Better yet, make it a cartoon like face of the representative of your local state (or province). And, very time it is pushed, it debits $200.00 (Australian, USian or whatever country) from that representative's personal bank account.
This provides two very important things:
1. Direct feedback to the representative on how stupid their idea is and 2. A very large incentive for the representative to repeal such nonsense.
When I was growing up, we had *real* dirt clod fights!
We would mound up dirt a short distance from one another, and a combination of lobbing and more direct throws were done until you hit the *enemy*. At which point, if you hit them hard enough or partially blinded them with dirt in the eyes, you then grabbed a handful of dirt clods, rush your enemy's bunker, rapid firing to keep him pinned down, then while he was writhing on the ground, if you had any clods left that this point, you would finish him off and dance some horrid resemblance to a "war victory dance".
I have worked in a software company for 17 of the last 22 years.
My company, in particular the CEO and senior management, know copyright law pretty well and have our CIO take steps to ensure we only install and use software that A) we have a valid license for (paid for if closed source, proper license if free, etc.) and B) that we only run the allowed numbers of copies based on the license and C) that we always abide by our licenses.
Now, me being the V.P. in charge of our Quality Assurance Division, I found a piece of software "Beyond Compare", and bought a copy. I found that it was extremely useful for a good portion of the work I have to do, namely, review code changes from version to version to ensure all of our coding standards are fully applied, including commenting, format, naming conventions, etc. It was so useful, that I did a short study of how often I used it, how long it took me with other tools I had used for the same thing, figured out time savings, compared costs, etc. and put up a request for purchase for a five copy license for use by our Product Managers (with their input as well). Company bought the five copies.
Now, in your shoes, I can only offer this: You must, to protect your own butt, in writing, inform the company what the license terms for the software are and that there are possible legal issues if they continue to utilize the software in violation of the license, then propose the solution (having done your home work on cost, etc.) of getting the software properly licensed. If management comes back and tells you to mind your own business, or anything of the sort, if it was me, I would find a new job. Because, if the crap hits the fan over the practices of violating license agreements, eventually, the BSA (yes, I hate them too), will come knocking at the door and then management will get a very very rude awakening. It is in the company's best interest to either abide by the licenses for software they are using or to not use such software at all.
Personally, as much as I hate Microsoft (due to their anti-competitive practices and some other key things), I still abide by their licenses, just like I do for any other software I have or use. I have an aversion to jack-booted-thugs coming in and raiding places.:)
Let people die? Are you a Representative Grayson clone or something? Haha!
Now, there are things called 1) family, 2) friends and 3) charitable organizations that can (and do, many times), help people that are in need of health care, operations, etc.
Not only that, but friends or even people that want to help people in need of care, operations, etc. even raise funds to help with such things.
I have even donated to such causes and have even helped family members in such cases.
Better? Yeah, much better. Have I gotten anything directly monetarily in return? Nope, never where a non-profit was concerned have I even claimed such donations as a deduction on my taxes, not even once. Have I gotten a well family member, friend or total stranger as a result, yeap, six times now.
The last things I want is government running health care, taxing people for it, and running it with all the history of fraud, waste, abuse and extreme under-estimation of costs that the government is known for. It is a recipe for disaster.
So, you keep running the scam health care reformer lines all you want. I am not buying not, and whole heartedly oppose it.
Yeap and, for that reason, I rarely watch movies, except ones I buy on the cheap (previously viewed at Block Buster mainly), and I haven't had a TV in my house for 10 years now.
I get all the news, entertainment, etc. that I want via the web and by ready fifty plus books a year.
The MPAA, RIAA and cable companies in general, can all pucker up and kiss my ar$e!
Ah, but the Constitution can also be changed, it even gives the procedure for doing so right in the document.
Forcing an entire group of people, in this case, tax paying citizens, to pay for the irresponsibility of others tramples on the tax paying citizen's rights, guess you missed that part.
And, the only thing that is, to quote you "fucking expensive" is for the government, House, Senate and Administration (past and present) to continue out of control spending and massive entitlement programs that, like social security and medicare/medicaid, are about busted with no fricken hope of them ever being solvent again. All due to the irresponsibility of the people running this country, whose word cannot be trusted and are hell bent on spending this country, with borrowed worthless paper money, into oblivion.
Any law that makes it mandatory, under penalty of fine and/or imprisonment (which the recently passed bill does), is a complete big middle finger by the House of Representatives in regards to individual freedom and the rights guaranteed by our Constitution.
If people want to help others (and I do) get health care, then they are free to donate to charties, non-profit hospitals, etc., which I myself do.
To force it on all tax paying citizens, which is only about 60 percent of the population per my last check, is the type of thing that would make our founding fathers roll in their graves.
I have always been able to afford it, with a couple of exceptions. Even then, I was able to work out a payment plan or financing to pay for it.
So, how is this, in any way, "... going to cost other people a lot of money"?
Oh, and while we are on the topic of "... going to cost other people a lot of money": How in the hell are we going to provide health care for 96 percent of the citizenry without it costing "other people a lot of money"?
I don't have insurance and, if I get sick, I pay for it.
If I "can't afford it", which has happened a time or two in the past, I work with the doctor/hospital to work out a payment plan or financing to do so.
I sock money away for doctor visits, dental, etc. every time I get paid. I am not a rich guy, averaged about $36K a year, over the last 10 years. But I still put money away for health related matters and general saving/retirement. Sure, it means I forego some other things, but that's the nature of life and its economics.
You know, this is all very very funny to me, in a sad way.
If a U.S. citizen wants to (or doesn't want to) purchase health insurance, no law can force one to do so (either way).
All this talk from the Democrats about trying to make health care a "right", and yet, pass a bill that makes it the complete opposite of a right (in other words, makes it mandatory or you will be fined), is a travesty to say the least.
Each and every Representative that voted for this bill, needs to be sent to remedial U.S. Constitution and founding U.S. history classes, and be barred from proposing or voting on any legislation until these classes are completed successfully. I am sort of joking, slightly.
For all the Democrat rhetoric about "responsibility", they sure don't seem to know what the word means, and they certainly will not take responsibility for the horrid consequences that would result from such a bill becoming law. Namely, all the businesses that will be killed, all the would-be doctors and other health care practitioners that will find other fields to create careers in, etc.
This whole health care debate, talk, etc. is nothing more than a power grab and a direct attack on the individual freedom of every U.S. citizen.
|| An entire generation is growing up, if we don't figure out how to change that behavior so it respects copyright and subscription revenue.... ||
Where does "... respects... subscription revenue..." fall into or even remotely near respect for copyrights?
I don't respect the "subscription revenue" thing at all. I stopped watching T.V. at home 10 years ago, don't miss it at all.
Prior to "killing my T.V.", I had basic cable service, at the time in my area that was 78 channels. I was constantly complaining "there's nothing on". So, when I moved to a new place, had the choice to get a package of cable T.V. plus internet, or just a straight broadband internet line (for cheaper), I nixed the cable.
I rent movies, when I want, but don't really have time for that as often as I might otherwise like.
The only subscription I have now is my monthly internet connection. I can follow sports, get my news, etc. with that one connection, no other subscription needed.
I respect copyrights fully, I do not download any software, music, etc. that I have not purchased and I do not share such downloads with others. I work in the software industry and I know quite a bit about copyright law, fair use, etc., as it is part of what I have to deal with on my job.
The truth of the matter is for cable companies is: you provide a service that people want, for a good price, with excellent customer service, and people will throw money at you. Cable companies, in my experience (10 years ago) didn't have what I wanted, was over priced for what I did get and customer service was worse than crap. Maybe the behavior that needs to be changed is that of the, dare I say, cable companies.
The rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, starting with the Bill of Rights.
And, I understand what you are saying regarding this subject, but your statements, arguments, etc. are not persuasive in changing my mind that the rights of the individual are paramount.
As a result, I am done responding to you. We have a point of disagreement, looks like that point will remain in disagreement. And so, is life.
Clarification: The rights of the individual and protecting those rights, is more important than the collective.
The only balance point is, as soon as laws/rules/etc. of the collective start infringing on individual rights, you've gone too far, and that's exactly why rights of the individual and protecting those rights is paramount.
|| There's a reason we organize into political structures, the common good is one of the key ones. When the individual becomes MORE important than the collective you're standing on the precipice of a slippery slope. ||
Actually, the slippery slope is the other way around. Individual liberty, protection of, is of utmost importance, as it contributes to the good of the *cough* collective *cough*.
Holding the collective to be more important than the individual is the road to tyranny.
|| They bypass the moral discussion (with respect to individual freedom, personal autonomy, mutual voluntary association, etc) and go straight for the purely utilitarian side-effects (the efficiency of the market with respect to the quality of goods and prices). ||
No they don't. Not as a whole anyway, some small few do, just like any other criminal "-ist" would.
Profit is there, if you produce or deliver a good product or service, that people want and can buy, but at the same time, any business manager or executive, that runs such with some care towards good public relations, helping to keep their environment clean, etc. will do even better (as far as influence, public support, etc.) than a company only driving things for shear profit only (and screw everything else).
|| So if MSFT wants to know who is to blame for folks hating Vista like the second coming of WinME, they just need to look in the mirror. Sure on a dual core with 2Gb+ of RAM it'll run decently, but the "Best Buy Specials" being sold at the time of the Vista release were single core Sempron and Celeron with 512Mb of RAM and really lousy Intel or SiS IGPs. Those machines should have NEVER had Vista come within a 1000 yards of it, yet MSFT let manufacturers put "Vista capable" on them along with that piece of trash Vista Basic and customers felt like they were scammed, which of course they were. I have many customers now with new XP duals and Quads and they are not looking at Windows 7 until 2012, if at all. Too many got burnt thanks to Vista Capable and are just gonna set out Windows 7. ||
Actually, Microsoft didn't just "let" manufacturers put "Vista Capable" on the systems, Microsoft was an active part of making it happen, despite protest from at least one if not more OEMs.
I do even better than that, I read the information from the source, the GAO and other direct government information sources, not papers, not non-government web sites, etc.
Sorry, but the total monies owed in benefits for Social Security and Medicaid/care combined, as of about three weeks ago, all unfunded, is/was 65 TRILLION DOLLARS (Source: GAO).
We are adding one to two TRILLION to this figure every year. And, per GAO circa June 2008, even if we confiscated everyone's income (100 percent of it) from here on out, we wouldn't even have enough money to may the interest on the money owed in benefits for these programs. The bank is broke, and we are just printing money (causing the dollar to devalue severely) like it was going out of style (and, it pretty much is going out of style the way things are going, due to its devaluing).
Yeah, this is a combination of Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare, but we cannot afford to continue *not* funding these programs and just keep paying the benefits out of newly printed money all the time. Drastic measures are needed *right now* to stop the U.S. Government caused draining of the U.S. economy in regards to these (and probably other) programs. Benefits need to be cut drastically, or these programs just need to be wound down and eliminated completely. Yeah, it's gonna suck for a bunch of people, but not doing so is gonna suck for a whole lot more people (every U.S. citizen).
Slashdot Mirror
Better yet, make it a cartoon like face of the representative of your local state (or province). And, very time it is pushed, it debits $200.00 (Australian, USian or whatever country) from that representative's personal bank account.
This provides two very important things:
1. Direct feedback to the representative on how stupid their idea is and
2. A very large incentive for the representative to repeal such nonsense.
Everybody wins!
So, in the sense of software programming, the new theories have to be -- backwards compatible! Yeah!
Some lawyers are going to make a boat load of money over this.
When I was growing up, we had *real* dirt clod fights!
We would mound up dirt a short distance from one another, and a combination of lobbing and more direct throws were done until you hit the *enemy*. At which point, if you hit them hard enough or partially blinded them with dirt in the eyes, you then grabbed a handful of dirt clods, rush your enemy's bunker, rapid firing to keep him pinned down, then while he was writhing on the ground, if you had any clods left that this point, you would finish him off and dance some horrid resemblance to a "war victory dance".
Yeah, those were good times.
Mark Cuban should just give all that money to charity AND remove himself from the internet, in every way, shape or form, forever.
Now, IMHO, that would be a great use of his money and effort, benefiting us all.
Next thing you know, Apple will be lobbying Congress to pass a law that requires you to view and respond to 5 or more ads a day.
You know, for the good of the economy and such. I cringe.
I have worked in a software company for 17 of the last 22 years.
My company, in particular the CEO and senior management, know copyright law pretty well and have our CIO take steps to ensure we only install and use software that A) we have a valid license for (paid for if closed source, proper license if free, etc.) and B) that we only run the allowed numbers of copies based on the license and C) that we always abide by our licenses.
Now, me being the V.P. in charge of our Quality Assurance Division, I found a piece of software "Beyond Compare", and bought a copy. I found that it was extremely useful for a good portion of the work I have to do, namely, review code changes from version to version to ensure all of our coding standards are fully applied, including commenting, format, naming conventions, etc. It was so useful, that I did a short study of how often I used it, how long it took me with other tools I had used for the same thing, figured out time savings, compared costs, etc. and put up a request for purchase for a five copy license for use by our Product Managers (with their input as well). Company bought the five copies.
Now, in your shoes, I can only offer this: You must, to protect your own butt, in writing, inform the company what the license terms for the software are and that there are possible legal issues if they continue to utilize the software in violation of the license, then propose the solution (having done your home work on cost, etc.) of getting the software properly licensed. If management comes back and tells you to mind your own business, or anything of the sort, if it was me, I would find a new job. Because, if the crap hits the fan over the practices of violating license agreements, eventually, the BSA (yes, I hate them too), will come knocking at the door and then management will get a very very rude awakening. It is in the company's best interest to either abide by the licenses for software they are using or to not use such software at all.
Personally, as much as I hate Microsoft (due to their anti-competitive practices and some other key things), I still abide by their licenses, just like I do for any other software I have or use. I have an aversion to jack-booted-thugs coming in and raiding places. :)
Let people die? Are you a Representative Grayson clone or something? Haha!
Now, there are things called 1) family, 2) friends and 3) charitable organizations that can (and do, many times), help people that are in need of health care, operations, etc.
Not only that, but friends or even people that want to help people in need of care, operations, etc. even raise funds to help with such things.
I have even donated to such causes and have even helped family members in such cases.
Better? Yeah, much better. Have I gotten anything directly monetarily in return? Nope, never where a non-profit was concerned have I even claimed such donations as a deduction on my taxes, not even once. Have I gotten a well family member, friend or total stranger as a result, yeap, six times now.
The last things I want is government running health care, taxing people for it, and running it with all the history of fraud, waste, abuse and extreme under-estimation of costs that the government is known for. It is a recipe for disaster.
So, you keep running the scam health care reformer lines all you want. I am not buying not, and whole heartedly oppose it.
I am done responding to you, have a nice day.
Hmm, nope, don't know him.
but, looks like we have a very similar view of all things related to TV. :)
|| ...not a cock swinging contest.... ||
I guess this must be a new version of the old tried and true "cock measuring contest" (TM).
Yeap and, for that reason, I rarely watch movies, except ones I buy on the cheap (previously viewed at Block Buster mainly), and I haven't had a TV in my house for 10 years now.
I get all the news, entertainment, etc. that I want via the web and by ready fifty plus books a year.
The MPAA, RIAA and cable companies in general, can all pucker up and kiss my ar$e!
Ah, but the Constitution can also be changed, it even gives the procedure for doing so right in the document.
Forcing an entire group of people, in this case, tax paying citizens, to pay for the irresponsibility of others tramples on the tax paying citizen's rights, guess you missed that part.
And, the only thing that is, to quote you "fucking expensive" is for the government, House, Senate and Administration (past and present) to continue out of control spending and massive entitlement programs that, like social security and medicare/medicaid, are about busted with no fricken hope of them ever being solvent again. All due to the irresponsibility of the people running this country, whose word cannot be trusted and are hell bent on spending this country, with borrowed worthless paper money, into oblivion.
Get a fucking clue.
O.K., stop with the knee jerk parrot responses.
Any law that makes it mandatory, under penalty of fine and/or imprisonment (which the recently passed bill does), is a complete big middle finger by the House of Representatives in regards to individual freedom and the rights guaranteed by our Constitution.
If people want to help others (and I do) get health care, then they are free to donate to charties, non-profit hospitals, etc., which I myself do.
To force it on all tax paying citizens, which is only about 60 percent of the population per my last check, is the type of thing that would make our founding fathers roll in their graves.
I have always been able to afford it, with a couple of exceptions. Even then, I was able to work out a payment plan or financing to pay for it.
So, how is this, in any way, "... going to cost other people a lot of money"?
Oh, and while we are on the topic of "... going to cost other people a lot of money": How in the hell are we going to provide health care for 96 percent of the citizenry without it costing "other people a lot of money"?
I don't have insurance and, if I get sick, I pay for it.
If I "can't afford it", which has happened a time or two in the past, I work with the doctor/hospital to work out a payment plan or financing to do so.
I sock money away for doctor visits, dental, etc. every time I get paid. I am not a rich guy, averaged about $36K a year, over the last 10 years. But I still put money away for health related matters and general saving/retirement. Sure, it means I forego some other things, but that's the nature of life and its economics.
You know, this is all very very funny to me, in a sad way.
If a U.S. citizen wants to (or doesn't want to) purchase health insurance, no law can force one to do so (either way).
All this talk from the Democrats about trying to make health care a "right", and yet, pass a bill that makes it the complete opposite of a right (in other words, makes it mandatory or you will be fined), is a travesty to say the least.
Each and every Representative that voted for this bill, needs to be sent to remedial U.S. Constitution and founding U.S. history classes, and be barred from proposing or voting on any legislation until these classes are completed successfully. I am sort of joking, slightly.
For all the Democrat rhetoric about "responsibility", they sure don't seem to know what the word means, and they certainly will not take responsibility for the horrid consequences that would result from such a bill becoming law. Namely, all the businesses that will be killed, all the would-be doctors and other health care practitioners that will find other fields to create careers in, etc.
This whole health care debate, talk, etc. is nothing more than a power grab and a direct attack on the individual freedom of every U.S. citizen.
|| An entire generation is growing up, if we don't figure out how to change that behavior so it respects copyright and subscription revenue.... ||
Where does "... respects ... subscription revenue..." fall into or even remotely near respect for copyrights?
I don't respect the "subscription revenue" thing at all. I stopped watching T.V. at home 10 years ago, don't miss it at all.
Prior to "killing my T.V.", I had basic cable service, at the time in my area that was 78 channels. I was constantly complaining "there's nothing on". So, when I moved to a new place, had the choice to get a package of cable T.V. plus internet, or just a straight broadband internet line (for cheaper), I nixed the cable.
I rent movies, when I want, but don't really have time for that as often as I might otherwise like.
The only subscription I have now is my monthly internet connection. I can follow sports, get my news, etc. with that one connection, no other subscription needed.
I respect copyrights fully, I do not download any software, music, etc. that I have not purchased and I do not share such downloads with others. I work in the software industry and I know quite a bit about copyright law, fair use, etc., as it is part of what I have to deal with on my job.
The truth of the matter is for cable companies is: you provide a service that people want, for a good price, with excellent customer service, and people will throw money at you. Cable companies, in my experience (10 years ago) didn't have what I wanted, was over priced for what I did get and customer service was worse than crap. Maybe the behavior that needs to be changed is that of the, dare I say, cable companies.
Oh, come on now.
The rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, starting with the Bill of Rights.
And, I understand what you are saying regarding this subject, but your statements, arguments, etc. are not persuasive in changing my mind that the rights of the individual are paramount.
As a result, I am done responding to you. We have a point of disagreement, looks like that point will remain in disagreement. And so, is life.
Clarification: The rights of the individual and protecting those rights, is more important than the collective.
The only balance point is, as soon as laws/rules/etc. of the collective start infringing on individual rights, you've gone too far, and that's exactly why rights of the individual and protecting those rights is paramount.
|| There's a reason we organize into political structures, the common good is one of the key ones. When the individual becomes MORE important than the collective you're standing on the precipice of a slippery slope. ||
Actually, the slippery slope is the other way around. Individual liberty, protection of, is of utmost importance, as it contributes to the good of the *cough* collective *cough*.
Holding the collective to be more important than the individual is the road to tyranny.
|| They bypass the moral discussion (with respect to individual freedom, personal autonomy, mutual voluntary association, etc) and go straight for the purely utilitarian side-effects (the efficiency of the market with respect to the quality of goods and prices). ||
No they don't. Not as a whole anyway, some small few do, just like any other criminal "-ist" would.
Profit is there, if you produce or deliver a good product or service, that people want and can buy, but at the same time, any business manager or executive, that runs such with some care towards good public relations, helping to keep their environment clean, etc. will do even better (as far as influence, public support, etc.) than a company only driving things for shear profit only (and screw everything else).
Well, it's just Microsoft Technology Evangelist (TM) dollars at work. /shrug
|| So if MSFT wants to know who is to blame for folks hating Vista like the second coming of WinME, they just need to look in the mirror. Sure on a dual core with 2Gb+ of RAM it'll run decently, but the "Best Buy Specials" being sold at the time of the Vista release were single core Sempron and Celeron with 512Mb of RAM and really lousy Intel or SiS IGPs. Those machines should have NEVER had Vista come within a 1000 yards of it, yet MSFT let manufacturers put "Vista capable" on them along with that piece of trash Vista Basic and customers felt like they were scammed, which of course they were. I have many customers now with new XP duals and Quads and they are not looking at Windows 7 until 2012, if at all. Too many got burnt thanks to Vista Capable and are just gonna set out Windows 7. ||
Actually, Microsoft didn't just "let" manufacturers put "Vista Capable" on the systems, Microsoft was an active part of making it happen, despite protest from at least one if not more OEMs.
I do even better than that, I read the information from the source, the GAO and other direct government information sources, not papers, not non-government web sites, etc.
Looks like you should do the same.
>
Sorry, but the total monies owed in benefits for Social Security and Medicaid/care combined, as of about three weeks ago, all unfunded, is/was 65 TRILLION DOLLARS (Source: GAO).
We are adding one to two TRILLION to this figure every year. And, per GAO circa June 2008, even if we confiscated everyone's income (100 percent of it) from here on out, we wouldn't even have enough money to may the interest on the money owed in benefits for these programs. The bank is broke, and we are just printing money (causing the dollar to devalue severely) like it was going out of style (and, it pretty much is going out of style the way things are going, due to its devaluing).
Yeah, this is a combination of Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare, but we cannot afford to continue *not* funding these programs and just keep paying the benefits out of newly printed money all the time. Drastic measures are needed *right now* to stop the U.S. Government caused draining of the U.S. economy in regards to these (and probably other) programs. Benefits need to be cut drastically, or these programs just need to be wound down and eliminated completely. Yeah, it's gonna suck for a bunch of people, but not doing so is gonna suck for a whole lot more people (every U.S. citizen).