has an obviously strong intent to make his moral views law. Thereby, you take the ability to choose morality away from the people. How can one learn to make good moral choices when there are no other options?

Re:Mud to Mud

[totient]

Wondering So who cares? is hardly a condition unique to the modern age. Every generation must (to some extent) rediscover and reinvent the purposes of life as we live it. Change breaks the old models and requires new ones to be constructed.

Which really matters more to you, though?

Is it whether your actions are remembered in a few hundred years, or whether they make a meaningful difference to those you care about here and now?

Re:Cheer up!

[mrfiddlehead]

Montreal, btw, is the only city left in North America where one is encouraged to live a life outside of work/home. Of course one must deal with the continuous ranting of the french language fascists but that's a small price to pay for this way of life. Check it out!

ps. You get medicare too, most of the time :)

agreed

[mszeto]

You know, I agree with you. Society is moving somewhere fast, but I'm not quite sure where.

Things have changed so much in the past 10 years! I think we need some kind of movement (obviously its going to start on /.) to fight back against bullying corporations. Those with money who abuse it should not have the right to control our lives.

What ever happened to good intent in business?
They're probably loosing money and/or out of business, since the immoral bastards at rich coroporations bought them out or created an unfair competitive environment.

Re:agreed

[falloutboy]

Why is it that wealthy businesspeople and rich corporations are always evil in the public eye? Is it wrong to be cutthroat (read: highly competitive) in industry if the trend is such? Of course, I realize the obvious flaw in that argument: two wrongs don't equal a right. But why is it even considered wrong to have that kind of attitude?

I have a theory on why the /. readership sometimes has this reaction to wealthy/brutal businesspeople. As computer geeks, we are the h4x0rs of corporate America, and we don't have to be bastards to get ahead. I'm 19, and am currently at work as an intern at a major news organisation in New York. I'm getting paid $12/hr right now to read slashdot and post replies. I'm wearing jeans and sneakers, and a t-shirt from unamerican.com. I think I did maybe five or six solid hours of work out of the last nine that I've been here at the office. In any other department, I would probably be fired by now. Bottom line? Even a 19-year-old intern has job security, because I know how to configure a DHCP server and add a computer to a Windows NT domain.

As geeks, we're isolated from a lot of the ethics that hard core businesspeople have to adopt in order to stay valuable to a company. That doesn't make everyone else a bastard.

Re:agreed

[GeekBird]

Personally I believe that the rise in corporate power has led to our current McGovernment with little real choice between two very similar Democratic and Republican parties. There seemed to be a lot more difference between the two 10 or 15 years ago.

Whereas I see the causality being the other way around. With McGovernment just being two minor shades of the same color, corporations can spend less money to buy the government they desire. Look at DMCA, UCITA, H1b floods, SSNs on drivers licenses (which is an outrage!!), etc. The majority of legislation that is being passed is bought and paid for by some corporate group that buys the republicrats for cheap.

Re:Everyone wants to control their users.

[Dungeon Dweller]

Ever had a girlfriend? Tell me that she didn't always want to be in control. Everyone wants to be in control. There are few people in the world who feel comfortable in a situation where they are not somehow empowered.

flexibility...lack of community, lack of continuit

[gaijin_]

I think this all is a contiuation of the increas "flexibility" people are faced with today. The company you work at no longer only wants your work for a some hours every day doing more or less the same thing with the same people every day. (This may seem boring, but is very nice for building stability, friendship and security) Now they want you to be dynamic and flexible. They want you to move on short notice, change your work often and move where you are needed. As a whole the companies even dont really care if you stay with them, as long as most people in your field change jobs often. In order to comply to this you cant be rooted to one place, and have to be able to move. If people had been owning houses, cars, stereos, sofas and all kinds of other things getting them to move would be very hard. When everything is leased it can all be turned in, and the employee moved to a new location. Ofcause this is does not apply to the entire society, but it is an increasing trend, and I guess most of the people posting here will be hit by it some time. gaijin_

Re:credit card consumers

[darkwhite]

Well, basically you're right in that overpopulation and competition for resources causes wars and violence in general (obviously). However, this is not an indicator that primitive societies - nomadic, tribal, isolated - constitute more stable and protected societies, nor less violent in general.

When you get to the point in civilization's advance to large cities, the society becomes increasingly centralized around an authority. Dependent on circumstances, that authority might lead the nation to war, or even destroy that society altogether by irresponsible actions. But it is also true that individuals or segments in hardship will normally get much more help from others in a more centralized society (ex., help in famine, unemployment benefits, and so on). Overall, today's societies definitely have more means to protect their members than decentralized primitive ones.

Karma Police, arrest this man, he talks in maths
He buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio

Re:Of Course

[darkwhite]

I couldn't agree more. Fortunately, unlike most of the people in the world, I'm not pressured (and never have been) to conform to any religion or faith, and I find perfect satisfaction in not believing in anything but freedom and truth. (okay, this sounds corny but I don't care: if you don't understand what I mean I pity you.) Alternatively, I resent the idea of joining - and being bound by - organizations known for centuries to kill people, violate people's freedoms and invade their privacy. I know this sounds too strong and that most people's relationship with their religion does not involve such abuse, but it's true. As for anyone who tries to accuse others of being immoral or otherwise "evil" on the basis that they are atheist - think again, you ARE a hypocrite.

Karma Police, arrest this man, he talks in maths
He buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio

Re:'Leasing' software vs leasing physical goods

[darkwhite]

only a "faustian bargain" is inappropriate here, since in Goethe's creation it is questionable if Faust's deed was bad for him :)

Karma Police, arrest this man, he talks in maths
He buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio

Re:Not a matter of influence

[darkwhite]

I'm guessing that your lifestyle doesn't consider isolation to be a plus however, and you want to live someplace that is more "desirable". I agree, by the way. I'd go absolutely bananas if I had to deal with a rural lifestyle right now.

Actually, I would disagree... since with broadband internet (much broadband, of course, say so that hi-res videoconferencing could be possible) you can increasingly communicate with others from home, I have long dreamed now of, once (and if) I have sufficient money, buying (or better yet, building) a house somewhere on the seashore a few hundred miles to the north of Cisco... then drive there once a week or so. I would probably enjoy that lifestyle :)

The only problem may be that a house like that would now cost close to a million dollars :)

Karma Police, arrest this man, he talks in maths
He buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio

Re:Hey Molly!

[Anonymous Covard]

How is this any different from a hundred years ago? Work 16 hours a day as a coal miner or a sharecropper. Come home. And you owe the company store.

I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night, alive as you or me,

"But Joe!" said I, "You're long time gone!"

"I've been on-line." said he...

Re:This has been going on for a long time...

[Anonymous Covard]

A crow was sitting on a fence post, doing nothing.
Noticed by a passing rabbit, the rabbit inquired of the crow,
"That looks comfortable. Mind if I sit and do nothing as well?"
The crow accepted, and the rabbit sat at the base of the post.
Just as the rabbit settled, a fox jumped out of the bush
and gobbled him down before he knew what hit him.
Moral of the story: You must be very high up before you can sit and do nothing.

The crow shook his head and chuckled at the fate of the silly rabbit,
when suddenly, he was nailed by a soaring eagle,
and his carcass was taken home to feed the nestlings.
And the moral of this story: These days, nobody's that high up.

Re:return of feudalism...

[Anonymous Covard]

It's rather nice to see that Jon Katz isn't falling on deaf ears. I like that take on it; for some reason I think "Neo-feudalism" may strike a responsive chord in people to whom "Corporatisim" provokes no reaction at all...

Re:Yes.

[egburr]

Secondly, the documents seem to be written intentionally so that most people are unable to read them without a couple of years of law school training. They're loaded with legal language and as much fluff text and obscuration as possible, burying the terms of the agreement and making it a burden to read. The textual equivalent of having to travel several hundred miles through difficult terrain in order to retrieve the easy to read version.

Not only that, but half of the text in them is printed in ALL CAPS. PRINTING SOMETHING IN ALL CAPS IS VERY DIFFICULT TO READ WHEN IT IS MORE THAN JUST A FEW WORDS. For that very reason, every publishing style guide strongly and repeatedly warns you never to use all caps. Not only are the lawyers making the license difficult to understand, they are intentionally making it very difficult to even read the text.

Edward Burr

Re:credit card consumers

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

... people who have paid off their mortage are unlikely to move.

Which is a good thing. Our society is becoming too mobile, too fragmented, too unstable and too disjointed. I think I speak for a lot of people when I say I want the right to have a productive and fulfilling life without having to move around the country constantly, switch jobs constantly, always follow the latest trend, etc. Part of the sickness in our society is from people not putting down roots so to speak.

We, as the technical class, should steer technology towards improving stability in our lives, not undermining it.

The "Age Of Transience"

[broken77]

Sure. Our society has been moving in this direction for some time now. And there is a correlation between technology and society regarding "temporariness". If you want to read more about this than you ever had the stomach for ;-) check out Alvin Toffler's Future Shock. He wrote it in the late 1960s/early 1970s, but there's still a lot of truth in it!

Ownership is an illusion

[avandesande]

you will die

Re:What do you expect......

[CrazyJoel]

"We are becoming a society that wants things easy and as cheap as possible... "

While it is easier, leasing is not as cheap as putting cash up front. It's just about always cheaper to pay with your own money than it is to pay with someone elses money.

It just requires the commitment to save up the money beforehand. Otherwise you could find yourself in a long-term relationship with your creditors. How's that for commitment! You have your credit card company contacting you for a longer time than any of your personal relationships.

joel

Re:People are not stupid

[CrazyJoel]

"1. You need a job to live. False. Convicts, for example, live without jobs. "

Dude, you can't trick the laws of thermo. If you ain't supporting yourself, somebody else is. And you pay with your freedom. Of course, "most people" think freedom is highly overrated and may think some people have too much freedom. I've actually heard someone tell me this. Too much freedom! AS IF!

joel

Re:How Many People Feel This Way?

[CrazyJoel]

Maybe it's the idea of meritocracy. That your place in society is based on your own abilities. Wouldn't that put an awful lot of stress on a person? That you have only you to blame for why your life is so crappy.

joel

Re:Mud to Mud

[Earthling]

The "from mud to mud and nothing else really matters" mentality that seems to be prevalent amongst my generation and in those who are following means that while they still know, for the most part, what is right and what is wrong, they don't care all that much. There is no eternal reward, no eternal punishment, no great purpose, and within a few hundred years your actions, good or bad, are usually completely forgotten. So who cares?

As I was writting a ratter long rebutal of those statements, it stroke me than Einstein had resumed the issue quite well in Cosmic Religion with other opinions and aphorisms:

The ethical behavior of man is better based on sympathy, education, and social relationships, and requires no support from religion. [It] would, indeed, be sad if he had to be kept in order through fear of punishment and hope of rewards after death.

-Earthling

Is It really so bad?

[lilnobody]

200 years ago, You woke up and worked until you slept. You might have a hearty dinner of bread and salt at night. Then youd wake up and do it again, and repeat this until you died. After a while, we started owning the land we worked, but things really werent the same.

Now, we kind of have a mix. We dont own the 'land we work', but we have more time to live than any generation previous, period, ever. You work your 8 hours a day, your debt to civilization, and then you do whatever you want in the rest of your time. Do you own anything but debt? Do you have anything to pass to your children? No, but anything you have will be obselete by the time they care anyway. It's an interesting quandry.

We enjoy a rather unprecedented amount of freedom, even from 50 years ago--remember October Sky as an example: a lot of people were literaly born into their job, and this is just not nearly as true today. The price (cause?) of this freedom is a lack of ownership. No matter what people say, we really can do a lot more today than we ever could before.

Now, this system is not for everyone. It has certainly redefined 'self-supporting'. I just recently moved out of my mothers house at 20, I work for money well above the average for my age and rent a cheesy apartment for 350 a month (real estates cheap here). Today, thats self supporting...50 years ago, since I don't truely own anything, I probably woulnt be considered that. And for these people that this new system does not work for...I don't know. Its unfair to leave them in the cold. But that is the way America is heading, even more so in the future, because soon enough drinking Coke (tm) will constitute consent to a liscense agreement in which you agree not to reverse engineer the ingridients.

Whats -truely- scary are restrictions on behavior. The case of criminal libel from a 16 year old acting like a 16 year old in Utah posted on /. just a few days ago is frightening. So's Wave America.

But Kevin Spacey in American Beauty had it right--just let things you love flow through you, because theres not enough time to try and hold on to it all.

nobody

Can you say �Proletariat�?

[James_Armstrong]

Good for you!

... an interesting book ...

[JMZorko]

Alvin Toffler wrote a book called "The Third Wave" that attempts to explain what many people view as the disintegration of modern society (heck, modern _everything_ pretty much). Mr. Toffler attributes this to a change in era, and draws some interesting similarities between some of the chaos of today and the chaos when the industrial revolution really hit the world.

I'm not saying Mr. Toffler has got it right, but it is an interesting and refreshing book, a good read, and it makes one think a bit (which is what the people at /. are all about, right?) about where we _are_ headed.

Regards, John

Re:Choice vs Control

[crazy_speeder]

I don't think so. I choose whether i want to lease a car or not; I choose to live in an apartment or buy a house; and I choose a job with "job security" or one without.

true, you do make the decision. but what/who is influencing your decision? tv/magazine/www ads, your social group, misinformation from varied sources, etc...

they want us to think that we are calculating a choice by carefully phrasing information packages and the like. what is truth? are we ever handed the absolute truth? is it even possible to have 10% of the truth?

or it could all be a coincidence.

Re:Privitizing Oppression

[Jasonv]

I don't know about everyone else, but I love the way things work now.

I grew up in rural Canada - and we can get pretty rural out here. I lived in the house my grandfather built ontop of the house my great-grandfather built. My Dad worked the same job my grand-father did I'd be there too if it wasn't for computers and our new 'temporary' life.

Since getting out on my own I'm been through 3-4 different 'carrers', live in 3 different major cities. One day I lived in Vancouver and thought: "I like my job but I want to do something different and be somewhere different". 2 months later I was in Europe travelling around and 5 months I'd settled in London and working in a investment bank instead of an Internet company.
(I wanted to see how 'big business' worked rather than small start up - I'm still doing the same sort of thing, but in a totally different environment).

And now, I've been here 6 months. Know what? I don't really care for London much nor do I really care for the Investment bank scene - Although I'm glad I came here; I've really enjoyed the experience and would never wish it never happened. So, because I 'rent' my home, my car, my life I'm going to get up and leave. I'm going to travel some more. Then I think I might try living in Europe (Berlin sounds exciting.. I'd like to live in a non-english place.. or maybe New York - I haven't decided yet). I also am thinking of getting a job that isn't IT related. (Diving instructor on the Greek islands? I'd even like to maybe work on a farm in France for 3-4 months... I won't make much money.. But I don't need the money. I don't have to pay for a house, or a car.. etc. Remember? )

I'll be going back to the town I grew up in and seeing my old friends I've left there. I still talk with them via e-mail.. They've got houses, kids, jobs... I keep telling them they should come over to Europe for a few weeks and I could show them around. "I'd love to.. but I can't [get time off work; the kids wouldn't enjoy it; afford it]"

I wouldn't throw away my 'throw away' life for anything. I don't make 'lots of money'. Heck, I don't even make good money. (I work helpdesks.. ) But I live comfortable and happily. I live how I want, where I want when I want because everything I need is never 'mine'. I don't have to pay full price for it... and I never have to miss my freinds because of the Internet.

One day I'm sure I'll want to 'settle down'. Then I can buy a car, buy a house - if I want. But currerntly, I'm living the life that in times past only the upper class could.

I've done nothing but gain freedom from today's society.

Put children through college? Don't people work their way through college these days? Everyone I know does? Not that as a parent I wouldn't try to help them out... Worried about getting sick? I've got medical insurance.. and I guess being Canadian helps in that the goverment helps with that (generally). Sure I could get some horrible disease tommorrow and be in dire financial problems. But I could accidently hit someone with my car and be sued to death as well. Life is just full of excitment, isn't it?

Maybe I'm doing it all wrong but I'm glad I've got the option to live how I want - unlike my father who always wanted to travel for months and months in Europe but couldn't because of his 'carrer' and making payments on his car that he had to worry about..

I can't speak for everyone else, obviously, but the whole consumer/demand thing has worked well for me. I'd be living at on the family farm if my only option was to buy a house and a car everytime I wanted to move... If I could just lease a stereo and actaully be able to lease CDs and eventually give them back when I was done with them I'd be much happier.. Hmmm.. MP3.com anyone?

We live in the society that we (or at least I?) demanded and the economy provided.

-- Jason
"I spent my youth obtaining wealth and then I spent my wealth obtaining youth"

Re:Mud to Mud

[Surak_Prime]

To Mr. Dvorkin: I never said that wasn't the case. However, that picture is looked at as a whole, and a whole, of course, is the sum of its parts. We've had a lot of positives leading up to now, but I stand by my position that a loss of a sense of spirituality and purpose is and has been a BIG negative. To Anonymous Christian: NEVER be ashamed to say what you TRULY believe. Any mindless detractors reveal nothing but their own lack. BUT - I would be careful advocating a return to TRUE Christianity. Examine Matthew 15:21-28 carefully, for when He speaks of dogs (unless you are Jewish), He speaks of you. And I would never advocate burning people (what Witch in his right mind would?!) or censoring the 'net, either. To SrA_Pus: You may be right. There may be no definitive morality. BUT, there are certain practical morals that evolved covergently in vastly separated societies that are close enough to what I'm talking about for you to get the point. And they have been undermined by political correctness and moral relativity. Apostasy and HunterD: I was not advocating subscribing to any one particular dogma. BE an athiest, an agnostic, a Buddhist, a Wiccan, a Christian, heck, be a Satanist. THAT doesn't matter! What matters is that you remember that magical things are all around you, and that you're one, too. Have dignity, have honor. Sure you will return to mud, and eventually no one will remember your name. That has nothing to do with the wonderment that is RIGHT NOW. To Anonymous Accuser: You are, of course, completely right. I apologize. I meant to say "rampant hypocrisy in many of the members of Christianity", not to show disrespect to all Christians or to Christ Himself.

Started long ago

[felis_panthera]

I think a lot of the IT profesional's transient nature started way back in school.

The typical IT profesional is a computer geek. This is a valid statement in itself, and I'm sure most of you would agree with its truth. However, let's take a look at what that term, which most of us would consider a badge of honour, means to the average Joe.

To John Q. Public, your standard computer geek is someone who is built very poorly in the physical departmen, "scrawny little weakling" springs to mind. They are also a bunch of bookworms who would rather have their nose burried in "one of those stupid, fake, sci-fi books" than partake in the real world of professional sports. There are other steroetypes involving things ranging from taped glasses to personal hygene that are simply beyond the scope of this rant.

This leads us to our transient nature. Due to these unfounded stereotypes (I, for one, love playing and watching football, have 20/20 vision, and am almost pathological about personal cleanliness) we are avoided and, in many cases, ridiculed. When one does not fin in with a group, one moves on to another group. Thus it begins.

There is no permanence to an IT professional's life due to no stability in relationships wrought as a child.

Of course... I could just be an embittered, lonely individual who wants to bitch about why my life sucks... who knows?? *G*

Are we talking about the meaning of life?

[Marketolog]

One guy said:

A man is born to die.

Maybe that's true...

But then, you must have booked a grave!

I have the solution!

[MasteroftheVoxel]

Somehow I think joining the DNRC will solve this problem

www.dilbert.com

Re:Hey Molly!

[Robert Paulson]

Who's talking about a hundred years ago? Think fifty to twenty years ago. Let me quote William Upski Wimsatt:

"What's the most fun you guys have on the block?" I asked a racially mixed group of four boys whose parents have just purchased them a portable basketball hoop.
"Three summers ago, we had so much fun. We used to play kickball in the alley every night, and basketball and baseball."

It's as if the only way to have fun is to play sports.

When I was a kid growing up, way back in the '80's, sports weren't the only thing for kids in Hyde Park to do. On my block, we had:

Trees to climb and rooftops on which to build clubhouses.
Gangways, alleys, and yards to play all-block tag in.
Garbage chutes to slide down.
Tourists at the Museum of Science and Industry to mess with.
Mulberry trees and grape vines to eat off.
Drunks to play tricks on.
Other kids to meet and play with just walking around.
Water to squirt, mud to make mud castles, warm tar to have tar fights.
Pedestrians to sell lemonade to.
Lobbies to read people's magazines in.

Who needed toys? We had imaginations. We had a neighborhood. The tar pit was replaced by a parking lot. Mulberry trees and vines got cut. Our rooftop clubhouses got barb-wired. Abandoned garages were razed, ganways sealed, fences erected, and buzzer systems switched to outer doors of lobbies. The museum charges admission now, and the block next to ours is gated off. The block next to ours is a gated community! You have to have a special key card just to walk down what used to be a public sidewalk. I used to play in their park. Now, I have to go all the way around the block and hop a fence. They call it urban renewal. I call it nailing shut the window of communication between urban kids and adults, rich and poor, whites and blacks. The city that created people like me doesn't exist anymore.

The politics of fear that was pushed on us all throughout the 80's, and to this day, created an urban environment that was hostile to anyone who was just there, who wasn't about some stated business. Working, sleeping, or spending, like the man said.

And there are other causes. New zoning laws destroyed the mixed-use blocks (businesses on ground level, apartments on top) that helped to create vibrant urban neighborhoods. Here in the States, we expend about twice as much energy per person as in Europe -- just travelling around, going to the distant supermarket, the distant job, the distant barbershop or whatever.

None of these things just happened. People and corporations made them happen for their own economic gain. Public transportation didn't disappear, it was undercut by the auto industry. Trace things back to their sources. A couple of hours' research on the Net, at the library, or in Lexis-Nexis' databases (free access at the University library, hell yeah) can work wonders.
RP

There absolutely is.....

[pHatidic]

And the reason is essentially that people want more and more material items. After a point, one simply cannot acquire enough resources to own them all at the same time, so instead we own different things at different times and sell off what we don't want to get more money to buy new things.

For example, look at African tribes even today. You get a mud hut and clothes, and you own that forever. The more you want, the more often resources are going to have to change hands, simple as that. The best example of this is day traders, they want so much that they use all their money and have to sell a day later regardless of weather or not the stock has gone up.

Overal, I think this is a good thing. Variety is the spice of life, and I really see no problem with more than one person having ownership over something as long as its at different times.

Something to ponder about licenses...

[GandalfGreyhame]

Supposedly they're legal contracts, right? Well, what happens when a minor buys software and 'agrees' to that contract? How I understood american law to work, a minor can't agree to a legally binding contract. Something to ponder, no?

Re:Yes.

[roundclock]

A big reason for this is because of people suing each other and the court systems running amuck.

Post a warning label or get sued for millions, hmmmm.

I once heard that a small town had an annual refridgerator race. One guy's fridge went out of control and he hit a tree. He sued the refridgerator company. Maybe just a myth....

Re:People are not stupid

[roundclock]

Most /.ers should know that in the technology world, a college education means a lot less than other areas of education. Geeks are in.

Then again, try teaching without a degree.

Re:Yes.

[roundclock]

Nice argument, but the pessimist in me insists on pointing out that the likes of M$ don't go after Dick & Jane; they go after Slashdot.

They don't go after slashdot. They go after big corporations that can't afford not to be compatible with the rest of the world.

Re:Choice vs Control

[roundclock]

The richer get richer, the poorer get poorer. Renting definetly proceeds this issue.

Re:Everyone wants to control their users.

[roundclock]

IT's easier from a corporate perspective to sell a product that is required by law. That way, even if the consumer wouldn't buy the product, they will have to in order to stay "legal".

Re:But I want this option

[roundclock]

Well, if we all had our way, we would have the money to buy our own house without borrowing money. How much do you pay in interest?

Point is, leasing is borrowing as well. You probably don't have to make payments as long, and maybe in the future we can afford to buy. Isn't that what everyone thinks?

But if everyone continues to lease, those prices will go up and soon we will no longer be able to buy.

The Thing That Happens

[brank]

The lease on our car is winding down right now. We have the option to lease a new car or buy the one we have now. After investigating a little bit, it turns out the leasing a new car is actually less expensive than buying the one we have now. This means something.

What it means is that the car company wants us to lease, not buy. Companies have discovered that consumers don't really need to own things, they just need to feel like they do. As long as the consumer doesn't realize it, the rationale goes, you're free to scew him however you want.

This isn't really related to technology. Maybe it was helped along by old guys in boardrooms noticing that new startups were making millions without actual products. But it's been happening throughout history. Serfdom was a little more direct, maybe, but in a world where even the lower classes have rights you need to be sneaky about how you control their lives. Other wise they'll find out what you're doing and protest.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not trying to say that this is illegal. There aren't many laws that they're breaking, it's just a principle thing (that Apogee trademark thing was unconstitutional.). It should be illegal for a company to be able to say they don't take any responsibility for a product. You bought it, you used it, and you should expect it to work. But they've been doing similar things with clickwrap agreements for years.

It should be illegal to have a contract with penalties for "unusual wear and tear" fees paid to car companies that depend on the opinion of the company's employees when they inspect your vechicle. Shouldn't there be an agency that at least pretends to be independant?

I thing that these things are wrong, and many people would probably agree with me. But until Joe Consumer decides that he wants a product that he can depend on without all sorts of arbitrary limitations, nothing will change. With free software (and that new open softdrink) you get the advantages closed software leaves out. When you buy, someone takes responsibility. If Emacs doesn't work, the FSF won't help, but if you bought in a RedHat box, you can just call them. If you don't like the way it works, you can do something instead of just paying up for the next upgrade or for an Authorized Repairman.

Companies make money by taking away control, so they do it. It's that simple.

Umm... the catch

[alarmo]

Actually, I'm not sure who you're considering.

The average american workday has been on the rise again for years now. (And that's white-collar professionals, not counting those who hold down second jobs to pay the rent in cities like mine where "minimum wage" won't even pay the rent). I'm a programmer, like many here, and 8-hour days (not counting lunch) are the short ones, most weeks.

Meanwhile, the people I see (and work with) who live in large houses, drive expensive cars, go on vacations, etc. also owe truly enormous amounts of money - the kind of debt that I wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing I was responsible for. In a boom economy, well, you can get by with that. If/when there's trouble....

ownership

[HashKey]

The things you own, end up owning you. -Tyler Durden

Nota Bene

[splink]

I refute thee thus: They did indeed just go after slashdot over a restrictive license issue.

Contract work

[bckspc]

Personally, I much prefer the freelance life to full-time employment... that is "renting" my time to an employer rather than "being owned" as full-time staff or management.

One of the things I enjoy as a freelancer who does contract work is some semblance of ownership of my time. At least I get to choose who I sell it too.

Whenever I take a staff position, after many months I start to feel trapped, at the mercy of my situation.. like the job owns me. As a freelancer I at least have a menu of possibilities and there is always an end of the project in site. I could always go out and start my own company, too.

But then I have no illusions that this is a result of a peculiar time in a peculiar marketplace. I just happen to have a couple of skills that are in short supply in the particular place where I live and work. This does make my situation and future uncertain, but I'm still relatively young and am enjoying the flexibility it allows me right now.

Real life is like that for a different reason...

[taliver]

The main reason in real life for all the renting/leasing/etc has to do with people desiring more than they can really afford. Since I can't afford to buy that way cool car, I'll just lease it instead.

Same holds for all those other mentioned items, and also fits into the impression that a city wants its citizens to spend.

No solution to the problem (if it is one), just an observation.

Convenience

[Lucky_Pierre]

Is what it's about:
Throw away lighters
Throw away pens
Throw away hamburger wrappers
Throw away diapers
Throw away children (abortions)
Throw away marriages
Throw away lives

Read "Brave New World" again.....

Re:Choice vs Control

[kz45]

microsoft shows me that linux can't survive without the help of the government.

Re:Choice vs Control

[kz45]

the rich get richer, because they have something called persistance and intelligence. The poor get poorer, because they have the brain of a slashdotter. Instead of actually doing something about it, they proclaim that they are getting stepped on, and bitch about their problems. Even in nature it all comes down to the survival of the fittest.

Re:Choice vs Control

[kz45]

you are very closed minded/one sided. Why can't everyone benefit, not just the poor. If you get an inheritence, that's great. If you earn it, that's even better. What is stopping poor people from getting jobs and becoming successful? nothing, except themselves. The only people I have sympathy for are those with mental problems, who can't fend for themsleves. Everyone else has a brain, what you choose to fill it with is called life.

im not rich, in fact I have barely enough money to get by each month, but am I complaining??? no...because I know I can sharpen my skills and become successful, all it takes is a little hard work.

those who are not rich choose to be.

Re:Or make your own - Open source!

[kz45]

so is communism

'tricked' into leasing? please.

[flicman]

You're kidding, right? People lease instead of buy because they find benefits therein, not because they're stupid.

all this mindless anti-corporate rhetoric gets on my nerves. every time you post an anti-corporate message, sig it with a concrete way that 'big brother' has made your life worse, then you'll have some credibility.

...flicman
fax machines. the first one was worthless, the second made them both worth something. the third made the group worth yet more.

Cheer up!

[nagora]

It's not that bad yet. Perhaps you need to move to a different town.

TWW

Re:Cheer up!

[nagora]

That's not fair: anyone could be happy if they were called Mr Fiddle Head!

TWW

Re:Cheer up!

[Schnedt McWapt]

Montreal, btw, is the only city left in North America where one is encouraged to live a life outside of work/home.

That's a rather peculiar thing for you to say.

Granted, I am sitting here at home typing this. But through my open window I hear the kids out at the park playing ball. Often enough adult ball games are being played out there as well. And guess what? Those people are encouraged to be out there by the Park & Recreation folks who put out flyers, organize leagues, etc.

One thing for certain is that I am NOT in Montreal. (but it's also a nice place to live, just like where I am in the 'Twin Cities' of Minnesota)

Future Shock by Toffler

[coderodent]

Interested in this topic? Read Future Shock by Alvin Toffler . It deals with changes to society due to rapid industrialization and more recently technological innovation.

Re:Mud to Mud

[daemonenwind]

And yet we stray further from the point of this Ask: session. Here's something to bring it back in line.

The reason we have limited purchases taking over so much of the scenery is that we are increasingly concerned with trading part of our "selves" for fantastic prizes. When there is more value placed on having a symbol of status than on having the positive inner qualities that generate such ownerships, we become increasingly willing to give ourselves up to have access to them. For example, many people think nothing of filling out an invasive survey to gain free (but rather bad) internet access, a chance at winning some prize, or some other good.

Similarly, we trade our spirituality - that being religion, such as Christianity - for the material things we want, and wonder why we feel so empty. When's the last time you worked on Sunday morning instead of going to church? Or walked past the homeless man without stopping because you were saving up for the latest CPU? Or worked long hours to save up for something? We want these things so badly that ways are created for us to "have" them. Abracadabra, limited ownership for limited fees.

These desires are nothing new. They are the things that drove Martin Luther to fight the church he loved, after finding that indulgences, paid forgiveness, was going to build a nice cathedral for the pope. They are the things we are told of in the New Testament when we are told "Seek ye FIRST the Kingdom of God, and his Righteousness. THEN all these things will be added unto you." Now, since we know that we cannot attain the Kingdom on our own (another truth from the Bible - we are never truly good), when do YOU think we'll have all our wants filled? Not in this life! The Bible, as "full of contradictions" as some may claim it, had this one figured out thousands of years before silicon found its ultimate use. These people who seek only goods need to catch up to its wisdom. Economics even understants this. They call it scarcity - limited resources, UNLIMITED DESIRES.

But how do we change this? First off, get out of the cities sometimes. When we are surrounded by an environment made by man, when every tree, building, street and blade of grass holds its position because a human decided it should be there, we lose our sense of awe. Our vital, necessary, God-fearing sense of awe. So with our surge protectors and lightning rods and storm cellars "saving" us from Nature, so we can snap our fingers at this world we have "mastered", we forget the awe of seeing a tree, standing tall, not because a long-dead logger planted it, but because it GREW WITHOUT HUMANS. A flower opening to the sun, without fertilizer or stakes to guide it. God's miracles are all around us, except in the cities, where we've banished them due to their inconvienence and our own paltry sense of order. God doesn't speak in sound bites and 90 decibel rock-concerts. He speaks in silence, waiting for the awe of his real miracles to return. And we will have more and more limited ownership, not because of the technology, but because of the desire. Because of our desire to fill that God-sized hole in our hearts. Or is it the size of a BMW Z3?

Alvin has the answers...

[litewoheat]

Anyone working to build the future needs to read the Alvin Tofler books; Future Shock and Third Wave. They were written, I believe, in the early 70's and are dead on to what's happening now...

Re:Do not rent or lease.

[Reality Master 101]

Take them to small claims court. Just because it's in a contract doesn't mean they automatically can do anything they want (suppose it said they had a right to one of your children -- just because you signed it and didn't see it doesn't mean it's a reasonable clause). Off the subject, did you know that if you break something in a store, you're not liable even if it says "you hold, you break it, you pay for it"? It's part of the cost of doing business (unless they can prove you did it intentionally or something). Anyway...

Small claims is super easy and very inexpensive. If you truly weren't being a public nuisance, I'd bet the judge would rule that they needed to take reasonable measures to contact you, particularly if they had your license plate on file. Take lots of pictures, look like you put some effort into proving your case, dress nice, and you'll probably win. Small claims judges are generally pretty sympathetic to the little guy.

--

Reflections of the world

[talesout]

I believe that you have touched on something that is perisitent throughout "SOCIETY" (Yuck, I feel tainted) at the moment (moment being relative to history).

The fact is that most of society at the moment seems to just be living thier blahsey lifestyles and just doing what they can to get by. But they don't want to put any effort into anything, and they sure as hell don't want to tie themselves to something (why is the divorce rate so high?!?). People are always looking for something they can get out of if they need to. They don't want to commit, because that would mean taking a risk. Marriage is looked at now as "going steady" was looked at thirty years ago. "It's not that big of a deal if things don't work out, we'll just get a divorce." People don't want to be tied down. Why buy a home, when you can rent and then complain to the landlord, or just leave if the place gets trashed. If you buy, you may have to put some work into the home at some point.

A few years ago, this trend started to sink in on me. I was finishing my high school years (what a crock) and started to realize how totally twisted around my generation was. They were looking everywhere for something to believe in (this was worse in the city I moved to for my last couple years of High School than it was in the small town I had come from). They were told to look to the future, but the present looked pretty dark. Anytime you started to believe in someone or something it would fall apart. Case in point (for me) the metal bands that had always stood up for individual rights (in our young minds) and told the world to fsck off if they didn't like them, started to fold and play the same radio pop crap that all the other one hit wonders were trying to play. Instead of saying, "We love our fans, screw what everyone else says." they started saying, "Screw what our old fans think, we want some fscking money." (Metallica anyone?)

It isn't just music either. Anything original, or that shows a little bit of individuality is quickly shut off. Look at TV (not the best deep thinking area, but bear with me here). There was a kick-ass show a couple of years back that started called Harsh Realm. It was (in my opinion) the most original idea and most well thought-out world to hit TV in a long, long time. About the time the series really began to develop it's personality to the point where it was completely recognizable it was cancelled. Why? Because the mindless masses hadn't instantly tuned in. Now, I understand that the network needs to make money, but they used to allow a new show a season to make fans (and if I recall, the show had just started to really develop it's fanbase with it's fifth episode, about the time it was cancelled) not just a couple of shows. This is just a symptom of the way the world works now. If it don't give you instant gratification, then fsck it.

I know it sounds like I'm preaching gloom and doom, but I'm not. I'm just being realistic. I'm tired of watching these things happen and everyone that is interested in making things better just shrugs and says, "Oh well, can't do nothing about that." We can, it just takes a little effort. I want to buy things, because I don't like playing by the rental rules. I change things, I fiddle with them until they aren't recognizable, so rental and leasing aren't really an option for me on most things. But there is a tendancy right now in the computer world to only allow leasing. It is becoming very difficult as a consumer to just purchase a PC without being told that you have to do the lease (try telling a Gateway salesman that you want to purchase the PC, not just lease it). Why do the PC manufacturers like you leasing/renting equipment. Because you pay for it twice, and then you send it back to them. Why would I want to do that? I wouldn't, but some people don't think it through. Pay for it once and keep it, or pay for it basically twice and give it back. If you are the trade-in type, go for it. Maybe you think you are saving yourself hassles. But don't believe you are getting the deal of a lifetime.

Sorry for my rant folks. I realize the people that are going to read this probably aren't the ones that need to hear this. (Slashdotters typically have a brain and know how to use it, not all of them I know.) But we need to question things every once in a while. Too many people just sit back and say they can't do a thing. But they can. Go looking for things that you can purchase (instead of the "easy to lease" things that are everywhere). Avoid buying on hype (my strongest machine is a Pentium II 333, why do I need the latest GHZ monster to do my work), think things through. If you can't find a cause, or a hero, or something to believe in, make something to believe in. Start a cause, start a movement. The Free Software Movement and Open Source Movement have given me a little hope for the future. Not all of humanity are completely brain dead. But even these are showing signs of the stupidity of masses of people. Now the rule seems to be the more people you add into the equation, the more likely the end result will be stupidity and thoughtless greed. But there is still hope. Don't fall prey to the old theory that you can't do anything. Do something. There's got to be something you can do, figure it out and do it.

What about Marriage...

[cvd6262]

For those of us who actually /want/ a family life, the attitude in today's workplace is detrimental. Being willing to relocate takes on a whole new meaning with a spouse and kids. In so doing, we trade the intangible communities of the new economy with the old school neighborhoods and classrooms.

I can lease a car, rent a house, and contract out my work, but I cannot (read will not) sacrifice in anyway that which is most important to me: my Family.

Re:Yes.

[Halloween Jack]

Nice argument, but the pessimist in me insists on pointing out that the likes of M$ don't go after Dick & Jane; they go after Slashdot. The problem with restrictive licensing laws is that they can be selectively enforced, and gee, guess who they select? Kinda like cops who tend to stop mostly African-American motorists, even though everyone else around them is speeding.

Re:Mud to Mud

[CactusCritter]

Don't forget the rest of the world; there have always been a lot of folks out there to whom equally bad or worse things have happened. "Two centuries, when (as was true until fairly recently, in fact) orphans and the sick and old routinely starved to death?" I am a seventh generation Kentuckian (although I now live in Arizona) and never have regarded KY as an enlightened state. Nonetheless, when doing family genealogical research, I was startled by the number of court records which dealt with caring for the sick and old. This included several examples of citizens directed to determine if specific individuals were so penurious that they should become wards of the county. There were other examples. My take is that there is a tendency to underestimate the degree of social responsibility which existed 200 years ago. JMHO, of course.

The difference is pay

[42821128607675]

The median income level of the average job is usually well above minimum wage as computed by the federal government.
Yes there may be a great many jobs that are paying minimum wage but the question is most people who are making policy level decisions in the world are in actuality making substatially more.
Basically out of all the people who are really driving this supposed lease oriented ecconomy they are in fact educated by status of their employment position.

That stated leasing is completely stupid. It's far better to own a thing than to be constantly making payments for so called "value added options" and the like.
For example take a car. I would rather have a car that was mine and would always be mine without the need to make constant payments still when I would have be able to have the car under a standard system.

Re:The difference is pay

[Schnedt McWapt]

Speaking as somebody who just last month made the last payment on his Saturn, I am looking forward to the next few years when the car is effectively 'free.' The term of the car payments is about the same as the term of a lease, and the payments were about the same. And in either case there was a 'down payment' up front.

And the difference is? Besides semantics

[42821128607675]

Really unless there is some elitist leaning I can't see the difference.

People are not stupid

[42821128607675]

Ok here's simple logic to disprove this. 1. You need a job to live. 2. Most jobs require a collegiate level of education. 3. That education is difficult to obtain. 4. Therefore most of the jobs that people have are required to have people who are intelligent. 5. Most people are intelligent.

Re:People are not stupid

[Schnedt McWapt]

If I had a BS degree in engineering, I would be making $30-50k more than I am with a two year tech degree and over a decade of experience.

I wish I'd gone the extra time back when it was easier than it would be now.

Re:People are not stupid

[Jeffrey Baker]

Fascinating logic, but I don't buy your premise that most jobs require college education. I propose that most jobs are in the manufacturing, retail, and service sectors. Auto mechanics and waiters don't need a college education. Engineers and doctors do, but there are far fewer of them.

Re:People are not stupid

[Golias]

1. You need a job to live. False. Convicts, for example, live without jobs.

Most jobs require a collegiate level of education. Also false. Most jobs do not require a degree, and it's a good thing they don't, because most Americans don't go to college, and many of those that do fail to graduate.

That education is difficult to obtain. False. Both Dan Quale and David Letterman hold degrees from Ball State University in Indiana. 'Nuff Said.

Therefore most of the jobs that people have are required to have people who are intelligent. False. I can prove it in three letters: D M V :)

Most people are intelligent. Flase. Most people are of normal intelligence. That's what makes it normal. QED

Your too close to the action

[42821128607675]

I am sure that in the middle ages people also thought things were moving fast. Perhaps even in neolithic times when they say many beasts getting killed, interesting weather patterns, others in the cave group die, etc. What leads you to the conclusion that anything is moving fast in such a way. I look at technology and just see the same old BS again and again. Nothing is new. The stuff that is new is usually rehashed stuff from days gone by.

Re:return of feudalism...

[dltallan]

With the corporate promotion of the Internet (everyone needs a Web site and we've seen what can happen to Web-related start-ups), the message I'm getting is: "Let the serfs surf".

There's hope

[KjetilK]

Yep, there is hope, when someone asks the question...

Re:What do you expect......

[tiwason]

While it is easier, leasing is not as cheap as putting cash up front. It's just about always cheaper to pay with your own money than it is to pay with someone elses money.

Exactly... but it is cheaper in the short run. as other have noted in these comments... not as many people seem to be thinking about the long run anymore.... just the here and now... instant gratification... Why save for a few years, when tomorrow I can go and lease that super-sized suv....

Otherwise you could find yourself in a long-term relationship with your creditors. How's that for commitment! You have your credit card company contacting you for a longer time than any of your personal relationships.

Not to some people... chapter 11?? makes me sick when I hear some of the ocmmercials on the radio these days... "With bankrupcy you get to keep all your assests.. cars, boats, house.... full pay... the debt is the only thing you loose..." Great.. so if I really don't have to pay off my debts... why not go get all these great toys now...

bleh...

What do you expect......

[tiwason]

(Atleast in the US)

We are becoming a society that wants things easy and as cheap as possible...

Re:What do you expect......

[Schnedt McWapt]

That's a choice people need to be free to make.

I chose to NOT buy my new stereo gear at Best Buy. It's all cheap garbage. I can't afford 'the best' but I can definitely afford to be discerning. So I bought a Yamaha Integrated Amp and Klipsch speakers. It wasn't that expensive, it's a medium to long term purchase (it replaced a Karmon-Kardon Vacuum Tube Integrated Amp I bought in a thrift store fifteen years ago...)

What makes you think it's a bad thing that we're free to choose?

Re:Mud to Mud

[GeekBird]

We need to move back towards Christianity. True Christianity, not the corrupted versions of it floating around.

Why friggin' Christianity?? There are other moral, ethical, and holy religions out there. Few of them have anything to do with eternal life insurance and the veneration of an instrument of torture!

I could concievably support your statement if: (s/Christianity/spirituality/g) and (s/need/should/g)

Seriously, I don't argue with your right to believe as you wish, but your claim that "We need to move back towards Christianity" is really offensive. "WE" don't need any such crap.

Its really sad that I have to post this anonymously to protect my "karma" here. Censorship is alive and well, even in our "free" Slashdot community.

[sarcasm on]Awwwww, poor little Christian. He's sooooo persecuted. [sarcasm off]

When's the last time you got beat up, your property vandalised, fired from your job, refused a job, your children taken away, arrested for "terrorism" or "unnatural acts" because of your religion??

Never?? I thought so. But that's what happens to pagans, muslims, jews, hindi, etc EVERY FUCKING DAY in the supposedly civilised USA.

I do not support censoring the Internet or burning people at the stake, but I know a lot of people will assume I do now.

Yep. A person can be pretty reliably judged by the statements they make. Saying "We need ... Christianity" is the same as saying "We need Fascism" in my book. The record of Christianity and it's adherents isn't good when it comes to those who refuse to adopt it. Mind you, it's not the only religion with a bad rep, but it does have one of the worst.

consumer culture

[c0sm0]

It seems like a coincidence doesn't it.... but this is the consumer culture we live in. All corporations want the human species to be is a bunch of passified morons who blindly do what they are told when they are told. Buy a new car (or better yet lease it so you can have it now! now! now!) Pretty sad isn't it? Well we can do something about it -- we are the consume...r, check out this site: http://www.adbusters.org

Do you really own anything or do they own you?

[phluxoahu]

How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land? The idea is strange to us.

If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can you buy them?

Every part of this earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every clearing and humming insect is holy in the memory and experience of my people. The sap which courses through the trees carries the memories of the red man.

The white man's dead forget the country of their birth when they go to walk among the stars. Our dead never forget this beautiful earth, for it is the mother of the red man. We are part of the earth and it is part of us. The perfumed flowers are our sisters; the deer, the horse, the great eagle, these are our brothers.

The rocky crests, the juices in the meadows, the body heat of the pony, and man--all belong to the same family.

So, when the Great Chief in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy our land, he asks much of us. The Great Chief sends word he will reserve us a place so that we can live comfortably to ourselves. He will be our father and we will be his children.

So we will consider your offer to buy our land. But it will not be easy. For this land is sacred to us. This shining water that moves in the streams and rivers is not just water but the blood of our ancestors. If we sell you land, you must remember that it is sacred, and you must teach your children that it is sacred and that each ghostly reflection in the clear water of the lakes tells of events and memories in the life of my people. The water's murmur is the voice of my father's father.

The rivers are our brothers; they quench our thirst. The rivers carry our canoes, and feed our children. If we sell you our land, you must remember, and teach your children, that the rivers are our brothers and yours, and you must henceforth give the rivers the kindness you would give any brother.

We know that the white man does not understand our ways. One portion of land is the same to him as the next, for he is a stranger who comes in the night and takes from the land whatever he needs. The earth is not his brother, but his enemy, and when he has conquered it, he moves on. He leaves his father's grave behind, and he does not care. His father's grave and his children's birthright are forgotten. He treats his mother, the earth, and his brother, the sky, as things to be bought, plundered, sold like sheep or bright beads. His appetite will devour the earth and leave behind only a desert.

I do not know. Our ways are different from your ways. The sight of your cities pains the eyes of the red man. There is no quiet place in the white man's cities. No place to hear the unfurling of leaves in spring or the rustle of the insect's wings. The clatter only seems to insult the ears. And what is there to life if a man cannot hear the lonely cry of the whippoorwill or the arguments of the frogs around the pond at night? I am a red man and do not understand. The Indian prefers the soft sound of the wind itself, cleansed by a midday rain, or scented with pinon pine.

The air is precious to the red man for all things share the same breath. The white man does not seem to notice the air he breathes. Like a man dying for many days he is numb to the stench. But if we sell you our land, you must remember that the air is precious to us, that the air shares its spirit with all the life it supports.

The wind that gave our grandfather his first breath also receives his last sigh. And if we sell you our land, you must keep it apart and sacred as a place where even the white man can go to taste the wind that is sweetened by the meadow's flowers.

You must teach your children that the ground beneath their feet is the ashes of our grandfathers. So that they will respect the land, tell your children that the earth is rich with the lives of our kin. Teach your children that we have taught our children that the earth is our mother. Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth. If men spit upon the ground, they spit upon themselves.

This we know: the earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth. All things are connected. We may be brothers after all. We shall see. One thing we know which the white man may one day discover: our God is the same God.

You may think now that you own Him as you wish to own our land; but you cannot. He is the God of man, and His compassion is equal for the red man and the white. This earth is precious to Him; and to harm the earth is to heap contempt on its creator. The whites too shall pass; perhaps sooner than all other tribes. Contaminate your bed and you will one night suffocate in your own waste.

But in your perishing you will shine brightly fired by the strength of the God who brought you to this land and for some special purpose gave you dominion over this land and over the red man.

That destiny is a mystery to us, for we do not understand when the buffalo are all slaughtered, the wild horses are tame, the secret corners of the forest heavy with scent of many men and the view of the ripe hills blotted by talking wires.

Where is the thicket? Gone. Where is the eagle? Gone.

The end of living and the beginning of survival.

Seattle

Re:Is Up Down?

[IANAL]

What you have Just said ignores alot 200 - 300 years of industrial development. Most of the examples that were given are now made possible by standing on the shoulders of thoose who came before us. IE Building a city/community takes hundreds of years of resources, it doesn't just happen overnight. The changes from ownership to leasing just means that there will be no one putting any resources for infrastructure.... which leads to the inevitable downturn of communities.

Capitalism doesn't work for people it works for corporations. Too many people seem to think that corporations have the same rights as people.

Re:Do not rent or lease.

[KingKenrod]

Dude, just because a contract says something doesn't mean you are bound by it. I could sign a contract that says "You have the right to kill me", but that wouldn't make it legal to do so. Chances are laws in your state say that a rental manager must give you warning before removing your property from the premises. I agree with your points, and rental agreements are little more that intimidation tactics to keep you in line, not legal documents in the real sense. A few years ago apartment owners were ordering residents to take down satellite dishes or the dishes would be confiscated - these provisions were written in the lease. The FCC ruled recently that such restrictions are illegal, but apartment owners still include such clauses in their leases to make people "think" they can't do it.

Re:Choice vs Control

[SignaI 11]

Heh. I've been up and down the east coast. Every year the interestates are more crowded. I hear the west coast is the same way. So the commute to work that used to take half an hour now takes an hour, and instead of trees you get to look at new housing developments with one house after another that all look the same. I keep expecting to hear about how a bunch of people on I95 all drove into the ocean one day. Is it any wonder more and more people every year are snapping and shooting up the school/office/church?
So what are you going to do? Move out to some shithole area that's really unfriendly to humanity and live in a shack? Burn your credit cards and pay cash for everything? My Romanian friends told me Americans like to have the right to disappear, well, you can still do that, but anywhere you disappear to will be exactly the same. This is the New World Order. Governments will continue to erode until one day there's nothing left but the corporations who run your life for you. Your best bet is to be part of the rich 10% because life's going to suck for the other 90%.

At the very least you can take some comfort in the fact that our own stupidity got us where we are and our own stupidity keeps us there.

Re:Cash next to go. Anonymous wealth? Can't have t

[SignaI 11]

For those of us who actually /want/ a family life, the attitude in today's workplace is detrimental. Being willing to relocate takes on a whole new meaning with a spouse and kids. In so doing, we trade the intangible communities of the new economy with the old school neighborhoods and classrooms.

Re:Zippy III

[SignaI 11]

You make your own life. No matter how bad things may ever get, the choice to live a happy life is yours. I spent the time to find a good tech gob in a small town (less than 4000) but is about an hour and a half away from a large town (aprox. 500,000) Living in the small town allows me to get a house out in the woods and setup my own little kingdom where I can do what ever the hell I want.

Re:Yes.

[SignaI 11]

You know, I agree with you. Society is moving somewhere fast, but I'm not quite sure where.

Things have changed so much in the past 10 years! I think we need some kind of movement (obviously its going to start on /.) to fight back against bullying corporations. Those with money who abuse it should not have the right to control our lives.

What ever happened to good intent in business?
They're probably loosing money and/or out of business, since the immoral bastards at rich coroporations bought them out or created an unfair competitive environment.

Re:credit card consumers

[SignaI 11]

Maybe we should ask whether this is a case of life imitating art or art imitating life, ie: perhaps the computing industry just happens to magnify the changes going on in the rest of the world. eg: RMS keeps worrying about things like the SDMI for books. For that matter, as computers become a part of more and more things in the world, more and more things are going to be subject to the properties of computers.

It's also interesting that the first few posters interpret some of these things as being bad. They certainly could be, but they don't have to be. Renting everything will keep people from being locked into lifestyles. If geeks are leading this trend then, as a culture or cohort, we're becoming more flexible. Just as massive, old companies can't change, people who have paid off their mortage are unlikely to move.

Re:Zippy 2

[SignaI 11]

Can't sleep...Clown will eat me...

Re:Zippy III

[SignaI 11]

I think you are seriously confusing two differing trends: the ability to choose how much you want, and a loss of control over what you can have.

Application service providers, or rental apartments, are good in that you don't have to take more than you need. I could buy a house, but I know I do not want to commit to where I am, so I rent. I don't want to buy an app, but I need it for this project, so I'll rent it. Having these options is a good thing.

UCITA, on the other hand, removes options. You cannot do certain things that you used to be able to do. That is a bad thing.

In short, while I agree that the ability to not commit tends to lessen overall committment, that doesn't make it a bad idea, simply an abused one.

Re:Choice vs Control

[SignaI 11]

During the late 1960s, the 'rental life' was put forward by leftist thinkers such as Buckminster Fuller as a 'solution' to the alleged 'problem' of private property. No one would 'own' anything anymore -- people would simply rent what they needed as they needed it, and the social 'harm' of ownership would thus be eliminated. All property would be transitory, and, without owning property, people would naturally be more generous, sharing, compassionate, communal, etc ad infinitum nauseum.

Re:Yes.

[SignaI 11]

There are a number of causes for the effects that cliff is seeing. First, people are just plain lazy. It takes too much effort to figure out the best deal, read the license, comparison shop, etc. Second, as a poster above noted, at least on the consumer side, renting and leasing allows one to get more than one could otherwise afford. Third, people are impatient. Instead of saving in order to buy that nice expensive car, we lease it, so we can have it NOW. Forth, on the coroporate/merchant side, renting/leasing is good business--they get to both keep the merchandise AND "sell" it. Think about cars, for example. A dealer can lease it for a number of years, making quite a bit of money from it, and then sell it as a program car for more than the same used car would go for if sold by an individual who had purchased it new.

This whole trend is scary for another reason: in the software industry, the company gets to keep their product, license it for $$, and then charge for tech support. If the rest of the commercial world follows suit, we might see other companies trying to cut costs in the same way. For example, no longer will the dealer of your leased car take care of maintenance, nor your landlord maintain your apartment, etc. In the future that cost and responsibility will get pushed off onto the consumer as well. In such cases, we will not own our "stuff", will pay someone else for letting us use it, but at the same time hold all of the responsibilities traditionally held to belong to the owner.

Copyright vs. Patent

[ca$h cow]

Copyright law says: I created it. I didn't create it as a work for hire. I own it. Simple as that.

Not quite that simple if you take patents into account. While copyrights make room for individual creativity, patents do not. If you patent a process (such as Amazon.com's 1-click), then others, although they may have developed the process in an independently creative fashion, do not have rights to that process--unless, of course, these rights are obtained from the owner of the patent. Thus, a wholly separate and independent piece of software may be null and void under patent law if it performs the same function as patented software process.

Currently, as far as I know, this is only applicable to business processes (i.e., Priceline and Amazon.com's 1-click), but it seems to set the precedent for future software patents covering much more than merely "business" processes. As a software developer, the implications of this are a tad scary.

How Many People Feel This Way?

[proteuskor]

How many people feel as if they are living a leased life.
This cant simply be bitched about, something needs to be done, and it can. It you want to be a little more free, then you need to have options other then making or spending money. Sure you can still go to the park, but you should probably bring along your 1,400$ mountain bike.
I have felt this way for a long time, alot of people I know have too, I wonder if the problem here is mainly communication. People express it differently, some say its capitalism, others just label it chains holding them down, still more see it as a box built arround them, even others as consumerism. Whatever you call it, we need to have a poll, do you feel free? yes no let me check whats popular first

Re:Mud to Mud

[MugenHagen]

Just exactly what do you mean by "meaningful standard"?

You Cite McCarthyism is an assertion that the peopel were generally immoral in the past. That was a tiny minority of the population.

You cite the "genocide" of the Indians (American of course). It was never the program of the US gov. to exterminate them. Not even their culture. (Don't confuse genocite with a violent disregard). Even then The National Concience was salved by the notion that they were being relocated to a place where they'd be more happy, the truth being hidden by those responsible.

You cite slavery as immoral, but seem to forget that everone at the time thought it was quite acceptable.

Have you forgotten the rampant violence and other crimes of the late 20th century? Have you forgotten the skyrocketing divorce, etc. rates?

You champion a floating moral standard, but then support your assertions with "every meningful standard". It's no wonder your notions of the moralities of history are confused.

Mud to Mud is a world view of confusion based on a notion that any individual can set their own standard. But it is the only standard there can be when we cannot agree on a real standard. As usual, we are sinking to the lowest common denominator because of the lack of a real standard. This was a function of tradition. I suppose you make up you traditions on the fly too.

Well, duh.

[Everyman]

The materialist doctrine concerning the changing of
circumstances and upbringing forgets that circumstances
are changed by men and that it is essential to educate the
educator himself. This doctrine must, therefore, divide
society into two parts, one of which is superior to society.
The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human
activity or self-changing can be conceived and rationally
understood only as _revolutionary practice_.
-- 3rd Theses on Feuerbach

Nothing much new...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just go back to the 1890's or earlier... Before workers fought back against bosses, the 8 hour day was a dream for the future, all jobs were at will, etc.

Owning your own house was also a new, post WWII, thing. Yeah, it's slipping away, with two-income families struggling to buy a house remotely close to their workplace, but it isn't something new -- we're just going back to 'the good old days'.

Of course, there's a limit to how much people are willing to let slip away before they fight back, so it's not all gone for good...

Re:Yes.

[J4]

Yeah, right? I can't beleive some of the shit I see in commercials. Lies! All lies! I have a theory it has to do with the "safety equipment" (ie bike helmets) cabal that has manipulated americans into strapping cleverly disguised mind control devices to the noggins of impressionable young minds....

I took quite a few headers off the old Schwinn and it never hurt me any!

Re:Mud to Mud

[Bill Currie]

What's wrong with divorce?

For a couple with no kids, there's no real problem, they just divvy up (maybe messily, but that's irrelevant) and go their separate ways (yes, that doesn't always work, but that's irrelevant too).

For a couple with kids, those kids are probably better off with divorced parents than ones that stay together "for the kids". Yes, it's messy and upsetting for the kids, but that's far better than living with parents that hate each other and are force to live with each other.

Now, I'm still in my first marriage (comming on 9 years) with two kids and I'm hoping that it will be "death do us part" (or 50 years, that's what we jokingly promised each other), but if it should ever come to the point where my wife and I hate each other, we won't be staying together "for the kids". That would cause them more harm than good. Sure, we came close to splitting up a few years ago, but that was due to external problems and missunderstandings, but fortunatly we realised what the problem was and that we still wanted to be with each other before it was too late.

Couples that don't want to be together (and remember, it takes two), should be allowed to split up, no matter what. I will conceed, however, that many give up too early (as my wife and I almost did), but they do still have the option of getting back together again, should they decide that splitting was a mistake. I believe it is peaple being forced to live together when they don't want to that causes most domestic violence (there are exceptions).

Re:Mud to Mud

[Bill Currie]

I agree that those couples shouldn't have gotten married in the first place, but there's often only one way to find out...

I see your point, but I disagree with your assertion that it makes us all worse off. Just because a couple gets together knowing they can `just get a divorce' if things don't turn out doesn't mean they aren't committed. Heck, every other legal contract (and that's exactly what a marriage is) has an out; why should marriage be any different? (ok, that doesn't support my argument, but still...). Having an out make it easier to make a commitment. How does divorce not being available help anybody?

Hmm, I just realised the flaw in your argument. Having divorce as an option actually strengthens the commitment in a marriage, if it doesn't create it in the first place. If there is no option, there can be no commitment as there is no choice.

With divorce available, the couple is committing to making their marriage work. Without divorce, where is the commitment? What are they committing to? When my wife and I got married, we went in saying to each other "it's a gamble and if it doesn't work, it doesn't work, but let's do the best we can to make it work". And as I said earlier, we're still married after almost 9 years (and I'm only 29:).

it's all about -

[jafac]

Frequent readers of slashdot may notice I have a tendency to begin my posts with the phrase: "It's all about. . ."

In this case, it's all about CASH FLOW.

It's psychologically easier to sell a couch for $35 a month than it is to sell it for $2000. Once you get folks to accept that, you can jack up the price in increments that are much more difficult to track, $40 doesn't seem too much more, until you multiply that over 5 years: $300. Even better when 5 years down the road, those $ are worth close to the same they are now (low inflation). Wonder why inflation has been so low in the past few years?
Companies can pose a much better case for future success if they have regular cash flow. Income. Which is funny, because I have a much easier time financing a house if I have a big chunk of money up front, than I do if I present my salary. It's what they want, continuous payments, a steadily increasing stream of income. Monthly service this, monthly payment that. Companies' employees demand monthly payments as salaries. Why not break down the income into monthlies as well? Easier on the accounting. Easier to dupe with.

The sick thing about it is, the people who CAN afford to buy things like cars outright with cash, are the same ones that can qualify for reasonable financing. The others get bent over with high rates, because they are higher-risk borrowers. A big stinky crock of shit, no?

To say nothing that when the day personal property is eliminated from the capitalistic system (hows THAT for a switch), we basically become economic slaves - not only are we running on an income treadmill, but we're pursuing a carrot merchandise on a stick.

This is the ONE reason I will not buy a TiVo. I will NOT buy into their monthly service crap. $12 is way too much to pay for downloading a TV directory, when my Satellite system downloads a new one every 5 seconds.

The only thing that has mitigated this downward spiral over the last decade has been the trend towards giving employees stock options, especially in the tech industry. Only then can a person break from the economic strata they started in. It worked for me. I'm one of the lucky few. I don't know who's back I stepped on to get here either. But I'm here, and I have a 9.9% rate Visa card, and a Home Equity Line of Credit, and OWN both of my cars.



I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .

Re:Argh!

[TheGreek]

I read an editorial in some gov/military saftey magazine advocating just that several years ago. Remove all the warning lables, repeal all laws requiring things like safety belts and helmets, and let nature take its course. It'll help cut back on stupid people, and provide more candidates for those every so entertaining darwin awards.

Everybody that dies from accidents is stupid?

Tell that to the families of sober people who happened to be in a car that was hit by one being driven by a drunk driver.

Alvin Toffler's "Future Shock"

[Pseudonymus Bosch]

All this was predicted in the 70s by Alv in Toffler in his best-seller "Future Shock", about how people and cultures deal with faster change everywhere.

I know Amazon ain't kosher. You got better URLs on Toffler?

What about a Slashdot interview with Mr. Toffler?
__

Public transport systems

[Nicolas MONNET]

It's amazing to notice that the idea of Public Transports is completely alien to americans. Oh and BTW, thanks guys for all the car-related pollution you're farting in OUR atmosphere.

Thank Your Government

[grahamkg]

Whether it is the US or some other country, you can thank your government for some of the business "environment".

Regulations (which in the US *are* law) and tax law in essense determine the parameters of how things are used. And as regards regulations and tax laws, in the US they are constantly changing! What was valid two years ago probably isn't today. Long term planning is not even possible. That business can continue to function in this country is amazing.

Graham

Re:Do not rent or lease.

[fishbowl]

"Manager retains the
right to remove any vehicle for any reason they deem appropriate."

The local statutes might protect you here.
You can't put something in a contract that
supercedes the laws of your city or state.
I'd be filing a complaint with the attorney general, not with slashdot.

However, I would have never signed this lease as written. At the VERY least, I would have had
a specific list of what those "reasons" do and
do not include. You have to negotiate these things. It is *VERY* important to not be homeless while you are shopping for your next apartment.
When you have the luxury of using your feet to
negotiate, you have power over them.

Re:you left out an important one...

[fishbowl]

"You have a girlfriend or boyfriend, and it can be semi-permanent. It's serious, but non-binding. "

Spoken by somebody who has never "oopsed" himself
into child support.

Re:Not a matter of influence

[fishbowl]

"My grandfather can't for the life of him figure out how I can't afford a house"

Oh but you probably can afford "a house"

Not one overlooking San Diego, perhaps, or
one in Downtown San Jose.

There is plenty of available real estate in America. I could have bought the last house
I lived in near Dallas Texas, for under $30,000,
nice big yard, two bedroom house. For under $200,000 you can still find 4/5 bedroom houses
on a couple of ACRES around there. But that's
around Dallas. The same places in Austin will be
either impossible or millions of dollars already.

But I'd MUCH rather rent in a place with some
excitement than own in a boring place. I'll
bet you could pick up a farm or two in Oklahoma or
Kansas on your income.

I'm guessing that your lifestyle doesn't consider
isolation to be a plus however, and you want to live someplace that is more "desirable".

I agree, by the way. I'd go absolutely bananas
if I had to deal with a rural lifestyle right now.

When your grandfather bought his first house, it was in a relatively small town, where less than
1000 people a day were moving there, I'd hazard a guess.

If you picked such a spot, I'll bet you could afford to live there tool

If your grandfather was trying to get into downtown Manhattan, even in his day, I'll bet he
would understand.

Re:Yes.

[fishbowl]

>people understand that they don't own the video
> that they rent. Do they understand that they
> don't own the video they "purchase"

They have an underlying framework by which they are allowed the complacency of knowing that any means of TAKING the video from them will be a violation of something more fundamental. So in a broader sense, they "DO" own the video, so long as they keep it.

When the police start breaking down doors and
waving their bulk erasers over the tapes, we have
a mechanism that deals with that. Until it gets
to that point, we have complacency.

Complacency is what people think they pay taxes for. It's what we got when we were promised leisure time, back in the 30's and 50's.

Until you do something that takes the Cable TV away from the rednecks, I'm afraid none of these issues are going to be significant enough to engender change.

Re:What's the Point?

[fishbowl]

" I usually don't bother reading license agreements. What's the point? "

Awareness. If masses of people were *aware* that
they were being "done" to an extent they hadn't expected, they would become *angry*.

"I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!"

" The civil court system is reserved for rich people"

That is one way of looking at it. So in those
masses of people who would become aware by reading what they are agreeing to, perhaps there are one or two rich people, or even the odd person who is industrious enough to realize that it's not literally true that only the rich can use the court system to their advantage. Or perhaps they
do vote and write their congressional representative, which I susped you do not do.

" Lawyers will not take contingency cases that don't offer the prospect of large judgements. "

Some lawyers will work for a reasonable hourly rate. Mine will, and does. I don't want to take on a software licensor, but then, I have no quarrel with any such entity.

What was this topic about? Oh, the EULA's are unnecessarily binding. If you say so. Write an
office suite and publish it under a less restrictive license, if it bothers you.

Re:Not a matter of influence

[fishbowl]

"I have long dreamed now of, once (and if) I have sufficient money, buying (or better yet, building) a
house somewhere on the seashore a few hundred miles to the north of Cisco"

I think you're missing my point.
Where your dream house would be located is
in one of the desirable places. Everybody can't
have a house on the cliffs overlooking the pacific! Or next to a waterfall! The problem
with being able to telecommute with ease will be
that your house will just as well be in Nebraska or Iowa, as on the West Coast, or anywhere glamorous.

You totally misunderstood what I meant by "rural lifestyle".

I would consider a cottage near Florence OR and a telecommuting job in Eugene, to qualify as "Glamorous". Think, "oklahoma panhandle",
to get an idea of what I meant. Cisco has reasons to pay you enough to live reasonably well. But
another company might not have the same motivations. If they can get somebody for $30K which makes them among the wealthiest people in their town, they might get more motivation and productivity out of them than they would for $300K for someone living in the bay area!

The thing is, if they can support the glamorous lifestyle among their employees, that might be
a selling point with which they can attract good talent, and therefore worthwhile.

I'm rambling. Sorry.

Re:Your penis can be controlled by your frontal lo

[fishbowl]

You really are a babe in the woods, aren't you?

Take a hypothetical situation:

A woman and a man are in a relationship.
Woman uses birth control. Birth control method
is not 100% effective. Woman gets pregnant. Wants to keep the child. Does not want to marry
the man or the man does not want to marry her.
(Either way).

She has the child, breaks off the relationship with the man.

Man gets sued for child support, loses big, and gets labelled as a deadbeat dad, gets to pay, and
never sees his child once.

It happens. You might be shocked at how often it happens, how expensive it can be for the man, and how universally frowned upon any dissent to this situation is.

You *NEVER* hear of the man getting to keep the child and receive support payments from the woman.
*EVER*.

Re:hypocrisy

[orabidoo]

what you're doing between your comparison (between a Christian teleevangelist and a Linux proselyte) amounts to no more than saying "boo, others are hypocrytes so there's nothing wrong with us being hypocrites too!". in other words: the argument not only doesn't fly, but it crashes with a loud *THUD*.

please go back and re-read the original post, and see how what you're arguing against is not at all what the post was saying. to begin with, the major claim of the post that you're replyign to is that by largely abandoning religion (in the way society has done in this century -- which doesn't prevent a large part of the population from having religious belifs), something good has also been lost. we may agree with that or not (i'm a bit doubtful myself, though I see his point), but how can you compare that to claims of "all [linux users / christians / etc] are dumb" ? no-one said that!

no-one here has insulted Christianity (nor Linux, nor anything else, for that matter). the original post just made the observation that the social credibility and influence of christianity has gone down a *lot*, and that this is perceived as a backlash to widespread hypocrisy by religious powers. as far as I can tell, this observation is perfectly valid; christianity doesn't have the weight that it used to have, and Christian churches are quite widely perceived as having given a less than stellar performance when it comes to integrity.

no-one is invalidating anyone's belifs here, so there's no need to rant about how narrow-minded that would be.

Re:Cease and Desist

[orabidoo]

Our pop culture is already 0wned.

don't underestimate the power of the fringes, though. our mainstream pop-culture is 0wned... but it's also the least interesting part of what is being produced!

Lease a single-family house, not an apartment

[daviddennis]

I just moved into a single-family house in a neighborhood with almost identical demographics to the area I had an apartment in for several years.

I found, curiously, that even though I'm still renting, I feel a much more settled connection with my house and neighborhood than I ever did in the old place.

I think the sense of having your own domain is much stronger in a house than an apartment; a house is a more personal space. And, oddly enough, in many areas the price difference isn't what you might think. In Woodland Hills, CA (in the Los Angeles metro area) where I'm currently renting a house, I'm paying $1,325 a month; I would have had to pay $ 1,200 a month for a similar-sized apartment in one of the mega-complexes nearby. I don't have a pool or fitness centre, but I do have a front and back yard (be they ever so puny) and an attractive neighborhood to return to at night instead of a bunch of impersonal corridors.

Something to think of next time you're checking out rentals. House rentals are usually harder to find than apartments; check out your local free ad paper for advertising.

Hope that helps some people.

D

----

Re:Lease a single-family house, not an apartment

[Ralph Wiggam]

My roomates and I pay less than $1000/month for a 3 bedroom house 4 blocks away from the Governor's mansion in Indianapolis. We have a huge screened porch that you just couldn't get with an apartment, and we love it.
There is a service in town called HomeExchange (which I can't find on the web), where you pay $60 for three months of day by day updates on all the rental homes in the city. It was a thousand times more convenient than searching through the paper and there are some rental agencies that have exclusive arangements with this listing service. If Indianapolis has a service like this, I'm sure tons of other places do too.

-B

Not true -- see attached URL (OT)

[TrentC]

This URL talks about the facts of the case.

http://www.injurycases.com/coffee.html

In short, the coffee was served about 40-50 degrees hotter than most establishments serve their hot beverages, the woman had parked her car as she was attempting to get the lid off, and she suffered such terrible burns that she had to have skin grafts and was in the hospital for weeks -- hardly the case of "Oh, no! This stings! I'm gonna sue" that everyone makes it out to be.

Jay (=

Of Course

[HunterD]

Of course - It should be clear that all the large problems in modern society are caused by the atheists.

Seriously - why to we need dogma for morality? I consider myself a decently moral person - and I hold to no faith whatsoever. Morality can be found just by looking at what is positive & negative human interaction. Many people have proposed what can be considered very high minded morality - and do not need a god to back it up. Two examples are the humanist movement (Human interaction that causes negative repercussions is probably bad, actions that make people's lives (and perhaps the world as a whole) better are porbably good.), and the writings of Ayn Rand (basically - don't steal - murder is stealing a body, fraud is stealing, etc...)

But I honestly resent the implication that the reason society is becoming more impersonal, and life is being devalued - is that soceity is increasingly filled with godless masses..... Ya know.....Atheists can be moral too.....

You've hit on something crucial, behind HOW is WHY

[SatanLilHlpr]

Effugas,

This is quite an astute set of observations on your part, in my opinion. The leased life is a reality. And we do almost nothing to notice this fact. The bandwidth in our mediasphere is completely plugged with messages about the new and the better, the sexy, the without-which-you-can't-hope-to-mate.

Slashdotters and the like spend their lives struggling towards new innovations and 'better' applications of technology, with the assumption that 'forwards' is always better, no matter what. But, who owns the game?

Think about the answer really carefully before you put in that next all-nighter. Successful consumers ( the relevance of citizenship approached an epsilon sometime in the seventies ) struggle for that next promotion so that they can have the money to buy that better car/condo/computer/SUV/GPS/PDA so that they can have the status to mix with those of higher status so that they can get that next promotion so that they can ... ...

And what is the end game of technology? (At least, as it is applied in our culture) More productivity. But why? So I can enjoy my life more fully? I don't think so. What life? I have to work like mad to keep my skills current and meet that next OH-SO-IMPORTANT deadline, (like someone is going to starve if we ship a week later) while this 'prosperity' passes by my car window as I drive from my sleep unit to my workstation.

Aside: Work - Station. Roll that one around on your tongue for a while. Is this why we are here? Is this why we have worked so hard to create this prosperity? What happened to the 30 hour work week? When the hell are we going to enjoy this 'prosperity' that we've created?

This culture is hostile to activities other than sleeping, working, and spending. You are not a citizen, you are a consumer. So, go forth, and fulfill your role, slave! And be grateful for the gilding of your cell! Don't question who owns this 'prosperity', or you will be denied its fruits! Get your hands off those control levers, we are in control now, just sit and watch your (our) television, and learn what will make you happy next!

So, the next time you stretch for that 'heroic' all-nighter, consider what you are struggling for. Are you really making the world a better place, or are you simply making the machinery of America[tm] more efficient?

Re:Yes.

[AJWM]

Oh really? Can you tell me any other instance where people act contrary to their own self interests? I can't think of any.

You're joking, right?

Smoking.
Drinking (to excess).
Doing drugs (ditto).
Overeating.
Buying lottery tickets.
Using Windows :-)
Replying to comments on Slashdot...

Re:Yes.

[AJWM]

Well, it confirms my view that you have to be a pot-smoking drunkard to use Windows. :-)

You're simply making a distinction between short-term self interest (immediate gratification) vs long-term self interest. In the long run, it's the latter that counts.

Life Imitates Art?

[Vagary]

Maybe we should ask whether this is a case of life imitating art or art imitating life, ie: perhaps the computing industry just happens to magnify the changes going on in the rest of the world. eg: RMS keeps worrying about things like the SDMI for books. For that matter, as computers become a part of more and more things in the world, more and more things are going to be subject to the properties of computers.

It's also interesting that the first few posters interpret some of these things as being bad. They certainly could be, but they don't have to be. Renting everything will keep people from being locked into lifestyles. If geeks are leading this trend then, as a culture or cohort, we're becoming more flexible. Just as massive, old companies can't change, people who have paid off their mortage are unlikely to move.

Re:Life Imitates Art?

[JeremyH]

Just as massive, old companies can't change, people who have paid off their mortage are unlikely to move.

Not necessarily. In some cases its easier to move if you've paid off your mortgage: You sell the house and buy the new place cash.

The point is that as long as you rent you are just throwing money away. When you own you are building value. Value that you can get back when you sell to put into the new house/car/whatever. Value that can appreciate. Value that you can borrow against (in the case of a home). Not too mention the fact that mortgage interest is tax detuctable, where rent is not in most cases.

The Universe is bigger then Christianity.

[cybrthng]

While i don't deteste anyones beliefs, i just feel people need to open up there eyes and take in what is around them.

People should be sent to see Niagra

People should gaze into the skies

People should play in the snow

People should go to the beach

Living is life, religion is your beliefs. Life != religion and Morals != religion either.

More people have died and more civilizations and societies have dissapeared because of ones "religious" belifes. I only know of a few people that died from looking at a waterfall or watching the skies or playing at the beach.

Lets not make life Moral or Ethnic or Religious, lets make life Freedom, Choice and Living. Life is not religion and you can't think of religion being life since most religions don't accept other living organisms as practicing when they to are alive and living. Its too bad my cats are only animals to most religions whenever they're really just furry loving lil people under a different disguise..

maybe i should be buddah or somethin :) but you get my point. If the way people live is to seperate themselves from society and be on the move well then maybe some people are just nomadic and getting back into the 21st century lifestyle of an 18th century nomad.

But i tell you what. Your work life can suck, your girlfriend can ditch you, but to just look around you and watch things for a bit you just can't help but feel small, you can't help but wonder what is around you and how things work and what life is.

Its people that don't care that have lost it. It is the people who don't wonder, who don't think and who gave up that ruin it for everyone else. Its the people who don't have any money that result to crime that bring down the people who work for the lil things that keep them going. I can go on and on, but for one simple matter of fact, its the grip of the lost hope that is making everyone else loose hope.

Technology seeps in everywhere

[Ralph Wiggam]

I read a great paper a while ago (I have absolutely no source for this and I apologize) about how as our society becomes more technology focused, people's delusions become technology focused. For the last 2000 years when people heard voices in their heads, they assumed it was God (Joan of Arc). Today, people hear voices in their heads and assume that they are coming from network television sattelites and subsequntly beat the snot out of news anchors to find out the frequncy (made famous by the REM song).
Just think, 25 years ago men with certain personal "shortcomings" owned V8 big blocks. Today they have 2 ounce cell phones.

-B

Re:Yes.

[theCoder]

Speaking from personal experience, before I got involved in the Internet a lot I didn't have a good grasp on copyrighting. I remember thinking once (in my youth) that it would be a great idea for a bunch of people to put their money together, go out and buy a piece of software and then each person install it on his own computer. That way it's cheaper for everyone. Now, I admit, I was like 8 at the time, but still.

When I first learned about mp3s I had know idea that they were illegal (if you don't pay for the cd). The idea of a data file being illegal was completely foreign to me.

But also look at our terminology. We say we go out and rent a video from the video store, but if we want to keep it, we buy the video. Buy has always implied ownership. We don't buy the right to view the movie, we buy the movie. The way people refer to things says a lot about how they think.

Re:Yes.

[Quack1701]

Nobody reads the license agreement before they hit 'OK'. Is this good for the consumer? No! Is this what corporate america wants? Yes!

Very true. However, when I was in engineering school, I had to take one ethics/legal class. In that class they gave us a couple of examples of warning labels and products liability. Basically companies had started putting so many warning labels on products to limit liability that people had stop reading the warning labels. There were even some court cases that found against the companies because the jury found that a "reasonable" person would not read through so many warnings. (Example where ladders and lawn mowers. - Ladders have more warning labels than you can shack a stick at and there was this person who used a lawn mower to trim his hedges with disastrous results.)

Shouldn't the same principles apply to software licenses? If they make the licenses so long and tedious that you need a lawyer to understand them that the average person can no longer read the licenses and know what they are agreeing to, will they continue to remain valid?

Quack

Kiss my karma, ACboy!

[TheDullBlade]

As if anyone gives a damn.

I regularly forget to switch from Extrans to HTML; do you think I can be bothered to piss around with the other controls?

Suck my karma, ACboy!

[TheDullBlade]

How 'bout you stop posting AC so you can post and then moderate down the people who piss you off in the same discussion?

Loser, yerself. I just write what I want. I didn't ask for high karma, and I'm still not going to be bothered with self-moderating.

The real moral of this story:

[TheDullBlade]

If you attack someone in a high place, you'll end up eating crow.

The Metered Society

[Stavr0]

You may no longer be able to just 'buy' entertainement. Pay-per-view is just the beginning. If it were technically possible to charge per-use of every entertainment medium, it would happen.
For example, 20 some years ago, banking service charges simply didn't exist. Only when banking started automating did they figure out "hey we can charge "nominal" amounts for every transaction the customer does, we'll be RICH RICH!"
In shory, if you ask why corporations want to charge, lease and meter everything?

• Because They Can!

Thank you for reading. A charge of 0.98 cent has been applied to your SlashCash account#990237327895
---

Re:return of feudalism...

[EnderWiggnz]

lets see ... one at a time here...

Feudalism, eh? Do you lease your computer? Is your clothing rented? Just because you have the choice to borrow your stuff from companies for small monthly fees doesn't mean that you _have_ to.

Yes, feudalism... While it is true that you can purchase any of the mentioned items for cash, the computer can be leased, the clothes can be purchased on a credit card - which if the only the minimum payment is made, you will pay multiples of the original price. So, it is very easy so you dont actually "own" anything"

For example: You can lease a car. At the end of the lease, you have no equity in it at all (unless you choose to buy the car, which I'll ignore for this part of the example), but because you leased it, you were able to drive a nicer car than you could afford if you bought it outright, which is the point. You are offered the choice of driving a Lexus ES300 on Toyota Camry payments. And if you choose to buy, you have made another choice.

At what point does Toyota own you? Does a three year lease mean "forever"?

It becomes "forever" because you do not own anything at the end of the three years, and, probably will go to lease another car for another three years, ad nausaeum.

The point here is that if you owe money to someone, anyone, you are not "free" to do as you see fit, and must sacrifice your time in the form of working in order to pay off this debt.

People who borrow, lease or owe people money will never be able to be completely free. By limiting our options to outright purchase items, large corporations are enslaving us for our lifetimes.

I think that i'll get off my soap box now...

Re:return of feudalism...

[goliard]

The question is not whether you own or lease your car, your video tapes, etc. The question is whether or not you own the tools of your trade and the place in which you earn a living.

We are approaching a corporo-feudalism because the vast majority of people do not own the tools with which they work or the facilities in which they needs must earn their living.

They can be deprived of the ability to make a livelihood on the whim of their feudal overlords^d^demployers, and cannot fend for themselves if no employer will take them in. It is easy for a high-tech worker in today's economy to be blasé about their ability to hop from fiefdom to fiefdom -- especially if he owns his house and a reasonable computer. But it is not so easy for everyone now, and in the next recession you'll see just how much freedom you have.

How much freedom does Jane R. Secretary have if losing her job also means losing not only the ability to feed her kids and keep a roof over their heads, but their health care? Her child care? Her public-transit-accessible apartment? Her company subsidized transit pass? Her (gasp!) internet access?

Are we to be surprized, then that when Jane R. Secretary is told to shred documents which the EPA, SEC, or NRC[*] would very much like to see to the discomfort of her employer, she doesn't ask too many questions and doesn't raise a stink?

(This is why I temp/contract/freelance. I insist on being a free tradesman, in so far as possible. It works for doctors, lawyers and plumbers; it works for me.)

[*] Yes, as it happens, a client of mine actually once asked me to falsify radiation safety records, when I was basically a glorified secretary. Might have worked, too, except for the fact the secretary in question knew a geiger counter when she saw one.
----------------------------------------------

Re:credit card consumers

[Mr. Slippery]

Back when society was composed of only Hunters and Gatherers we were entirely mobile and fragmented. Yet during the same time periods, archeologists have found no evidence of war, overpopulation, starvation

These societies were mobile, yes, but not fragmented. The tribe or clan traveled together. Maybe I wouldn't mind moving all around if I could take my family and friends - my tribe - with me.

And I understand that war - or at least organized inter-tribe violence - was not unknown.

I'm surprised no one seems to have mentioned Brunner's classic The Shockwave Rider yet.

Commerce Similarities

[jyuter]

While people might lease cars and the like, they still have the option to buy. Of course this is because the seller is willing to relinquish ownership over the item. You have similar phenomena with the web. You don't own most software because the companies are only selling you a license. Were they to sell you the copy outright, you would own it. Therefore, there are similarities, but nothing all that unusual or original.

Capitalism

[Hard_Code]

This is capitalism. Capitalism is a greedy-optimizing system. So people are spending less time with family, more time eating fast food, living in rented domiciles, frequently moving, and frequently spending to recoup lost time. As you can see, following to it's logical path, capitalism is gravitating us into more productive "human resources" in the machine of the market. Being a greedy-optimizing system, it frequently generates bad long term affects. Just witness the state of the environment, the fact we have a third world sweatshop indentured to rich western capital economies, and the erosion of culture, or what some would call "family values". The Iroquois had a saying: all decisions should be made with the possible of effects seven generations down the line taken into consideration.

We are being made commodities. Communism was a revolt against the industrial revolution commoditizing our physical bodies. Well, now we've replaced ourselves with machines, we have become mental commodities. That is my theory anyway. We ever speeding onward to more optimal guys-behind-the-desk. Everybody is somebody else's guy-behind the desk. That's my little theory anyway...and it scares me.

In the beginning of Asimov's Robot series, a robot is sent to the future to see what it is like. When the robot comes back it says everything is wonderful. There is no disease and everybody is happy. What has really happened is that the human race has died out, leaving only robot progeny.
Let's make sure we do not optimize ourselves out of the equation.

Re:Capitalism

[Hard_Code]

where are the Iroquois now?

Your government has done a good job of ensuring your ingorance. The Iroquois (Iroquois Confederacy, 6 Nations: Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas), one time allies, was one of the largest, if not THE largest, native american nation. They had an agriculture-based economy that dwarfed any other in scale, efficiency, and technology. Unfortunately, due to ignorace, duplicity, lying, cheating, stealing, murdering, and genocide that lasted up to modern times (forced sterilization ~1980s), the Iroquois were largely exterminated, and actively deprived of their culture (laws against practicing their culture). Today, the Iroquois are still here, mostly in New York state, trying to pick up the pieces and just live decent lives, although US citizens are STILL trying to shove them off their land. They are still owed a gigantic amount of land and monetary compensation from treaties (which our founding fathers declared was THE law of the land) and IMO reparations, which unfortunately they will probably never get as long as US citizens are still under the delusion that Indians just disappeared off the face of this continent after we came (which is party true...due to us).

Enlighten yourself, and read a few books:
http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/#HML

/shift/ of community, lack of continuity

[devphil]

I won't say that I've never met some of my best friends, but I will say that I've never met some of my best co-workers and colleagues.

City hostility? or stupid old people hostility???

[SvnLyrBrto]

>and your cities seem strangely hostile to you
>doing anything other than working, sleeping, or
>spending.

Hell, I recently moven to San Francisco for a new programming job, and if you were to read the editorial sections of certian bay area pubications, you's think that the city doesn't even want you doing that much.

According to these old geezer editors, computer geeks are this rapacious horde descending upon the city to rape, pillage, and plunder the innocent natives. We'll destroy the city. We'll bring TOO MUCH muney into the local economy?!?!? Hyperinflation will, of course, follow, causing a loaf of bread to cost >$20. No one except computer geeks will be able to afford to eat, drive, and rent an apartment. The neighborhoods will be homogenous. We're here ONLY because of the good jobs that MIGHT make us rich (hmmm... anyone else here remember how the football team got it's name???). There're NO other reasons that we choose to live in San Francisco instead of the valley or any of the MANY other places we could work. We're here ONLY because we want to rape the city...

Or at least that's what these old codgers would have you beleive. I dunno what it really is. Methinks it's another variant on the old "the newcomer is always evil" syndrome so prevelant in any area facing an influx of immigrants. Either that or they never grew out of their high school "lets beat up on the computer nerds" cliqueishness.

But now that I've actually got to know some real people, as opposed to reading the insanely leftist, exclusionary, luddite infested press, I've found none of the hostility you would guess exists, were you to judge from their writings. People are, if anything, MORE friendly here than in my former home, Orlando, FL. No one seems particularly concerned that I'm a computer geek, assuming the topic of work comes up at all. Far from seeing a homogenous wasteland of subrubanite geekiness, SanFran has maintained its diversity. There's plenty of fun stuff to do outside of Quake. Plenty of live bands, plenty of everything (including my job) that I cane to the city for.

And except for those newspapers, I've found the city to be quite welcomeing.

john

are options really not there, or not exercised?

[dolanh]

I recently moved to Silicon Valley. If anywhere exemplifies "the leased life", this place does. Unless you have a large amount of money, you *must* rent. The rest I make do on as cheaply as possible, so that one day my wife and I can take our savings and move somewhere worth spending them.

That said, I still have four more years until my stock fully vests. Yes, Silicon Valley is "strangely hostile to you doing anything other than working, sleeping, or spending", but why is that? I predict it has a lot more to do with the motives of the people who now occupy it (like me, here to gain money) than anything else.

Options for combatting this exist:

1) Get out on the weekend. Drive to Yosemite, go on an 8 hour hike, sea kayak, mountain bike. Better yet, organize an event involving one of these.

2) Minimize your billing commitments. I have rent, phone, heat, and cellphone bills. That's about it.

3) Explore your community. I know there is a park near my house -- i run by it every morning. I have also been to the library. Go find a hole in the wall restaurant.

Not to get too offtopic -- the nature of online life dictates that anything can and will change at any time, anywhere. Reality (currently) is a bit more constant. We're all trying to make sense of an existence somewhere in between.

Re:Yes.

[Cramer]

It's hard to document "common sense" but lawyers make it a requirement. Most people -- one would assume -- know their coffee is hot. So when you sterilize yourself in a hideous coffee accident, you get to sue McDonalds because they didn't put a flashing neon sign on the cup to the effect of "Hey, dumbass! This coffee is freakin' hot." (Of course, if they get a cold cup of coffee, they bitch just as loud.)

In this day-and-age, one must assume people have a negative IQ. If most lawyers weren't the evil little spawns of satan that they are, maybe we wouldn't have to think like this... (there are very few Perry Mason's in the world.)

But I want this option

[MythMoth]

Well, in the real world I generally at least get the choice to buy my house, car, what-have-you. Often by borrowing the money from someone else of course.

It is not unreasonable that the right to own something (particularly a hard physical thing that you can't copy in ten minutes with a blank CDR) should be more expensive than the right to borrow it for some determined period of time

And for me at least (no car, no house, just loads of books) the flexibility of leasing is its justification; if I get itchy feet I can move house or swap cars at a moment's notice.

Re:Yes.

[jheinen]

Try this. Go up to your typical computer user and ask them who owns the copy of MS Office installed on their computer. Or ask them who owns the video they bought last week. 99.99999% of the time they will respond that they own it. You will be met with laughter if you try to convince them that they actually don't own it at all; that MS can pretty much revoke their right to use it at any time.

I'll tell you this, I think most people have an understanding that copying software or a video is wrong, but that belief is based on copyright ideas, and the notion that the creator of a piece of software or a video has the right to profit from their work. I would argue that most people would totally reject the idea that MS or whoever actually owns a piece of software that they bought and can dictate the terms of how it's used. Copyright is understandable and relatively intuitive. Licensing is counterintutitve and kind of silly when you think about it. It certainly does not benefit the consumer.

Another thing, I think notions of copyright are only skin deep among the general populace. If it is very easy to copy something and get it for free, they will, regardless of the moral implications (witness Napster). If they really like what they copied, they are also likely to purchase a legal, original copy in order to have a nice "unsullied" copy.

Face it, the numbers companies throw around about how much $$$ piracy costs them are silly. The typical pirate wouldn't have bought the product anyway. If they couldn't get it for free, the wouldn't get it at all, therefore no one really lost any money. There was no potential revenue there to begin with. I say let things be copied freely. Make money on the partnerships that can be built on distribution and content delivery.

Re:Mud to Mud

[astrophysics]

I think it would be wonderful if everyone could understand all the great mysteries of life, philosophy, science, and religion. I think it's pretty obvious there are a lot of different ideas about what True Christianity and true other religions really are.

In case anyone is interested, I understand Christianity to be a radical religion. I beleive it's about putting others before yourself, challenging societal norms, appreciating your blessings, becoming a blessing to others, and turning the other cheak when attacked.

I wish more people would do those things, in the name of Christianity or any other religion, code, or sense of ethics.

BTW- Next time put your name on it.

I don't own my OS or apps...

[astrophysics]

Maybe I should punt Linux and write my own OS...

Actually, I'm happy with my computer, OS, and most of my apps. Can't say that for all my drivers, or internet connection though.

Not a matter of influence

[CdotZinger]

I don't think that the trend in "tech" is influencing these other arenas, but there seems to be a similar operating principle: Never let anyone own anything; they might do something unpredictable with it.

Not that I think any car dealership or software house is actually thinking that, but "the world" seems to be. Ownership of anything has gotten more difficult to come by, in direct proportion to the growing influence of gov'ts and corporations on our daily lives.

Not that the following proves anything, but it is an example:

My grandfather, an inventor/mad scientist, bought his first house w/ land at the age of 18. Largely unchanged since then, it's currently assessed at about $1,000,000. My father, an engineer/union boss, bought his at 23. Unchanged, currently assessed at about $300,000. I'm 25, own nothing much, and there's only a slim chance I could buy anything like either of my "forefathers'" homes before retirement age. Can't qualify for a home loan, because my income fluctuates so much (writer/musician; banks hate me, despite my somehow managing to pay $1300/month rent for the past four years--very irresponsible of me).

I don't even know anyone who owns a house. One woman I know thinks she "owns" a condo. But when she wants to install a toilet that flushes right, she can't--violates EPA regulations and the condo-EULA. Even the most basic enfranchisements (like a place you live that's yours to paint purple as you please) are inaccesible to a growing portion of the population. My grandfather can't for the life of him figure out how I can't afford a house; I make about 10x the money he did at my age.

I think the idea is to get people used to this leased existence, because it's the way things are going to be in all facets of life shortly. There will be no "mine." And, in my opinion, no "mine"= no "me." And isn't that what gov'ts/corps want? Voting blocs and demographic groups. Not crazy unpredictable individuals who might vote for Harry Browne or make rocket fuel from Diet Pepsi and change everything.

A little rambling, but there's a point there somewhere.

Re:...lack of community, lack of continuity

[Technik~]

I see great continuity in this, it is one of the great trends of modern society: how the individual defines him/her-self through non-traditional relationships. IIRC, Sociologists refer to the traditional relationships of kinship, locale, re
ligion and duty as 'geselleschaft' and the new ones, defined by employment and socialization, as 'gemeinschaft'.

It's not capitalism per se, it's the effect of capitalism and other social and intellectual trends. Monetary systems, the belief in reason and rationality, nationhood, the widespread acceptance of science and scientific method, the concept of fundamental human rights, written law and stable legal system, industrialization, widespread literacy, transportation, corporatism, communication and others contributed to it.

Without being pendantic (if I haven't been already), the trend toward leasing an d licensing rather than ownership is another expression of the larger (idealized) trend: You, as the individual, are free to take your physical and mental capital anywhere you choose, apply it as you choose, succeed or fail more or less on your own terms, and can consciously choose how you define yourself and what ties bind you to communities of your choosing.

Corporations are responding to this and, once they've found the revenue stream, are doing what they can to maintain it. However, we, collectively, are choosing these things or they would go away. The Corporations can only take what we give them and what they may steal while we aren't looking.

...anyway enough ranting.

-technik

Cyberlemmings

[Greyfox]

Heh. I've been up and down the east coast. Every year the interestates are more crowded. I hear the west coast is the same way. So the commute to work that used to take half an hour now takes an hour, and instead of trees you get to look at new housing developments with one house after another that all look the same. I keep expecting to hear about how a bunch of people on I95 all drove into the ocean one day. Is it any wonder more and more people every year are snapping and shooting up the school/office/church?

So what are you going to do? Move out to some shithole area that's really unfriendly to humanity and live in a shack? Burn your credit cards and pay cash for everything? My Romanian friends told me Americans like to have the right to disappear, well, you can still do that, but anywhere you disappear to will be exactly the same. This is the New World Order. Governments will continue to erode until one day there's nothing left but the corporations who run your life for you. Your best bet is to be part of the rich 10% because life's going to suck for the other 90%.

At the very least you can take some comfort in the fact that our own stupidity got us where we are and our own stupidity keeps us there.

Corporations are eternal

[friartux]

And that's the problem about letting them own anything. The net effect is that corporations have more power -- and effectively, far expanded rights and privileges -- than any individual could ever achieve.

Should corporations, then, have limits on their effective lifespans? Disband after, say, 10 years more than the average lifetime expectancy at the time of incorporation?

Or should intellectual property rights be based on the lifespans of the individual creator(s) working for the corporation which holds the copyrights?

There's certainly something out-of-whack with the current system. How soon will we see Rent-A-Life, the way things are going? :)

To those who would point out that bankruptcy is a corporation's death -- yeah, it is, currently. But that's the equivalent of a fatal accident. The point remains that barring mishaps, corporations never go away. That may be good for things like incorporated town governments, but we're seeing the effects of granting immortality to for-profit entities...

Re:Yes.

[4of12]

Customers have demonstrated that they may be manipulated into spending choices by playing upon their emotions, anxieties, and desires.

The sad corollary to Mr Lincoln's observation

"You can fool all of the people some of time and you can fool some of the people all of time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."

is that

"You can fool enough of the people enough of the time."

This is as true for the political and governmental choices that you think you are making independently, as it is true for spending and buying decisions, as it is true for decisions of how you spend your leisure time (plugged into the TV/Matrix perhaps?).

For some interesting perspectives on this theme, see, for example Adbusters., which is typically available at one of your more complete magazine racks.

Next time you watch or read a slick ad for a computer product, pay a little closer attention and watch which of your buttons (or your bosses) they're pushing -- it's interesting in that they're not the dreary objective ones!

Re:credit card consumers

[Danton]

Back when society was composed of only Hunters and Gatherers we were entirely mobile and fragmented. Yet during the same time periods, archeologists have found no evidence of war, overpopulation, starvation (limited bandwidth, electronic censorship). It wasn't until after we settled down and developed cities that archeologists found evidence of the above mentioned.

Jared Diamond in his book Guns, Germs, and Steel cites many examples of Hunters/Gatherers societies raging war onto each other (e.g. New Guinea, New Zealand), overpopulation (e.g. Easter Island), and starvation (e.g. a small island between Australia and Tasmania whose name escapes me).

Diamond puts to rest the 18th and 19th century romantic notion of the "Noble Savage". Take for instance the austronesian expansion: on island after island that the people we now call Polynesians settled, they killed off all large mammals and flighless birds. The same seem to have happened in Australia. Within centuries of the arrival of the "Aboriginis" all large mammals beside the kangoroo vanished.

The Hunters/Gatherers of New Guinea seem to live a "stable and congenial" life till they raid the neighboring tribe or they get raided by them.

--
"Web Users Should Not Engage in Promiscuous Browsing" --CERT

credit card consumers

[b_pretender]

Yeah, there's a relationship. We always want/need more then we can afford. It all started with credit cards. Leasing things is another type of credit.

Of course, my explanation doesn't explain information (software, music, movies, data) very well, but we already feel comfortable with the idea.

--

Re:credit card consumers

[b_pretender]

I made no mention about violence. I said that there was no evidence of war which hardly represents violence within a tribe.

The Indian tribes in North America came way after what I was talking about. I was refering to when humans were hunter/gather's before there was any strict social structure. I'm sure that dominant males were violent with each other, but there is no evidence of any wars. When people became to abundant, or food became scarce, then they would split up and travel to where there was more food or less people.

With regards to Understudy's comment, I am unaware of what happened on the islands in the SE seas. Perhaps the lack of land for people to spread out into caused them to become territorial long before other areas of the world.

I guess I did needed to be more specific. I'm still willing to accept that I am wrong, but I think I was refering to a time earlier then you thought.

--

Re:credit card consumers

[Understudy]

I don't know who your teacher was but if that is What you were taught and you accepted it , you were sadly misinformed. Early man fought and killed other early man. Not only do archeligist acknowledge this, but so do behavioralist and anthroplogist. Early man had weapons they wern't guns but spears weren't just used for hunting. You can look at the behavior of primates and see killing even Extreme violence. American Indian Tribes were know to war even before the arrival of Europeans. I realize that this appears to be highly offtopic but you were moderated a 4 based upon incorrect statements.

Re:credit card consumers

[b_pretender]

I don't really know where you get off saying unstable and disjointed, but with regards to mobile and fragemented here's an interesting point...

Back when society was composed of only Hunters and Gatherers we were entirely mobile and fragmented. Yet during the same time periods, archeologists have found no evidence of war, overpopulation, starvation (limited bandwidth, electronic censorship). It wasn't until after we settled down and developed cities that archeologists found evidence of the above mentioned.

Because of this, I claim that a mobile and fragemented society is more stable and more congenial then one which is locked up in position and with roots.

Sorry that I can't back up my facts with more details, but this was a main point of one of the archaelogy classes that I took.

--

Oil tycoons give the best advice

[ballestra]

J. Paul Getty gave famous advice once that it's best to own appreciating assets and rent depreciating assets. Owning a house is an investment. Owning a car isn't.

Let's get some perspective here. This isn't a trend, it's just the greater availability of consumer credit. With all this consumer renting and leasing going on, stock ownership is higher and more widespread than ever before.

"What I cannot create, I do not understand."

If bandwidth were like electricity...

[yerricde]

... the Slashdot effect would be theft of service. Just look at how many ISPs temporarily shut down slashdotted web pages because they ran into bandwidth limigs.

Everyone wants to control their users.

[Dungeon Dweller]

Everyone wants to be in control. In ALL ASPECTS, but particularly economically. If you control your customer/user, then you get more money from them, you have an economic commitment. You can plan on the cash. This is sort of what industry has learned from the drug dealers. Get them hooked, get them trapped in, get their $$$ Taxpayers are a city's customer, Internet users an ISP's. It's all about credit. It's like industry is using users as their credit line. They always have, but much like secured credit cards, they want to protect their credit.

I've been pondering this very situation....

[bitchazz]

and I decided to (mostly) drop out....I traded my '$5000 in payments left' vehicle to my brother for his '84 POS truck (hey, it runs!); dumped the cell phone, bank account (I always disliked someone else being in control of MY money), no credit cards, etc... nothing left but the $800 rent (we live in a semi-rural southern California area) that me and my wife split down the middle. And the cable modem of course...
And ya know what? I'm loving it! I do some P.C. consulting every once in a while and it pays for my needs. No more worrying about getting ahead; no bills to juggle...just peace....try it!

transience

[nomadic]

Personally I like the idea of being transient. I have just an apartment lease holding me down, and I like the idea that if I really wanted to I could quit my job and move to Hawaii. It's when you start getting responsibilities like family, children, mortgages, etc. that the lack of security kind of sucks.

anyway...my take on the move towards a more transient society is primarily a result of economics. It's more economically efficient to hire what you need (i.e. short term or consultants) than it is to hire someone for the long haul. On the opposite side, it can work out for the employee, where by constantly changing jobs he or she is able to maximize his or her salary.

Re:return of feudalism...

[falloutboy]

Feudalism, eh? Do you lease your computer? Is your clothing rented? Just because you have the choice to borrow your stuff from companies for small monthly fees doesn't mean that you _have_ to.

For example: You can lease a car. At the end of the lease, you have no equity in it at all (unless you choose to buy the car, which I'll ignore for this part of the example), but because you leased it, you were able to drive a nicer car than you could afford if you bought it outright, which is the point. You are offered the choice of driving a Lexus ES300 on Toyota Camry payments. And if you choose to buy, you have made another choice.

At what point does Toyota own you? Does a three year lease mean "forever"?

you left out an important one...

[Cryptnotic]

People are getting married less. You have a girlfriend or boyfriend, and it can be semi-permanent. It's serious, but non-binding.

Not just USA

[Befonte]

It does seem like a worrying trend, even here in the UK you see similar things happening. It seems that people are really gearing for the short term and not even planning for the middle let alone the long term. I don't want to get overly political here but there are parallels with the way we elected our current government, most of the mandate were on short term promises and soundbites whilst any opposition with half-decent policies have been overlooked or derided

It just seems to be a human psychology thing, maybe too many people are taking the axiom 'live for today' to the extreme, anything that can't be done yesterday it is too long. I do not want to appear flaimbait here but as a newbie that seems to be a problem with UNIX/Linux, this ain't a criticism, it is just harder to learn than Windoze (hard)

The solution seems to be a major reeducation system for the human race- except we won't be bothered to do it, it ain't a problem TODAY

net result- status quo

but at least some people _can_ see into the future

and that is why we will survive

Cash Money and Desire..

[PopeAlien]

Hmm.. Well if I can get someone to pay me for a service or product that they feel is important in their life, whose fault is that - The customer, the seller, or 'society'..

I dont think there is a direct link from technology to consumption/leased life, other than technology used to drive the consumptive desire that has always been there..

I for one just sold a depeeled banana online (seriously) from my website, so I must say I'm feeling pretty good about capitalism.. For every doubt there is a product -god bless the market economy.
-

Re:Yes.

[genki]

Yes, but people understand that they don't own the video that they rent. Do they understand that they don't own the video they "purchase", only the media? NO! Same goes for software.

---------------------------------

It just dosn't make sence

[42821128607675]

Automated tasks can be fully managed by a computer system.
But the real meat and substance of this is usualy people who have to have specilization.
Take a software company. Without training of the sort that you get from a university you really can't go far. Oh you can do something but that will be pretty limited.
People need to go to college. Unless you like others calling all the shots.

Historically look at Rome, Egypt, Byzantine empire, Etruscans, etc.
Sure there might have been a massive numbers of people doing grunt work but on the whole most of the policy decisions and the actual shaping of Roman life were taken from the middle and upper classes. Even revolutions never change a damn thing. The poor remain poor infinately unless they change their cast.

I still don't buy that most jobs can be had with a highschool diploma or equivelent.
All the people I know had to have one to get all but the hottest and noisest jobs. And therefore you have to be intelligent and not stupid. Or even if you are you don't count insofar as policy making goes. Yeah you can vote but still in a representative democracy you have others making policy for you. Or better yet consider a direct democracy. You are still going to have to get your facts from someone or something else because you will be unschooled in what is actually going on.

Re:Hey Molly!

[NathanDay]

"How is this any different from a hundred years ago? Work 16 hours a day as a coal miner or a sharecropper. Come home. And you owe the company store."

Yes, but it IS different than 50 years ago. Work an 8 hour day (and that included lunch), come home to the house you owned. Vacation at your summer cabin on the lake. Relatively debt free.

Talk to your parents (or grandparents) about their standard of living back in the 50's and 60's sometime. It's pretty interesting to see what was considered "middle class".

Big changes

[R0rs]

The advance towards a leased society is a symptom of much larger and fundamental changes that are going on in at least US society. Up until very recently we have had a fundamentally product based economy. People make stuff that other people buy. The more stuff you can make and the better you can make it, the richer you are.

With the incredible advances in production technologies, less money and less energy is needed to produce all the stuff that one person needs, and so more effort goes into making "better" stuff. But how do you sell something to a person that already has a workable item? I have a car from '85 that works great, what can they do to make me 'need' to buy something new? When you look a little deeper though at the economics of time, I am spending money (time), even on something that I own outright. If someone offered the same car to me for $150/month and I didn't have to do any maintenance or worry about it ever breaking down, I would take them up on it in a heartbeat. I would much rather spend my time doing something that I enjoy more and it would be a relief to never have to worry about being stranded somewhere with not enough money for expensive repairs. In some ways, I would much rather buy the pure service of "transportation" than an object that lets me create the service of transportation for myself.

Instead of selling products, more and more companies are selling services. When you lease a car or a house, you are not leasing a physical object, you are buying the service of 'transportation' or 'shelter'.

I think the trend is going to be companies trying to make leasing/renting as absolutely hassle free and transparent as possible. At the point when leasing such a service from them is far less of a worry or hassle then purchasing something, they have won. You have the services that you want/need/desire, they have a steady income that lasts as long as you live and don't switch to a better competitor.

:) The package deal life comes to mind. "Oh, our middle class life package? For only $20,000 a year you get: a standard car, a nice apartment (furnished), quality food every night, modern electronics (TV, DVD, computer), a high speed internet connection with ISP, someone who comes and cleans every week, and new toothbrushes whenever needed....... For only $5000 more you get these great additional amenities......."

Given enough variety in selection, how many people do you KNOW that would trade a lot of money for a life that is nearly responsibility free and provides easy solutions to most of the difficult choices?

The computer loves you. He looks after your every need. As long as you do your duties for the computer, the computer will provide you with all your neccesities and ample time to pursue your own hobbies and interests.......

Re:fascist!

[SignaI 11]

I think it is pretty extreme to say that the tech sector is driving the way society is headed. Instead look perhaps what you are seeing is the economy changing in areas to the attitude of the tech sector. What you are really doing is redefining a capitolistic system in the tech sector. In a real economy the goods available will change to suit the consumers. All of your examples are also examples of how the system has changed in order to make more profit from goods that require no real resources (relativly.) To me what you have stated is nothing more then capitolism at work.

'Leasing' software vs leasing physical goods

[Ed Avis]

If you contract out the provision of air conditioning in your office, it's in your supplier's interest to install a reliable and high-quality unit to start with. Then they won't have to go back a couple of years later and spend money installing a new one. What's good for the supplier is also good for the customer. And if you think their service is poor, there are plenty of other companies providing the same service; a changeover during winter would not be painful.

Compare this to leasing an office software suite. The marginal costs to the supplier of forcing an upgrade on you are zero - indeed it may be profitable to them, if Foo2001 (rented) only works properly if you also upgrade to Bar2001 (which is licensed per-seat). I'm sure you can think of products to substitute for Foo and Bar.

Furthermore, you'll probably be locked in soon after signing the contract, and so be in a poor bargaining position subsequently. Even if file formats are completely open (which rarely happens), it's pretty hard to change your office suite, MTA, SAP type thingy or whatever else. So you must go with what your supplier demands - and there isn't the price ceiling set by being able to go out and buy copies at the same price as everyone else.

I believe that many British universities are locked into a deal with Microsoft where they are _forced_ to upgrade to Office2k, Win2k and so on within a couple of years of the software's release.

So-called software rental seems like a Faustian bargain to me.

Re:Yes.

[TrentC]

It's hard to document "common sense" but lawyers make it a requirement. Most people -- one would assume -- know their coffee is hot. So when you sterilize yourself in a hideous coffee accident, you get to sue McDonalds because they didn't put a flashing neon sign on the cup to the effect of "Hey, dumbass! This coffee is freakin' hot."

Well, since you brought it up...

Of the many injury cases that have been decided over the past ten years, none have received as much publicity as the case of Stella Lieback v. McDonald's Corp. In this case, a 79 year old New Mexico woman suffered third degree burns as a result of spilling a cup of coffee she had purchased at a McDonald's restaurant. the case has been endlessly criticized and made fun of in radio commercials, on talk shows and the like. In fact, if you ask the average person what they think of the case, the usual response is something like, "Can you believe a jury gave millions of dollars to a woman for simply spilling a cup of coffee? Isn't that ridiculous?"

However, a closer look at the facts shows that this case was actually an example of where the system worked.

At the trial of this case, it was revealed that while coffee served in your home, in a restaurant, on an airplane or in a fast food establishment is normally in the range of 135-145 degrees, McDonald's routinely sold its coffee nationwide at 180-190 degrees. Liquid heated to such a high temperature becomes extremely dangerous when it comes in contact with human body tissue. That is why on the date of her accident, after the car in which she was a passenger came to a full stop - and Ms. Lieback tried to lift the lid of the cup of coffee off while she held the cup between her knees and accidentally spilled the liquid on her thighs and genital area - the burns were immediate, painful, and serious.

As a result of these burns, Ms. Lieback had to undergo skin grafts, required hospitalization for several weeks, and incurred medical bills in excess of $10,000. Later, when her family attempted to negotiate with McDonald's to at least have the medical bills paid, and McDonald's was not willing to do so, it is understandable why a lawsuit was filed.

In pretrial discovery, Ms. Lieback's attorney learned that McDonald's had already been sued some 700 other times(!) for burn injuries caused by their hot coffee- and that they had routinely settled with the injured party, requiring each person to sign a confidentiality agreement, barring the person from talking about the nature of settlement. At the trial of the case, a McDonald's representative maintained that it was appropriate to continue to serve the coffee at 180 degrees, although people were going to get burned, because the numbers of burned people were "statistically insignificant."

The jury, which was inclined at the beginning of the trial to laugh the case out of court, was so enraged by McDonald's attitude that they found for Ms. Lieback. They awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, reduced to $160,000 after the jury concluded that 20% of the fault belonged to her. They also awarded punitive damages - to punish McDonald's and to deter other corporations from doing the same thing in the future - in an amount equal to what McDonald's earns from selling coffee in only two days nationwide, $2.7 million. This figure was widely publicized, so that radio commercials and other sources have reported that "the woman got millions." In fact, the judge later reduced the punitive damage award to $480,000 and the parties settled for a lesser amount - facts which the commercials fail to disclose.

Importantly, as a result of this lawsuit, McDonald's eventually announced that it was going to begin serving coffee at a lower temperature - and reportedly that change has occurred. The McDonald's case is a good example of how the press and other interest groups can sometimes misreport an incident to serve their own purposes.

Found at http://www.injurycases.com/coffee.html

Jay (=

What's the Point?

[Detritus]

Nobody reads the license agreement before they hit 'OK'.

I'll admit that I usually don't bother reading license agreements. What's the point? Do you think that anyone would actually be willing to negotiate changes in the license? Most of them contain the same verbiage, as if they were all written by the same lawyer. They boil down to:

• You own nothing.
• You waive all your rights.
• We disclaim all warranties.

What are you going to do if the product is defective? Sue them? The civil court system is reserved for rich people and corporations who can afford lawyers. Lawyers will not take contingency cases that don't offer the prospect of large judgements.

Not true!

[TheDullBlade]

your cities seem strangely hostile to you doing anything other than working, sleeping, or spending.

<p>Blatantly false: they are clearly hostile to sleeping, too. Electric lights, late shows, night clubs, internet access: all designed to keep you working, spending, or viewing advertising when you should be sleeping.

This has been going on for a long time...

[stienman]

Our society has changed from lots of time and not as many goods (money) to lots of money, and no time. It is also driven by instant gratification. Do you remember the last toy you got? Think back to when you got it, or even when you first heard about it. You really wanted it, didn't you? Now think about how much you use it now.

Think about your job. How long have you been there? Can you imagine working for the same company for 20-50 years?

We have microwaves, fast food, and the internet. Is there anything you can't get within 24 hours given enough money?

Now here's the crux of the matter: People get tired of the same old things. Unless a product or offering changes occasionally, then we don't want it after awhile. So businesses have devised a model where we pay for a non-existant product (called a service) and when we don't want it, we stop paying them. We don't have to keep up with the maintenance of ANY object within our home, our time is too precious. We buy something called 'bandwidth', but it doesn't exist! The instant we use it it's gone; if you don't use it, it's gone. [lament on] Oh, if only bandwidth were like electricity, we only pay for what we use! [lament off]. We drive up to, into, and through an oil change place. It isn't worth the five dollars to us to spend 20 minutes on it instead of the ten the oil place offers.

In the end, a person owns very little, or nothing at all. In fact, a person makes money by what they know (another non-existant thing), and they spend money on things which also don't really exist.

So, in a sense, we've been giving businesses nothing for years as employees, and now they are taking it out of our hide!

-Adam

A crow was sitting on a fence post, doing nothing.
Noticed by a passing rabbit, the rabbit inquired of the crow,
"That looks comfortable. Mind if I sit and do nothing as well?"
The crow accepted, and the rabbit sat at the base of the post.
Just as the rabbit settled, a fox jumped out of the bush
and gobbled him down before he knew what hit him.
Moral of the story: You must be very high up
before you can sit and do nothing.

Re:Mud to Mud

[G27 Radio]

I do think there is some validity to the notion that the moral decline in our country is very much due to the mindsets of people who have abandoned any Code, who forsake all religion, just because the primary religion observed in our country (Christianity, but you knew that) for such a long period of time was realized to be tainted with holes, contradictions, and hypocrisy. This strikes me as throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I've been thinking the same thing for some time. A code to live by is important. Spirituality is also important. I know religion is not for everyone, but there is also a lot to be learned from non-religious philosophies (eg: Taoism) that help people put things in perspective. Good role models also help.

My view of religion is that it seeks to give us an explanation for the things that we are incapable of understanding. This is not a bad thing. It also gets a lot of people in touch with their spiritual side which is a great thing. The bad thing about religion is that people tend to subvert it and use it to control other people.

It's the lack of understanding that we are part of something bigger that is leading us down "the path to destruction." I don't mean just understanding it, but really grokking it. People just don't feel like they're part of the big picture. They feel like their actions are irrelevant. This just isn't true.

Don't look to material things for happiness. They're nice, but they aren't going to make you as happy as you think they are. Of course, this is what the people that are selling you these things don't want you to know. If you can't be happy without them, then you probably won't be happy just because you have them.

Take a look at someone else's [source] code before you try to come up with your own--a code for living is no minor task to design on your own. I found the Tao Te Ching to be very insightful even though it was written ~500 BC. I particularly liked the fact that it doesn't pass judgement or shove things down your throat. Besides that it's pretty short and isn't seem unecessarily complicated.

numb

Choice vs Control

[Decklin Foster]

I don't think so. I choose whether i want to lease a car or not; I choose to live in an apartment or buy a house; and I choose a job with ``job security'' or one without. What this new wave of legislation is doing is taking away my right to choose which option I want. I can choose free software today, sure, but what happens when I can't write a free program I need because of patent restrictions, laws against reverse enginerring, etc? This trend needs to be stopped.

Yes.

[genki]

The original premise of the market economy is that customers would be smart enough to choose the best service over a weaker service. Now, that's not the case anymore. Nobody reads the license agreement before they hit 'OK'. Is this good for the consumer? No! Is this what corporate america wants? Yes!

It's very nice for them - they can put basically put anything they want into agreement, and people will go along with it. They'll lease instead of buy, because they don't know what they're signing.

---------------------------------

Re:Yes.

[LordNimon]

I'll bet 90% of the population doesn't really grok the concept of a software license.

How can they? Software licenses don't "look" like other licenses, like renting an apartment or leasing a car. Software licenses don't have a built-in expiration (now there's a novel idea!), so people "buy" the software, take it home, and use it without much afterthought. There are still people out there using software from the mid 80's, happily computing away like they have been for 15 years.

When you rent an apartment, you have to sign a multitude of forms, and it's very obvious to everyone that you're only allowed to live there until your lease expires (typically 12 months). You have to pay every month, and your rent usually goes up when you renew your lease (which isn't always an option - sometimes the landlord wants to kick you out!).

Software is completely different. You plunk down a chunk of money, and with the exception of the Y2K bug, as long as you don't change your hardware or OS, you can use that software for decades, and no one can stop you.

Re:Yes.

[jheinen]

"Nobody reads the license agreement before they hit 'OK'"

Therein lies the root of the problem. The whole notion of "licensing" is flawed. When you pay money for something, you expect that you own what you paid for, and can do with it what you wish. Licensing is counterintuitive. I'll bet 90% of the population doesn't really grok the concept of a software license. When they buy a copy of MS Office, most people think they own it and can use it however they wish (most people do have a basic grasp of copyright, in that they understand you shouldn't distribute copies of software, but the idea that that don't actually own what they paid for is lost on them).

The same goes for music and video. I have a feeling that when consumers start to understand what licensing really means, there will be a huge backlash against the industries which seek to exploit them. Just look how angry the technically savvy crowd has gotten over this issue. When it starts to affect consumers more directly through lawsuits and other actions by corporations seeking to limit how consumers use the products they purchased, then we might see some changes.

But then again, most people are sheep and will accept whatever you shove down their throats.

Re:Don't like it? Don't buy into it.

[4season]

If leasing bugs you:

1. Make do with what you already have
2. Do without
3. Find alternatives
4. Ask yourself whether you really need it
5. Don't give out saleable personal info in exchange for "free" services

And then there's the alternative of buying things outright in cash. Remember cash? It's still very handy.

Cease and Desist

[isaac]

"Fight Club" is a production of Fox 2000 Pictures, distributed in the USA by 20th Century Fox Film Corporation, both wholly owned subsidiaries of News Corp.

"American Beauty" is a production of DreamWorks SKG, filmed at Warner Bros. Studios.

"The Matrix" is a production of Village Roadshow Productions, distributed in the USA by Warner Bros., both wholly owned subsidiaries of AOL/Time-Warner.

We'll both be long dead before ownership of these properties reverts to the public domain, if they ever do. Our pop culture is already 0wned. The name of the game is ownership; companies can't ensure a continued revenue stream by allowing you to own anything outright.

However, the same companies depend on the public's acquiescence for their power. If people refuse to merely lease, then the option to buy will remain. Alas, the fewer people choose this option, the more expensive it becomes.

Now's the time when I plug Doug Rushkoff's insightful book on the subject, called "Coercion"

-Isaac

Have comsumers lost something?

[Kismet]

I'm going to make some broad generalizations here:

- People lease cars to get a lower monthly payment
- People rent because it's cheaper than mortgage
- The OS is insignificant to the average computer user
- Those who buy a music CD just want to listen

etc.

Most people don't realize how unfair they are being treated because the bottom line seems good:

I can lease a nicer car or buy a lesser one for the same. My sense of ownership may not be as keen as my sense of paying more money each month. And on the outside it probably seems like the same thing; I drive my car, I make a monthly payment in both situations. It's convenient. Life is good.

Maybe I don't own my computer's OS. But do I care? I probably don't even realize it. All I know is that I can use my PC for the things I think I need it for. It's convenient. Life is good.

I can't play my U.S. Made DVD in Europe? I didn't know that; never been there. Doesn't bother me. And does it bother me that only a licensed Commercial DVD player will play it on Linux? Probably not. DVDs are better than videos. Life is better now.

The MP3 limitations aren't causing me any physical pain. I can still listen to my CDs. That's better than tapes. Life is so much better.

We didn't have any of these things fifty years ago. Now those who provide the technology want to control it, and the comsumers are quite satisfied abiding by their rules. After all, they are getting more and more all the time.

The ones who complain are those on the cutting edge of things. They are frustrated because they understand how it works and can guess into the future. They have a sense of ownership because they are contributors. They don't like being kept out by a few greedy companies who would like it all to themselves.

Some people are satisfied being fed all the time. Other people can find their own food, and have discovered their tastes.

return of feudalism...

[EnderWiggnz]

it kindof strike me as similar to feudalism.

The big companies are the "Lords" and own everything, and we are the vassals required to pay them forever in return for using their property...

this way, there is no "ownership" and the companies will always have a revenue stream... keeping their duchys sustained...

Basic application of optimal economics

[anticypher]

This has been accelerating for years.

Centuries ago, possession of a material good meant ownership. Creating a copy required the same effort as creating the original, and a copy could earn the same profit as the original. As the industrial revolution progressed, it became easier to create a copy for less money than the original, but with the same profit. There is a point where selling the copies reaches a plateau for profits. The only way to earn more profit from copying an original work or idea is to ensure people do not own the copy, but are merely renting or leasing for a period of time. If the item continues to have value, then the item should continue to create profit.

This is the basis of modern economics. It has been taught increasingly over the last few decades, and now that those modern economists are in positions of power, they are influencing the laws of nations to tip the balance of profit towards corporations and away from individuals. Moving from the industrial age to the information age is changing the economic model of the world.

Micro$oft, Intel, and many other large information age corporations have been discussing this economic model for more than a decade. The only way to turn revenue from a single purchase to a steady stream of payments is to move towards the ASP model. It has taken a while, but we are now seeing the components start to fit into place. Intel has tested a cryptologically secure ID function in its chips, necessary for CPU locking a license. M$ has changed its entire licensing scheme over the last 10 years, from selling copies of its OS to licensing based on the number of people in an organisation.

The transition will take another decade at least, but expect that all the major players will create a system for extracting larger and larger payments out of corporate IT departments, as well as individuals. If it weren't for larger profits, you wouldn't be seeing everyone moving towards the model.

If you are in charge of an IT department budget, you should be very afraid right about now. Because computing and communication is about to become much more expensive as the only modern applications switch to extortionate licenses. Payments will be on a per kb/hour/use basis, and you will only have access to the user interface of the applications, never having complete control of your systems again.

Free (as in liberty and beer) software is the kid looking at the emporer's clothes, and the major hope for the future in many IT departments. But free (as in liberty) software can, and has been, outlawed in many cases.

The greedy people now in power have sold their votes to the large corporations. They are creating laws such as the DMCA and UCITA to prevent free (as in liberty) software from harming potential future profits by multinationals. Notice how it is becoming illegal to reverse engineer many proprietary formats or functions? It is possible to criminalise free (as in liberty) software, to prevent it from duplicating the efforts of the proprietary world and thereby hurting profits. The people behind these laws are not stupid, they know the laws are not just enough, there must be some precedent setting cases, and they have been chosing their battles carefully. The /. community is well aware of this, which is why the YRO section consistently has the highest number of posts (not counting jonkatz emotional flamebait).

I truly believe as the economic model removes the last vestiges of individuals owning anything, the hackers of society will just come up with bigger, better, faster, and more twisted ideas. Life will go on, but the old ways are dying fast, and the new ways are always being defined by those who get there first.

the AC

Do not rent or lease.

[B. Samedi]

Here's a couple reasons not to rent or lease. The first of course is you don't own it. You can't do anything to it, you are enriching someone else yet getting little back in return and you live by your landlord (or their managers) whims. If they want to enter your apartment for any reason they can. Sure, legally they have to give notice (at least here) unless it's a emergency but be honest people, they can come up with one if they want. Just as you wouldn't give someone the password to your accounts and system you shouldn't be allowing anyone the access to your personal space.

I haven't been driving my car for several weeks now (V-8; gas way too expensive). The other day I walked out and say that my car was gone. I called the police and told them that I thought it had been stolen. I called the apartment to let them know that this had happened. At that point they tell me it had been towed because people had been complaining about parking and the tire had gone flat. No warning on it. When I asked for them to please return it and pay any fees involved I got a copy of my lease with a one word note ("Read your lease") and the passage highlighted that said "Manager retains the right to remove any vehicle for any reason they deem appropriate." Now I'm looking at hundreds of dollars in fees to get it out of impound.

That is the most compelling agurment to own your property. If this had happened anywhere else it would be theft (taking something that isn't yours) and extortion (demanding money for something that was taken), but since it's a rental property it's just business as usual. Needless to say I'm searching for a place to own now.

If you say that you can't afford a down payment then just think about how much you have to put down in deposits and then realize that many areas have programs to help with the down payment and closing costs. The same goes for a car. Own it, dont' rent or lease it. At least when you own something you can get sell it and get some if not all of your money back.

(Yes, I should have given a rant warning on this one...)

Is Up Down?

[Ephro]

I think it is pretty extreme to say that the tech sector is driving the way society is headed. Instead look perhaps what you are seeing is the economy changing in areas to the attitude of the tech sector. What you are really doing is redefining a capitolistic system in the tech sector. In a real economy the goods available will change to suit the consumers. All of your examples are also examples of how the system has changed in order to make more profit from goods that require no real resources (relativly.) To me what you have stated is nothing more then capitolism at work.

What an Excellent Question!!!

[FreshView]

I definitely agree with many of the points you made. America certainly does seem to be moving towards a corporate dystopia with a definite lack of individual ownership. As to whether that's actually bad or good, is an excersize I leave to the reader, though I'd lean towards the bad side.

This very theme has been the focus of several movies (sort of), recently... The "single serving life" offered up in Fight Club, for example, and the general boredom with life as shown in American Beauty.

There definitely seems to be a general malaise surrounding the country, a sort of optimistic pessimism (heh), Sort of like, computers are good, but....

The matrix, a prime example of a fairly anti-technology movie, loved by geeks... an optimistic pessimism towards the future.

Hm.. I've begun to ramble, please forgive me.

Hey Molly!

[CrazyJoel]

"your cities seem strangely hostile to you doing anything other than working, sleeping, or spending. "

How is this any different from a hundred years ago? Work 16 hours a day as a coal miner or a sharecropper. Come home. And you owe the company store.

Of course, we'd like to believe that we've progressed in some way. We have progressed, right?

joel

Mud to Mud

[Surak_Prime]

It's all part of the devaluing of life itself. I do think there is some validity to the notion that the moral decline in our country is very much due to the mindsets of people who have abandoned any Code, who forsake all religion, just because the primary religion observed in our country (Christianity, but you knew that) for such a long period of time was realized to be tainted with holes, contradictions, and hypocrisy. This strikes me as throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The "from mud to mud and nothing else really matters" mentality that seems to be prevalent amongst my generation and in those who are following means that while they still know, for the most part, what is right and what is wrong, they don't care all that much. There is no eternal reward, no eternal punishment, no great purpose, and within a few hundred years your actions, good or bad, are usually completely forgotten. So who cares? I am not advocating a return to the status quo, by any means. There were injustices and inequities and all sorts of problems with the old system. But I don't think that a sense of wonderment or a sense of spirituality were amongst those problems. People know right and wrong. They need a reason to care. "So you scream from behind your door. You say, 'what's mine is mine, and not yours. I may have too much, but I'll take my chances, cause God stopped keeping score.'" - George Michael, "Praying For Time"

Re:Mud to Mud

[SrA_Pus]

I don't think it's fair to say that "Christianity" is "tainted with holes, contradictions, and hypocrisy." Today, we have fragments of Christ's teachings embedded into man-made religions, but all are a far cry from what I'm sure Christ had intended. This may be a rather insignificant statement to some, but quite significant to other I would imagine.

Futher, I am apt to disagree that "People know right and wrong." I don't think such a thing as right and wrong exists.

For instance, if I kill someone, you might say to me, "That was wrong." But I say, "wrong for who?" Because we live in a society that deems it "uncivilized" to kill each other, then as a collective, we have deemed that behavior as "wrong." But some might look from a biological standpoint -- are we not an agressive lifeform? Many of us can appreciate the rage and anger of human emotions. Not that these emotions mean we are required to kill each other, but we don't look at animals in nature who kill each other and think, "That is wrong."

And so another perspective -- it is "wrong" according to our laws. So what happens when my feelings contradict with the law, does that mean I am "wrong?" What makes my viewpoint any more invalid than the lawmakers? Because it is a popular concensus? Slavery was once the popular concensus.

As far as needing "a reason to care", I agree that our country appears to suffer from a lack of "values", and many seem not to care whatsoever.

But I attribute this to the inability to think for ourselves. There was a republican nominee who was very articulate and extremely intellegent. He carried himself with dignity and grace. He told it how he felt it was, and one never had to guess whether or not he was being honest. And although he was receiving a solid 3-7% of the votes in each state, when my absentee ballot from Pennsylvania arrived in the mail, his name wasn't even on it.

We have a society that is becoming more and more ignorant by the day. Look at our presidential candidates, easily the worst of the litter compared to all of the primary candidates, but they're the nominees nonetheless because mainstream media picked them as such. People aren't taking the time to educate themselves and would rather get the quick, spoon fed version than invest their time in learning. I think this is the real reason for our decline.

So I come back to the question of "right and wrong." If I take the time to consider the pro's and con's of killing other people, it won't take long to come to the conclusion that I would rather not end the life of another human being, excluding perhaps to save my own. But that process, while it might seem simple on paper, actually involves taking the time to sit down and consider my thoughts and feelings on the matter, to put weight into both arguments and make a genuine concious decision. I think many people lack such skills, or at least refuse to use them.

We are a nation overcome by our own excesses. Right and wrong aside, we have allowed techonology to think for us, and computers don't have a soul.

Re:Mud to Mud

[Daniel Dvorkin]

And when was this wonderful golden age when people knew right from wrong, again? Half a century ago, the age of Jim Crow and McCarthyism? A century ago, when the US was completing its genocide of the Indians? A century and a half, when a third of the country's economic system was built on slavery? Two centuries, when (as was true until fairly recently, in fact) orphans and the sick and old routinely starved to death?

By every meaningful standard, we live in an age which is more moral than any previous one. The only way this isn't the case is if you define poverty and misery as moral and wealth and happiness as immoral -- which many religions do, of course, but that's _their_ psychosis, not mine. "Mud to mud" is the most liberating, the most realistic, the most useful, and far and away the most moral worldview in human history.

Re:hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, I agree with your remark about the sad lack of values, but here's something you should consider before insulting Christianity: you claim hypocrisy on the part of the entire religion. I'm getting a little tired of the me-too attitude that you can just say "hypocrisy" and expect everyone to agree. But let's bring that a little closer to home.

I see a televangelist or anyone else claiming to speak for Christ. He then does something hypocritical/contradictory. Well, obviously Christianity is wrong.

I see a Linux user griping about Microsoft's instability and promising 100% stability from Linux. I try to install Linux and the installer crashes all over the place, taking down my partition table (this really happened, btw). Obviously, Linux users are grossly hypocritical - or just dumb.

I hear slashdotters yell about even the slightest form of censorship and then moderate down remarks solely because they don't agree with them.

People are imperfect. Some mess up, others overstate their case, and still others try to manipulate people's beliefs - be they religious, political, whatever - to get others to follow them and do as they say.

Complaining about a person's actions? Fine. Or a whole group's actions. But invalidating a set of beliefs due to bad experiences with a few people who hold, or claim to hold, those beliefs? That's flat-out narrow-minded.

Privitizing Oppression

[Effugas]

(Yes, I'm the same Effugas who submitted the original question.)

Wow, you've all come up with some fascinating commentary. I'll probably be looking at it for quite some time, digesting everything that I've seen(and been sent via email, for those who wish to be more private).

There is some question of why it matters whether or not you own something. My concerns aren't particularly materialistic, folks--do you plan to ever send your kids to college? Do you plan to work until the day you drop dead? Do you hope and pray to never become sick, because the moment your health insurance falls out from under you(and you know it will), it's all over?

There's something to be said about a nest egg, or about amassing something after years of life. How strange is it to think that, maybe, just maybe a vicious end run around inheritance taxes is just to never have anything to inherit--all that which would otherwise go to the state ends up in the hands of an organization that can never die.

Law of unintended consequences, no?

Corporations aren't necessarily good nor evil, but one has to wonder about whether, in certain regions, an economic upturn and subsequent increase in quality of life is being paid for with the college tuitions of our children.

It's not about taking it with you. It's about taking care of yourself and not needing to beg for handouts or bailouts.

I'll be blunt--I simply don't know how all this is going to come together. But I do understand that, in the long term, oppression is just as privitizable as everybody else--you just need to lease out the freedom, and define the terms of that leasing as arbitrarily as you can get away with.

I'll write more on this later. Too much work to do...

Yours Truly,

Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com

I'd appreciate your comments

[eyeball]

I'd appreciate your comments.

Sorry, I don't own any. I'd be happy to let you lease some comments as soon as I borrow them from someone else though..

...lack of community, lack of continuity

[wrenling]

Especially if you work in IT, your life may have a deep sense of transience. IT people travel more, get transferred more, and tend to spend more time isolated than any other group (except maybe labratory scientists!).

Leased houses, apartments, cars, etc just fit into a sense of never quite belonging, or being there. We develop online communities (like Slashdot, or my old MUD, Tsunami) to combat the transience of the of our lives. As long as I can get online, I can be with my friends, I can be informed, I can be part of a group.

I don't know if this wandered off-topic or not, but all of these things seem to be symptoms of a growing seperation between physical ownership and the things we metaphysically own (like friendships).

(just my 2 sleep and caffeine deprived cents!)

Life is more than things

[rjamestaylor]

This Ask Slashdot reminds me of something wise :

Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?

Don't measure your life or your worth by what you own. Things break, rust, get stolen, lose value, burn, and generally disappoint.

We (nerds) need adequate time in the Big Blue Room and to get out of ourselves and surroundings once in a while to see a bigger picture.

You might as well lease everything because, you're not taking it with you.

Surely every man walks about as a phantom;
Surely they make an uproar for nothing;
He amasses riches and does not know who will gather them...

That 's wisdom, too. Ok. I'm going outside, now.

Digital and Real Ownership and Social Class

[Syllepsis]

What you are talking about is the main delineation between the 'upper' and 'lower' classes in the United States. Throughout the history of this country, a minority of people have owned the majority of land, goods, and means of production, while the rest are generally shackled in debt and lease nearly everything they need.

The trick to joining the rich in America is to be very careful about spending your money and making sure to actually OWN things that you throw money at. Living below your means will give one the ability to purchase the means of production (stocks), more money in the future (bonds), and real estate (get a mortgage, you dont pay much more than rent and it goes into a real investment, rather than the landlord). You also pay less for everything when you are able to pay up front.

This principle works similarly in the digital world. One difference is that companies may have more power to keep users in 'rental space' rather than 'ownership space' by only putting digital property up for lease. As in the real world, one should always try to pay up front and attempt to gain true ownership of the 'goods' which you acquire.

I believe that this relates to the holy crusade of RMS for free software. When you get win98, you are essentially giving money to MS with no return ownership of anything. When you download gnu/linux, you have true ownership of the software on your computer. This may seem economically irrelevant right now, but as the real world further integrates with the internet (go watch lain) the economic importance of digital property will become very economically important, and ownership of webspace, software, and customized services will make you rich. For this reason, companies carefully guard the ownership of their goods.