I guess in case of posting, there is some kind of a psychological need to give your opinions to other people and have them approve, even if anonymous as most of us are here. In case of jewelery and perfume, vanity I guess (not in the sense of looking good - that can be accomplished, or not, for a lot less money. I mean in the sense of somebody spending a lot of money on you). In any case, irrational human behavior exploited for money.
genre of games is largely just 'brain hacks that exploit human psychology in order to make money,' which continue to work even when the users are openly told what's going on.
Of course they are, but so is everything else. Slashdot exploits human psychology (why exactly am I posting this? I am spending my time and energy and not getting anything tangible in return) in order to make money. Ever felt pressured by your better half to buy a small piece of metal (jewelery) for $1000 dollars or a tiny bottle of water (perfume) for $100? Those also continue to work even after the users are told what's going on.
That was my first thought as well. Privacy and piracy are two very different things and it may be that these "pirate" parties are disingenuously trying to link those two together.
Of course, there is a connection in that by trying to stop the piracy the authorities are inclined to trample on our right to privacy, but if that is their concern they should call themselves the Privacy Party or something. They have defined themselves by their rejection of the right to intellectual property and in my opinion that taints whatever valid things they are trying to do.
Playing a devil's advocate a little bit here but is there no way to avoid copyright infringements other than storing the entire copy of a copyrighted work in your system?
>i>The most obvious way to do that is slap a tariff on the goods.
The most obvious and the most wrong. We can never be better off as a nation by increasing the overall cost of the goods we purchase. Workers in certain industries can be better off because tariffs harm their more efficient foreign competition, but those workers are better off only at the expense of a) consumers who are forced to pay more for goods and b) other workers who are losing jobs because their employer's costs have increased. Classic example has been the steel tariffs: great for the steel industry workers but the unseen victims are the workers in every industry that now has to pay more for steel => charge more for products => lose customers and eventually cut down on jobs and pay for its workers. There are no serious economists advocating protectionism any more, that battle has been won by free trade proponents many decades ago. There are only occasional left wing loonies who think you can magically increase prosperity by legislation - really a form of broken window fallacy (in this case breaking the window = artificially imposing extra costs on production by tariffs)
we talk about colonizing and/or terraforming other planets when we can't even stop the ongoing negative changes happening to our own planet.
If we really can't stop ongoing negative changes happening to our planet then that sounds like a pretty good reason to talk about colonizing and/or terraforming other planets.
Re:United States Government Accountability Office?
on
Top Secret America
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
We'll never have a fully independent and reliable press in the US until they are subsidized by the government. Yes, you read that correctly. SUBSIDIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
That's all it takes? So Pravda was fully independent and reliable because it was subsidized by the government? What if I decide to publish a newspaper promoting communist/fascist/racist or whatever unpopular views? Will I get the subsidy as well? Who decides, and by what criteria, which newspapers will be the good boys who get the subsidy and a pat on the head by the government and which ones don't? The truth is the exact opposite of what you said. It is impossible to have free and independent press if it receives even one penny from the government.
Not really. The poorest US states have per capita GDP 2-3 times that of most new EU members For example, Mississippi(the poorest Us state): $30K. Slovakia $15K, Poland $12K, Romania $7K.
The EU has recently accepted what are considered second and third world countries, many within the last 10 years, including Bulgaria, Romania, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, etc. Just let me know - and provide some data, if you don't mind - exactly which US states have that level of GDP, poverty, and infrastructure.
And some of those are among the countries with the highest broadband speeds in the EU: http://www.bme.eu.com/news/uk-broadband-speed (lighter color = better) If you look at the breakdown by region on the same picture, Central and Eastern European countries on average are ahead of Western European countries when it comes to broadband speed. So what's your point?
Btw, none of those are considered 3rd world countries by far. The poorest of the new EU members (Bulgaria) is still considered an upper middle income economy (we don't use 1st, 2nd, 3rd world anymore). Some, like Slovenia and Czech Republic have overtaken some of the "western" European countries (Greece, Portugal) by any measure, including per capita GDP.
Libertarian and far-right have been merged, both because they *espouse* "small government" but merely as an opposition to "small corporation". They both want government to be replaced by corporations and want them AS BIG AS POSSIBLE.
Where on earth do you get that from? Daily Kos? The only people consistently against the wars and excessive military spending were the libertarians. Look at Ron Paul's voting record. Democrats generally supported the war and still pursue it. The only people against the bailouts for the big corporations were libertarians as well. Democrats supported them. Libertarians want the government to be one stop shop for corporate profits?! I don't think you can be any further from being right if you tried.
All chickens come from eggs, the first chicken egg would have been laid by the ancestor to the chicken.
But is it a chicken egg if it is not laid by a chicken? There were plenty of eggs (dinosaur etc) that came before chicken but in this debate we are limiting ourselves to chickens and chicken eggs. So the entire debate hinges on whether or not to count an egg which was not laid by a chicken but which contained a chicken.
Because US government will routinely lock people up or kill them if they criticize it? Or because you'll get tortured if you practice a religion that the US government doesn't approve of? Or because all media is controlled by the government in the US and anti-government independent media is non-existent? Or because in the US to move from one city into another you need to obtain a government permit? Or because all parties except one are banned?
I don't agree with everything US does but let's get some perspective. Comparing US with China is kinda like comparing Obama with Stalin or Bush with Hitler. It's such a massive and obvious exaggeration that it only weakens any valid points you might have.
I don't understand why do you feel that you have that right. For example, I downloaded a major video editing application. I really needed it but I know I wont use it very often, and I can't justify paying the high price. Ok, so I did it but if I think about it I feel a bit guilty and I don't at all feel like I had the "right" to use that software without paying for it. I know that the company that makes it hires 100s of engineers and spends millions annually just on their salaries and if everybody had the "right" to get it for free then how could they possibly continue developing it?
You are possibly describing a special case where an unknown publisher might be better of giving some free samples initially to get his name out. That's a pretty common marketing practice. Still it's the producer's right to decide whether or not that is in his interest or not. Maybe your case applies generally, and all the movie/music/software/book publishers are being idiots for spending so many millions on enforcing copyright protection when they would be better off letting anybody copy and share their products however they like. I don't think so, but maybe. Still, their decision and your son did the right thing by not going ahead and sharing it anyway.
Assuming a truly globalized and free economy, this is a broken window fallacy. Increasing the cost of production (by taxing the more efficient producers to make their products as expensive as the products of the less efficient producers) can never lead to any overall increase of wealth. Of course one can use force to get one party wealthier at the expense of another, and that is pretty much what he is proposing.
Ok, the example might have been bad but the point still stands. One can imagine all kinds of illegal/immoral/unethical things done 'inside' the parliament as well, with the protection of immunity as long as you can convince 4% of people to support it. If they were doing this in order to illustrate the absurdity of that law, I would applaud them. If they actually intend to use it, then I don't think they are doing themselves any favors.
I think it's pretty clear that the man is very humble and selfless.
I think it's pretty clear that he is not, and that's a good thing.
"Men have been taught that the ego is the synonym of evil, and selflessness the ideal of virtue. But the creator is the egoist in the absolute sense, and the selfless man is the one who does not think, feel, judge or act. These are functions of the self." (Ayn Rand).
He just gets his reward in a different way than most people would.
That's complete and utter bullshit. So we don't need geniuses like him at all, right? After all they are just putting in the last piece of the puzzle in, any idiot can do that. Oh, btw, why didn't you do it?
The party has announced today that they intend to use part of the Swedish Constitution to further these goals, specifically Parliamentary Immunity from prosecution or lawsuit for things done as part of their political mandate.
Great, I'm moving to Sweden and starting The Real Pirate Party. Our platform will include roaming the seas and capturing merchant ships and this Swedish law will grant us complete immunity from prosecution!
Now we just have to get 4% of the vote but that should be easy because we'll give a portion of the loot in exchange for votes.
Nobody is arguing with that, liberty (for everybody not just for the strongest) has to be protected by law and it is not at all the same thing as anarchy. A lot of things follow from that: legislation (and legislature), courts, police and military. No libertarian will have a problem with those, but an anarchist will.
To put it simply, the question is not why I don't have the right to shoot people in the face, but why I don't have the right to not wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle.
If that is your definition of liberty you lost your liberty a long time ago. In case you were not familiar, you cannot eat whatever you like (your offspring, tigers), you cannot drink whatever you like (moonshine), you cannot smoke whatever you like (cannabis). You cannot trade in ways beneficial to yourself (cocaine).
Yes I would agree with you that we lost liberty a long time ago but there are degrees of liberty and there is no reason to keep going in the wrong direction. As for your examples, yes I disagree with all the prohibitions you mentioned except obviously eating your offspring (which doesn't involve my rights but my offspring's rights) and arguably eating tigers but animal rights are a bit more complex issue.
The faster you acknowledge that it makes sense to have rules in society and accepting these, the faster will you be able to convince others to modify these. If you start out by stating that rules that have been in place for centuries or decades trample on your liberty, people will take you for a crackpot.
Are there still people around who confuse liberty and anarchy? I guess there are and judging by your inclusion of eating babies as an example of an infringement of liberty you are one of them.
Really? So I can walk up to a Buddhist and slap him on the face and he won't mind? I can take his coat and he will say: here take my shirt as well? If I ask money from him, he will give me as much as I want and not ask anything in return?
If the Christians were more like Christ, there wouldn't be any Christians around anymore:
But I [Christ] tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess in case of posting, there is some kind of a psychological need to give your opinions to other people and have them approve, even if anonymous as most of us are here. In case of jewelery and perfume, vanity I guess (not in the sense of looking good - that can be accomplished, or not, for a lot less money. I mean in the sense of somebody spending a lot of money on you). In any case, irrational human behavior exploited for money.
genre of games is largely just 'brain hacks that exploit human psychology in order to make money,' which continue to work even when the users are openly told what's going on.
Of course they are, but so is everything else. Slashdot exploits human psychology (why exactly am I posting this? I am spending my time and energy and not getting anything tangible in return) in order to make money. Ever felt pressured by your better half to buy a small piece of metal (jewelery) for $1000 dollars or a tiny bottle of water (perfume) for $100? Those also continue to work even after the users are told what's going on.
That was my first thought as well. Privacy and piracy are two very different things and it may be that these "pirate" parties are disingenuously trying to link those two together.
Of course, there is a connection in that by trying to stop the piracy the authorities are inclined to trample on our right to privacy, but if that is their concern they should call themselves the Privacy Party or something. They have defined themselves by their rejection of the right to intellectual property and in my opinion that taints whatever valid things they are trying to do.
Playing a devil's advocate a little bit here but is there no way to avoid copyright infringements other than storing the entire copy of a copyrighted work in your system?
>i>The most obvious way to do that is slap a tariff on the goods.
The most obvious and the most wrong. We can never be better off as a nation by increasing the overall cost of the goods we purchase. Workers in certain industries can be better off because tariffs harm their more efficient foreign competition, but those workers are better off only at the expense of a) consumers who are forced to pay more for goods and b) other workers who are losing jobs because their employer's costs have increased. Classic example has been the steel tariffs: great for the steel industry workers but the unseen victims are the workers in every industry that now has to pay more for steel => charge more for products => lose customers and eventually cut down on jobs and pay for its workers. There are no serious economists advocating protectionism any more, that battle has been won by free trade proponents many decades ago. There are only occasional left wing loonies who think you can magically increase prosperity by legislation - really a form of broken window fallacy (in this case breaking the window = artificially imposing extra costs on production by tariffs)
we talk about colonizing and/or terraforming other planets when we can't even stop the ongoing negative changes happening to our own planet.
If we really can't stop ongoing negative changes happening to our planet then that sounds like a pretty good reason to talk about colonizing and/or terraforming other planets.
We'll never have a fully independent and reliable press in the US until they are subsidized by the government. Yes, you read that correctly. SUBSIDIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
That's all it takes? So Pravda was fully independent and reliable because it was subsidized by the government? What if I decide to publish a newspaper promoting communist/fascist/racist or whatever unpopular views? Will I get the subsidy as well? Who decides, and by what criteria, which newspapers will be the good boys who get the subsidy and a pat on the head by the government and which ones don't? The truth is the exact opposite of what you said. It is impossible to have free and independent press if it receives even one penny from the government.
Not really. The poorest US states have per capita GDP 2-3 times that of most new EU members For example, Mississippi(the poorest Us state): $30K. Slovakia $15K, Poland $12K, Romania $7K.
The EU has recently accepted what are considered second and third world countries, many within the last 10 years, including Bulgaria, Romania, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, etc. Just let me know - and provide some data, if you don't mind - exactly which US states have that level of GDP, poverty, and infrastructure.
And some of those are among the countries with the highest broadband speeds in the EU: http://www.bme.eu.com/news/uk-broadband-speed (lighter color = better) If you look at the breakdown by region on the same picture, Central and Eastern European countries on average are ahead of Western European countries when it comes to broadband speed. So what's your point?
Btw, none of those are considered 3rd world countries by far. The poorest of the new EU members (Bulgaria) is still considered an upper middle income economy (we don't use 1st, 2nd, 3rd world anymore). Some, like Slovenia and Czech Republic have overtaken some of the "western" European countries (Greece, Portugal) by any measure, including per capita GDP.
Libertarian and far-right have been merged, both because they *espouse* "small government" but merely as an opposition to "small corporation". They both want government to be replaced by corporations and want them AS BIG AS POSSIBLE.
Where on earth do you get that from? Daily Kos? The only people consistently against the wars and excessive military spending were the libertarians. Look at Ron Paul's voting record. Democrats generally supported the war and still pursue it. The only people against the bailouts for the big corporations were libertarians as well. Democrats supported them. Libertarians want the government to be one stop shop for corporate profits?! I don't think you can be any further from being right if you tried.
All chickens come from eggs, the first chicken egg would have been laid by the ancestor to the chicken.
But is it a chicken egg if it is not laid by a chicken? There were plenty of eggs (dinosaur etc) that came before chicken but in this debate we are limiting ourselves to chickens and chicken eggs. So the entire debate hinges on whether or not to count an egg which was not laid by a chicken but which contained a chicken.
Yeah, that's why the rest of us here use our real names.
Because US government will routinely lock people up or kill them if they criticize it? Or because you'll get tortured if you practice a religion that the US government doesn't approve of? Or because all media is controlled by the government in the US and anti-government independent media is non-existent? Or because in the US to move from one city into another you need to obtain a government permit? Or because all parties except one are banned?
I don't agree with everything US does but let's get some perspective. Comparing US with China is kinda like comparing Obama with Stalin or Bush with Hitler. It's such a massive and obvious exaggeration that it only weakens any valid points you might have.
I don't understand why do you feel that you have that right. For example, I downloaded a major video editing application. I really needed it but I know I wont use it very often, and I can't justify paying the high price. Ok, so I did it but if I think about it I feel a bit guilty and I don't at all feel like I had the "right" to use that software without paying for it. I know that the company that makes it hires 100s of engineers and spends millions annually just on their salaries and if everybody had the "right" to get it for free then how could they possibly continue developing it?
You are possibly describing a special case where an unknown publisher might be better of giving some free samples initially to get his name out. That's a pretty common marketing practice. Still it's the producer's right to decide whether or not that is in his interest or not. Maybe your case applies generally, and all the movie/music/software/book publishers are being idiots for spending so many millions on enforcing copyright protection when they would be better off letting anybody copy and share their products however they like. I don't think so, but maybe. Still, their decision and your son did the right thing by not going ahead and sharing it anyway.
Assuming a truly globalized and free economy, this is a broken window fallacy. Increasing the cost of production (by taxing the more efficient producers to make their products as expensive as the products of the less efficient producers) can never lead to any overall increase of wealth. Of course one can use force to get one party wealthier at the expense of another, and that is pretty much what he is proposing.
Ok, the example might have been bad but the point still stands. One can imagine all kinds of illegal/immoral/unethical things done 'inside' the parliament as well, with the protection of immunity as long as you can convince 4% of people to support it. If they were doing this in order to illustrate the absurdity of that law, I would applaud them. If they actually intend to use it, then I don't think they are doing themselves any favors.
I think it's pretty clear that the man is very humble and selfless.
I think it's pretty clear that he is not, and that's a good thing.
"Men have been taught that the ego is the synonym of evil, and selflessness the ideal of virtue. But the creator is the egoist in the absolute sense, and the selfless man is the one who does not think, feel, judge or act. These are functions of the self." (Ayn Rand).
He just gets his reward in a different way than most people would.
That's complete and utter bullshit. So we don't need geniuses like him at all, right? After all they are just putting in the last piece of the puzzle in, any idiot can do that. Oh, btw, why didn't you do it?
The party has announced today that they intend to use part of the Swedish Constitution to further these goals, specifically Parliamentary Immunity from prosecution or lawsuit for things done as part of their political mandate.
Great, I'm moving to Sweden and starting The Real Pirate Party. Our platform will include roaming the seas and capturing merchant ships and this Swedish law will grant us complete immunity from prosecution!
Now we just have to get 4% of the vote but that should be easy because we'll give a portion of the loot in exchange for votes.
Nobody is arguing with that, liberty (for everybody not just for the strongest) has to be protected by law and it is not at all the same thing as anarchy. A lot of things follow from that: legislation (and legislature), courts, police and military. No libertarian will have a problem with those, but an anarchist will.
To put it simply, the question is not why I don't have the right to shoot people in the face, but why I don't have the right to not wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle.
If that is your definition of liberty you lost your liberty a long time ago. In case you were not familiar, you cannot eat whatever you like (your offspring, tigers), you cannot drink whatever you like (moonshine), you cannot smoke whatever you like (cannabis). You cannot trade in ways beneficial to yourself (cocaine).
Yes I would agree with you that we lost liberty a long time ago but there are degrees of liberty and there is no reason to keep going in the wrong direction. As for your examples, yes I disagree with all the prohibitions you mentioned except obviously eating your offspring (which doesn't involve my rights but my offspring's rights) and arguably eating tigers but animal rights are a bit more complex issue.
The faster you acknowledge that it makes sense to have rules in society and accepting these, the faster will you be able to convince others to modify these. If you start out by stating that rules that have been in place for centuries or decades trample on your liberty, people will take you for a crackpot.
Are there still people around who confuse liberty and anarchy? I guess there are and judging by your inclusion of eating babies as an example of an infringement of liberty you are one of them.
Really? So I can walk up to a Buddhist and slap him on the face and he won't mind? I can take his coat and he will say: here take my shirt as well? If I ask money from him, he will give me as much as I want and not ask anything in return?
If the Christians were more like Christ, there wouldn't be any Christians around anymore:
But I [Christ] tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.
Two forms of oppression are fighting over who gets the right to oppress you more and you think you will win?