I was wondering if someone could point me to a site where people can discuss things in a cival manner? I find it hard to make any decision when everyone's debating is filled with hate and spite for any view which doesn't agree with their own.
Free market mean FREE. When someone says "you can't" then it's not FREE. Patent and copyright are LAWS which means they say "you can't". Free market isn't defined as whatever the Republican's spout. Just like Communism isn't whatever the USSR spouted.
It's really funny. The slashdot crowd is all gung-ho about making laws and letting the UN do this and that when it comes to any other field but computers (which is our expertise). But as soon as someone mentions software patents, or the DNS servers, or anything within our field, it becomes obvious to us that the government should stay out of it. Maybe this is what cable, DSL, and cellphone company technicians feel like when we talk about giving wifi over to the government.
The article was plenty weird in how they gave their examples. Until I get a more clear explenation I'm just gonna assume that whatever will put more money in Bill's pocket is most accurate.
And that is why they say people on slashdot are not objective.
As for Dvorak's speculation Microsoft is prepping to split into three companies, I don't get that. Why would they? One of Microsoft's major takeaways from the DOJ's penalty phase was not having to split up as a company. I'm am not a businessman, but I can't see Microsoft splitting unless forced to. (Though I wouldn't discount it as some huge PR spin to make it look like they're taking steps to not be the evil empire anymore while behind closed doors (and through underground tunnels) continuing to operate as a single company to ensure their continued position in the marketplace.)
They may do this if they are realizing that exceptionally large companies don't innovate. If google and the other small (Not so small anymore) continue to inovate, and Billy thinks that breaking up will make more overall money and let Microsoft WIN, then he will do it. He has always been about winning, not making money, winning.
They aren't manipulating results. The article says that the "deal" is the little search box in the top of the browser. Opera gets money for searchs that come to google through that box.
Before everyone starts going on about how business is evil, I would like to remind them that China Telecom and the other telecom companies in China are government owned and operated.
China has been taking the communist "ministries" and making them into "businesses" who's majority stock is still owned by the government. Which lets the Chineese government remove responsibility while maintaining control.
Here is a story about how paypal got to the way it is today. Basicly it's about the founders of paypal dealing with the.gov and lawyers so much and being put down by them that they finally just gave up.
Who's fault is it that they don't read the agreements? If I drink what is under the sink because I didn't read the label, does that make the producer of lysol evil, or does that make me stupid for not reading the label? I read every agreement I make, even in non-computer industries. Just because people want to go blindly through life and not take any resposibility for themselves, should we let them?
This is the same as it always as been. If indeed spam is comming from illegally infected machines, then prosecute for that. You can make as many laws as you want, you have to inforce the ones you have or making anymore will do no good.
I'm really surprised to see the large outcry against EULAs in general in all the comments. I'm pretty sure the GPL is a EULA and everyone cries when it is violated. So, what makes the GPL different and puts the right of the author to put that agreement on a piece of software in so high regard vs. someone elses right to put a different type of agreement on their works? Is there a fundamental difference, or is it a case of "I can do it, but you can't" type of thing? I really do want to know if I'm missing something here. Discuss.
I read too many people saying that what the Libertarians are arguing is "corporate" or some other such nonsense.
Most Libertarians DO NOT like corporations. Corporations are a system devised by the government which has resulted in the employees of corporations not being RESPONSIBLE for crimes like fraud, theft, etc. This is the reason why they do bad things. The people who make these decisions are NOT responsible, just the corporation, which has very deep pockets to pay off the "punishment" which is a fine or some other financial restriction.
Saying that a Libertarian argument is "Pro Corporate" shows that you have absolutly no idea of what the argument is.
If the government was comming in to run you out of business would you set there and say, "Oh well, it's all for the public good. Ho, hum, I'm gonna love being unemployed!"
They have a legitimate worry. It's not wrong for someone to worry about their business and they will push for something to be done about it. Just because the govenor in Pennsilvania sees something differently than you do DOES NOT mean that his palms have been "greased". That's just an excuse to say, "See, he sees it differently than I do. He must be evil and corrupt!"
That's the problem. And it's acutally an argument that we've never had a free market in the United States. Either the government has got its hands to far into business or it hasn't enforced basic laws like fraud, theft, etc. Either case results in a less-than-desireable situation.
The ISP was pretty much forced to take down the block because of public outcry. No one wants to do business with an ISP that does things like that. With regulation the Canadian government has two options:
a) Force them to let everything through, but this means they can't block virus speading sites, etc
b) Only allow them to block what the regulators seem fit. Which puts what you see and can't see into the hands of beurocrats. This would cover all ISPs in Canada so you can't switch to one that does block stuff you want it to (Porn if you have little kids, etc.)
I personally prefer to let people hurt them in the wallet when they pull crap like this. Corporations take more notice when something hurts them in the wallet.
Slashdot Mirror
I was wondering if someone could point me to a site where people can discuss things in a cival manner?
I find it hard to make any decision when everyone's debating is filled with hate and spite for any view which doesn't agree with their own.
Free market mean FREE. When someone says "you can't" then it's not FREE. Patent and copyright are LAWS which means they say "you can't".
Free market isn't defined as whatever the Republican's spout. Just like Communism isn't whatever the USSR spouted.
Great idea. Make the poor pay another tax on top of the high price of gasoline.
And that's why it's not a free market. A "regime" is not a player in an actual free market.
Who says brigade now a days?
It's really funny. The slashdot crowd is all gung-ho about making laws and letting the UN do this and that when it comes to any other field but computers (which is our expertise). But as soon as someone mentions software patents, or the DNS servers, or anything within our field, it becomes obvious to us that the government should stay out of it. Maybe this is what cable, DSL, and cellphone company technicians feel like when we talk about giving wifi over to the government.
Just thinking out loud.
I'm for whatever saves more tax dollars. And I have a sneaking suspicion that OSS will save the most.
They aren't manipulating results. The article says that the "deal" is the little search box in the top of the browser. Opera gets money for searchs that come to google through that box.
If I would have seen him again. I would have beat the money back out of him.
Before everyone starts going on about how business is evil, I would like to remind them that China Telecom and the other telecom companies in China are government owned and operated.
China has been taking the communist "ministries" and making them into "businesses" who's majority stock is still owned by the government. Which lets the Chineese government remove responsibility while maintaining control.
This will shed some light.
Here is a story about how paypal got to the way it is today. Basicly it's about the founders of paypal dealing with the .gov and lawyers so much and being put down by them that they finally just gave up.
Who's fault is it that they don't read the agreements? If I drink what is under the sink because I didn't read the label, does that make the producer of lysol evil, or does that make me stupid for not reading the label? I read every agreement I make, even in non-computer industries. Just because people want to go blindly through life and not take any resposibility for themselves, should we let them?
Why is this better than anything else?
This is the same as it always as been. If indeed spam is comming from illegally infected machines, then prosecute for that. You can make as many laws as you want, you have to inforce the ones you have or making anymore will do no good.
I'm really surprised to see the large outcry against EULAs in general in all the comments. I'm pretty sure the GPL is a EULA and everyone cries when it is violated. So, what makes the GPL different and puts the right of the author to put that agreement on a piece of software in so high regard vs. someone elses right to put a different type of agreement on their works? Is there a fundamental difference, or is it a case of "I can do it, but you can't" type of thing? I really do want to know if I'm missing something here. Discuss.
I read too many people saying that what the Libertarians are arguing is "corporate" or some other such nonsense.
Most Libertarians DO NOT like corporations. Corporations are a system devised by the government which has resulted in the employees of corporations not being RESPONSIBLE for crimes like fraud, theft, etc. This is the reason why they do bad things. The people who make these decisions are NOT responsible, just the corporation, which has very deep pockets to pay off the "punishment" which is a fine or some other financial restriction.
Saying that a Libertarian argument is "Pro Corporate" shows that you have absolutly no idea of what the argument is.
If the government was comming in to run you out of business would you set there and say, "Oh well, it's all for the public good. Ho, hum, I'm gonna love being unemployed!"
They have a legitimate worry. It's not wrong for someone to worry about their business and they will push for something to be done about it. Just because the govenor in Pennsilvania sees something differently than you do DOES NOT mean that his palms have been "greased". That's just an excuse to say, "See, he sees it differently than I do. He must be evil and corrupt!"
That's the problem. And it's acutally an argument that we've never had a free market in the United States. Either the government has got its hands to far into business or it hasn't enforced basic laws like fraud, theft, etc. Either case results in a less-than-desireable situation.
If they are not enforcing the regulations they already have, then why are they making new ones?
The ISP was pretty much forced to take down the block because of public outcry. No one wants to do business with an ISP that does things like that. With regulation the Canadian government has two options:
a) Force them to let everything through, but this means they can't block virus speading sites, etc
b) Only allow them to block what the regulators seem fit. Which puts what you see and can't see into the hands of beurocrats. This would cover all ISPs in Canada so you can't switch to one that does block stuff you want it to (Porn if you have little kids, etc.)
I personally prefer to let people hurt them in the wallet when they pull crap like this. Corporations take more notice when something hurts them in the wallet.
If I lived in Canada, why would I want to pay for "you" to download music off the internet?
What about the freedom to make an agreement with someone?