At the time of the US civil war, most of the modern western world had agreed that slavery was abhorrent. France and the UK had some leanings toward supporting the Confederates for various reasons, but backed off once the war became about slavery since they did not want to be seen as pro-slavery.
The form of slavery in the south was particularly brutal, it was hereditary, and it was chattel slavery (slaves not considered to be people but personal property), and this form was unlike most other historical forms of slavery. It was not just a "cheap labor" form of slavery or indentured servitude. If the south feared the loss of their brutalized free labor, then screw them!
It is nothing like taking away H1Bs or undocumented immigrants. Those workers are allowed to move around, you cannot kill or beat these workers, you cannot maim them to prevent them from running away, you cannot take their children away and sell them for a profit; it is legal to teach them how to read and write, they can improve their position in life, they can decide to take off and go back to a different country if they wish. Not so with civil war era slaves. If the south was basing their economy on the ground up bones of the innocent, then that economy deserved to utterly collapse.
There is no defense for such an economy. This is the shame of the Southern states. This is also the shame of the Northern states, both for their own earlier slavery, and their tacit acceptance of the slavery situation.
Also 3/5s of male slaves counted towards apportionment. That means the south had more members of congress that way than if they only counted free citizens of those states. This gave them a lot more clout which lead to several decades of stalemate about the slavery issue. When the south started losing this political tug of war they decided "screw this!" and seceded.
That is true in some ways. However the reasons for the war was about slavery. The south seceded because of slavery, this is clear from the statements made by the confederate leaders of the time. The political divide between north and south was entirely due to slavery. That the north only wanted to keep the country whole does not negate this.
The North did not attempt to stop slavery immediately, that's true. There was a feeling on both sides that the war could be ended quickly and things would go back to a distasteful stalemate.
Remember also, the US did not enter WWII in order to get rid of the evil Nazis; the US early on was quite intent on riding it out on the other side of the planet and let it blow over.
To be specific, that power was about slavery. Their political power derived from slavery (ie, they could count 3/5s of a slave for apportionment), and their economic power derived from slavery.
The snag often comes down to who owns what. For instance, the US civil war essentially started after the south took over a military fort. There was also much much more dividing the country than simple things like language or regional culture. The South refused to give up slavery and was essentially expanding it by insisting that half of all new states be slave states. It certainly would have been better if this situation resolved itself, but it most certainly was not a war of northern aggression.
If one region was forcibly taken over in the past or has a history of being oppressed, then it's reasonable to allow them the right of self rule. However, seceding for the purposes of have a single distinct ethnicity or culture is wrong I think, since that leads to ethnic cleansing, second class citizens, and so forth.
The technology may not be new, but the distribution and availability is new. We had streaming in the past, there's nothing fundamentally new with streaming today except for the wide availability, added DRM, and more efficient codecs. For smartphones, they're just normal phones tied together with a PDA. Economies of scale made these more practical, more memory can be shoved in, parts get cheaper, and so forth, but fundamentally the technology is about the same.
Buying new over repairing means more garbage in the landfill. Apple does not recycle those phones, and they are not designed to allow easy recycling of parts, they do just enough to have plausible deniability when a third party disposes of the phones. The true cost of a phone is hidden for the most part; you pay a tiny fraction up front, then a monthly fee, and when the phone is paid off you usually continue paying the same monthly fee. Thus the economic factor to repair instead of buying new is diminished. Often there's a bit of hypocrisy there, get a new phone and throw the old one away, then immediately use it to tweat about saving the planet.
For farm equipment- you most certainly do want to repair it, that is a massive expense to just throw away the tractor and buy a new one that is similarly unrepairable.
You are allowed to modify vehicles, as long as they pass emissions tests. DMCA even has an exception clause for this purpose. The reason manufacturings are locking down their parts is not because of regulatory compliance. I suspect it's the same as the rest of the digital rights mentality; keep profits high by disallowing third party parts, third party repairs, and especially forbid resales to anybody but licensed dealership.
The terms are not always clear. Primarily because autos have always been repairable in the past, and the terms disallowing this are often hidden behind layers of legalize inside a license agreement in the stack of papers you get at time of closing the deal. The Mercedes financial person at the dealership is not going to stop and point out "this is a new document, let me describe all the bad things it will do to you before you sign it".
The way that new customers don't get screwed is by existing customers complaining loudly that they've being screwed. Do you want everyone to keep quiet and continue making these terms secretive?
Well, in the John Deere situation, they require the customer to sign a license agreement before they can purchase the products. This means modifying the embedded software falls under contract law rather than copyright law. That is, a real world physical device with a software license agreement attached. It's DRM in the physical domain.
Sure, it's a crime. But it's a smaller crime than what most politicians do every day. But because she's the "enemy", everyone wants to make this all into the biggest crimes of all. Never mind that Trump's family use their own private emails, because they're Trumps and therefore above the law.
It's all partisan hypocrisy, it's all about getting votes.
I'd rather have a laptop. Can get decent games on it, and get some work done, or email, etc. Tablets just aren't really suited for a lot of things for me. I don't have 20/20 vision, I can't do social media more than 5 minutes before I'm caught up, etc.
What does an adult do with a tablet? I honestly see them as worthless. Sure, I can understand kids wanting a tablet to have a portable tv and some games. Kids are smaller too, a tablet to them is watchable, but to me they're too small. Even when I get email on my phone, if I see something interesting on the phone I often need to use the computer to actually view it correctly (looking at attachments) or to respond to them. Of course, if someone gave me a tablet I would accept it; I could resell it to a child.
How expensive are these? If not in an upscale neighborhood I would expect a significant outcry if the public elementary schools demanded that significant extra expense.
I don't even have one. They're far too expensive for one, so 42% of kids having them is astounding, I would have expected them to be considered luxury devices out of the reach of of a large segment of the population, and I would hope a large segment of those who can afford tablets would refrain.
Right, but if you had an omnipotent deity, then you could be fixed when resurrected. I don't think many at the time were assuming you'd be literally resurrected missing a leg or that you could not be resurrected if you were cremated. Corinthians talks about resurrection into a new body, not the decayed old one. Instead it seems more likely that they treated cremation as a sign of rejecting the possibility of resurrection. Also it's very much a Jewish belief as well, and the early Church was Jewish. Local culture always influences religions and vice versa, and it becomes difficult to try and separate the two.
Invest in the stock market, and you become a fractional shareholder in a real company. If the company does well, you do well, it's joint ownership. Invest in a cryptocoin, then you're not really "investing", but you're speculating, gambling, etc.
I don't understand it either. I assumed the news feeds were curated anyway; the buzzfeed crap was all in the "I'm bored" section ("13 stupid ways facebook is getting worse, read now!").
I don't see anything wrong with paying to get into the "this is real news!" section. I'd rather see headlines from AP than from some startup wannabe media site. So what's the story? That Facebook wants to be more sane, or that there are people who think that lots of clicks on click-bait is what should make a story newsworthy?
Slashdot Mirror
At the time of the US civil war, most of the modern western world had agreed that slavery was abhorrent. France and the UK had some leanings toward supporting the Confederates for various reasons, but backed off once the war became about slavery since they did not want to be seen as pro-slavery.
The form of slavery in the south was particularly brutal, it was hereditary, and it was chattel slavery (slaves not considered to be people but personal property), and this form was unlike most other historical forms of slavery. It was not just a "cheap labor" form of slavery or indentured servitude. If the south feared the loss of their brutalized free labor, then screw them!
It is nothing like taking away H1Bs or undocumented immigrants. Those workers are allowed to move around, you cannot kill or beat these workers, you cannot maim them to prevent them from running away, you cannot take their children away and sell them for a profit; it is legal to teach them how to read and write, they can improve their position in life, they can decide to take off and go back to a different country if they wish. Not so with civil war era slaves. If the south was basing their economy on the ground up bones of the innocent, then that economy deserved to utterly collapse.
There is no defense for such an economy. This is the shame of the Southern states. This is also the shame of the Northern states, both for their own earlier slavery, and their tacit acceptance of the slavery situation.
The south seceded and also took US property with them; shots weren't fired until the south attacked and took Fort Sumter.
Also 3/5s of male slaves counted towards apportionment. That means the south had more members of congress that way than if they only counted free citizens of those states. This gave them a lot more clout which lead to several decades of stalemate about the slavery issue. When the south started losing this political tug of war they decided "screw this!" and seceded.
That is true in some ways. However the reasons for the war was about slavery. The south seceded because of slavery, this is clear from the statements made by the confederate leaders of the time. The political divide between north and south was entirely due to slavery. That the north only wanted to keep the country whole does not negate this.
The North did not attempt to stop slavery immediately, that's true. There was a feeling on both sides that the war could be ended quickly and things would go back to a distasteful stalemate.
Remember also, the US did not enter WWII in order to get rid of the evil Nazis; the US early on was quite intent on riding it out on the other side of the planet and let it blow over.
To be specific, that power was about slavery. Their political power derived from slavery (ie, they could count 3/5s of a slave for apportionment), and their economic power derived from slavery.
The snag often comes down to who owns what. For instance, the US civil war essentially started after the south took over a military fort. There was also much much more dividing the country than simple things like language or regional culture. The South refused to give up slavery and was essentially expanding it by insisting that half of all new states be slave states. It certainly would have been better if this situation resolved itself, but it most certainly was not a war of northern aggression.
If one region was forcibly taken over in the past or has a history of being oppressed, then it's reasonable to allow them the right of self rule. However, seceding for the purposes of have a single distinct ethnicity or culture is wrong I think, since that leads to ethnic cleansing, second class citizens, and so forth.
The technology may not be new, but the distribution and availability is new. We had streaming in the past, there's nothing fundamentally new with streaming today except for the wide availability, added DRM, and more efficient codecs. For smartphones, they're just normal phones tied together with a PDA. Economies of scale made these more practical, more memory can be shoved in, parts get cheaper, and so forth, but fundamentally the technology is about the same.
Buying new over repairing means more garbage in the landfill. Apple does not recycle those phones, and they are not designed to allow easy recycling of parts, they do just enough to have plausible deniability when a third party disposes of the phones. The true cost of a phone is hidden for the most part; you pay a tiny fraction up front, then a monthly fee, and when the phone is paid off you usually continue paying the same monthly fee. Thus the economic factor to repair instead of buying new is diminished. Often there's a bit of hypocrisy there, get a new phone and throw the old one away, then immediately use it to tweat about saving the planet.
For farm equipment- you most certainly do want to repair it, that is a massive expense to just throw away the tractor and buy a new one that is similarly unrepairable.
This is not copyright related. This comes from licensing agreements. The DMCA (US) already allows an exception for the purposes of repairing vehicles.
You are allowed to modify vehicles, as long as they pass emissions tests. DMCA even has an exception clause for this purpose. The reason manufacturings are locking down their parts is not because of regulatory compliance. I suspect it's the same as the rest of the digital rights mentality; keep profits high by disallowing third party parts, third party repairs, and especially forbid resales to anybody but licensed dealership.
The terms are not always clear. Primarily because autos have always been repairable in the past, and the terms disallowing this are often hidden behind layers of legalize inside a license agreement in the stack of papers you get at time of closing the deal. The Mercedes financial person at the dealership is not going to stop and point out "this is a new document, let me describe all the bad things it will do to you before you sign it".
The way that new customers don't get screwed is by existing customers complaining loudly that they've being screwed. Do you want everyone to keep quiet and continue making these terms secretive?
Well, in the John Deere situation, they require the customer to sign a license agreement before they can purchase the products. This means modifying the embedded software falls under contract law rather than copyright law. That is, a real world physical device with a software license agreement attached. It's DRM in the physical domain.
Actually it seemed pretty damn easy to get someone unqualified elected last year.
For radio, just about every day.
You mean corporate monopolies. Oh wait, you're right, corporations are our governments now...
At least soldiers are more trustworthy than mercenaries and have a legal system that can hold them accountable.
Sure, it's a crime. But it's a smaller crime than what most politicians do every day. But because she's the "enemy", everyone wants to make this all into the biggest crimes of all. Never mind that Trump's family use their own private emails, because they're Trumps and therefore above the law.
It's all partisan hypocrisy, it's all about getting votes.
I'd rather have a laptop. Can get decent games on it, and get some work done, or email, etc. Tablets just aren't really suited for a lot of things for me. I don't have 20/20 vision, I can't do social media more than 5 minutes before I'm caught up, etc.
No I didn't, my parents would shoo me out of the house if I spent at much time on a TV as some kids spend squinting at a phone or tablet.
What does an adult do with a tablet? I honestly see them as worthless. Sure, I can understand kids wanting a tablet to have a portable tv and some games. Kids are smaller too, a tablet to them is watchable, but to me they're too small. Even when I get email on my phone, if I see something interesting on the phone I often need to use the computer to actually view it correctly (looking at attachments) or to respond to them. Of course, if someone gave me a tablet I would accept it; I could resell it to a child.
How expensive are these? If not in an upscale neighborhood I would expect a significant outcry if the public elementary schools demanded that significant extra expense.
Hex paper for me!
I don't even have one. They're far too expensive for one, so 42% of kids having them is astounding, I would have expected them to be considered luxury devices out of the reach of of a large segment of the population, and I would hope a large segment of those who can afford tablets would refrain.
Right, but if you had an omnipotent deity, then you could be fixed when resurrected. I don't think many at the time were assuming you'd be literally resurrected missing a leg or that you could not be resurrected if you were cremated. Corinthians talks about resurrection into a new body, not the decayed old one. Instead it seems more likely that they treated cremation as a sign of rejecting the possibility of resurrection. Also it's very much a Jewish belief as well, and the early Church was Jewish. Local culture always influences religions and vice versa, and it becomes difficult to try and separate the two.
Invest in the stock market, and you become a fractional shareholder in a real company. If the company does well, you do well, it's joint ownership. Invest in a cryptocoin, then you're not really "investing", but you're speculating, gambling, etc.
I don't understand it either. I assumed the news feeds were curated anyway; the buzzfeed crap was all in the "I'm bored" section ("13 stupid ways facebook is getting worse, read now!").
I don't see anything wrong with paying to get into the "this is real news!" section. I'd rather see headlines from AP than from some startup wannabe media site. So what's the story? That Facebook wants to be more sane, or that there are people who think that lots of clicks on click-bait is what should make a story newsworthy?