Moral of the story: Shitty hardware == shitty results. That's only true if you define "shitty hardware" as "hardware that doesn't work well (or at all) in Linux".
There's a lot of great hardware that is extremely poorly supported under Linux. Certainly, that's not the fault of Linux or its developers, but it's absurd to pretend it's just "shitty hardware".
Did you see the Safari homepage? From memory, the "most secure" browser ever or something. Then, you have a large number of vulnerabilities within 24 hours. They simply SHOULD NOT have made such claims! That's why I'm calling it damage control, a face-saving measure. 1. Yes. 2. No, it said it's "designed to be secure from day one" 3. Large? 4. Why not? Designed != is. That's why it's in beta. You *expect* to find the bugs at this point. 5. If that's what you want to call it, fine. Damage control and face-saving, it surely is, as is *any* security patch from *any* vendor. But your implication, especially with calling it a "PR stunt" is that that's all it is, that normally Apple wouldn't patch things like this. That's simply false.
Apple did everything right, at this point. To put them down for doing things right makes no sense.
Oh hell, even television channels here in India, which usually stay aloof from all things tech, covered it! Which means?
I have no problem with releasing patches once a month for vulnerabilities that have been disclosed to the vendor alone. All the vulnerabilities that have been patched or left unpatched in Safari were in the public domain. That's a load of shit. Or did Maynor actually finally post the "flaws" he found? Given his past record, he probably just found a way to crash Safari, and is equating that with actually finding a way to exploit the flaw, like he's done in the past.
Bitching about a company actually fixing a flaw in a timely manner is just insane. They should be lauded for it. What would you want them to do, *not* release the patch?
They balance uniform plank across a fulcrum and carefully place the pig on one end. Next they place various rocks on the other end at an equal distance from the fulcrum as the pig is, until they find one that balances the pig. Then they guess the weight of the rock.
Safari 3.0.1 is damage control because they haven't fixed all the vulnerabilities yet. Is it merely "damage control" when a Firefox update doesn't address all vulnerabilities? I'd think damage control would be something like a press release saying the flaws aren't serious, or some other such excuse.
For an example of damage control, see the iPhone "SDK".
It's a PR stunt. That implies it's all flash and no substance.
It looks to me like you are just trying to find a way to put it down. Compared to how MS deals with security issues, Apple is leagues ahead so far with Safari. Of course, it's been less than a week, so it's really too early to tell at this point, but there's seriously nothing one can complain about. It's like they earned an A (or A- if there really are some unpatched flaws) and you're upset they didn't get an A+.
And, granted, if there are still unpatched exploitable holes, that grade will drop over time. By your standard, however, Apple has a moth to patch them, since you seem to be fine with MS only releasing patches once a moth.
Oh damn it, for serious active vulnerabilities I really WOULD like patches to be released quickly. Who wouldn't? The weird thing would be calling timely patches a "damage control PR stunt".
I don't get it. Why can't Microsoft ship patches immediately? If your company's IT dept. can't keep up with un-scheduled patches, then they can wait and do all the patching once a month like they do now. In the meantime, the rest of us can actually run our systems without gaping security holes that have been fixed.
It just doesn't make any damned sense.
Safari 3.0.1, however, is just damage control. That's amazing. Patching once-a-month is completely sensical, but patching ASAP is "damage control"?
It should be noted that Linux sysadmins seem to have no trouble installing patches when they come out. Why's it so hard for Windows sysadmins to do the same?
It's not hurting "the GPL folks feelings" that offends me, it's the disregard for their intentions (i.e., not about whether they are happy or sad, but whether their rightful will is being contradicted). Interesting, this is *exactly* the same issue he is trying to avoid happening to himself--having his source code forced out of his hands against *his* will.
He describes wanting to create some sort of appliance that runs Linux (or BSD), which (one can only assume) a significantly small amount of proprietary code on top of a free/open source system. He seems not to care one whit about open source/free software, other than that he doesn't have to pay for it. While that annoys me some, so long as it's within the letter and spirit of the license, it's not something that's going to bother me all that much, but it seems he really wants to push things further than that. This is why I suggest using BSD. It's the sort of thing the BSD people actually want (well, they probably don't *want* proprietary stuff so much as they want their code to be used, proprietary or not).
Your question about being a covert BSD troll was interesting. I strongly prefer the GPL to the BSD license, even though I'm pointing him away from GPLd code in this case. The reason is that the GPL is designed to protect freedom, while the BSD license is designed to allow for maximum freedom, including the freedom to take away freedom. What he wants is maximum freedom, and doesn't seem to care at all about protecting freedom (aside from his).
BSD is licensed to allow for people to do what you want. GPLd software is not.
I'm not opposed to proprietary software. Quite the contrary. But I do find the notion of taking an open source project, slapping on a bit of code, and trying to keep your part to yourself, to be extremely offensive. The people who contributed to GNU software did so with the expectation that their code is share and share alike. What you've described appears to run directly counter to that, completely disrespecting the wishes of the programmers involved. Unless I'm reading you wrong, you deserve a hearty "go to hell!".
BSD, on the other hand, is meant to allow for use exactly like you are proposing. Have at it. No hard feelings there as that's exactly in line with their programmers' wishes.
Inability to drop in commodity hardware remains one of the biggest reasons Apple will not gain as many converts as people think. Inability to drop in commodity hardware is as important to most people as you think.
That's not to say it's not a problem that needs addressing, just that the *vast* majority of people really don't care.
In a fully open market, you are able to examine the past interactions of the people who are inviting you to interact with them. Two problems with that.
The first and most problematic is that there's no such thing as a "fully open market" where you can "examine [all] the past interactions". Do you think if we removed all regulations that corporations would suddenly put their entire corporate history on the Internet for all to examine? It seems to me that clearly the opposite would happen, and they would disclose *far less* than they do now.
The second is that companies *right now* kill and steal, and we don't boycott them. The info is out on the Internet right now. Most of the theft and murder happens outside of the US, so we don't really care. Hell, Ford's knowing complicity in killing people through the Pinto happened right here, and people still buy Fords.
For a more accurate expectation of what a fully free market is like, look to places where there is no regulation (i.e., no laws).
It's all about power. If there isn't a government which is designed to serve the interests of the people, the people will be at the whim and mercy of those able to acquire sufficient power.
Without the EPA, *and* without the restrictions preventing me from retaliating forcefully against the people producing toxins that enter into my lungs, it would be a whole lot cleaner, and you can guess why. Consider the scope of your question carefully. Scope: no laws (the definition of no regulations, the end-result of free market fundamentalism). Result: Corporation A dumps severely toxic waste into the stream that you rely on for drinking water. Illness and death plagues your family and you have no idea why (do you think Corporation A is going to tell you what they're doing?). Assuming you figure out the source of your misery, you head over to the front gate of Corporation A to politely seek redress. Of course, you get nowhere. You return to forcefully seek redress, but since you don't command a small military force, you again get nowhere. You threaten to tell the papers, but Corporation A laughs. They advertise in the papers. Or they take your threat seriously, invite you in for negotiations, and behind the walls surrounding Corporation A, you are never seen again.
Sound like insane paranoia? This exact sort of thing happens all over the world in places which have "freer" markets than we have here.
The free market most libertarians have in mind is impossible. It is an oxymoron. It contradicts itself out of existence.
Laws--restrictions on people's activities--are required to create a market structure under which capitalism can thrive.
Free market fundamentalists always rail against the few laws which really do suck, which really do hinder capitalism. Laws like the DMCA, or the obscenity regulations imposed by the FCC, and completely ignore the thousands of laws which they rely on every day, laws which, were they to vanish today would send the US into the third-world tomorrow.
To start putting any limits on this will undoubtedly inconvenience legitimate users while the sneaks just find a way around it. We saw this when we forced netsol to start enforcing.net regulations for their intended purpose. It just can't be done sorry. Ugh, of all the brain-dead arguments put forth by free-market fundamentalists, this is the most inane. It's the "if even one person can get away with breaking the law, the law is useless" argument.
Making murder illegal doesn't stop murder. Does that mean outlawing murder has not worked? That it "just can't be done sorry"? Of course not.
The question is, can there be a law which sufficiently addresses some issue, while not unreasonably infringing on individual liberty?
For example, a law which states an individual or a corporation (and all basic derivations of each) cannot own greater than 100 domains unless they can show that they make some form of use of them beyond placeholder or primarily ad-based pages? See how that's weighted *against* the innocent person who merely owns a handful (or few dozen!) defunct domains, but focuses directly on domain-squatters? See how it allows for an independent judgement to allow for people to own and use many domains, but stop those who try to weasel around the law?
Now, I know what you are thinking. Why can't someone just form multiple LLC's and buy 99 domains each? Tack into the law that if a person is directly affiliated with a net total exceeding 100 domains, they fall under the purview of the law. Or make forming additional companies to bypass the law illegal. This sort of loophole closing works for other laws.
You have no particular right to any specific name. What does this even mean? If I buy a domain, I have the right to it, unless I'm infringing on someone else's right.
First come first served may suck but it sucks less than any of the alternatives. I disagree. First-come first-served severely favors gaming the system and snatching up every word you can imagine. That's why it's so completely impossible to find a domain-name that isn't already taken.
Go ahead and try it. Most of the names you can come up with will just end up in some parked domain name.
Legislation through the organizations that handle domain registrations. This doesn't need to be dealt with at a criminal or government level. This is something that the internet can deal with on it's own, without incorporating the help of people in governments who don't understand the technology. How so? That's exactly how it is now, and there's no regulation for this whatsoever. What motivation *AT ALL* do the registrars have to not allow domain squatting? None. The incentive is *exactly the opposite*.
That's the problem with libertarian free-market fundamentalists. Sometimes the market promotes undesirable behavior. For example, the free market promotes theft and murder. We regulate those activities because they are deemed to be sufficiently undesirable. Domain squatting isn't as bad as murder, but is in some ways like theft (blocking a limited resource with little-to-no societal benefit from being used productively by someone else, hence "squatting"). If you deem it sufficiently undesirable, the only logical solution is regulation. You're far more likely to find results with government regulation than you will with voluntary free-market regulation.
For example, without the EPA, do you think the environment would be cleaner or dirtier than it is now?
What you're saying is, you can't text while driving (!!), and read emails while pretending to pay attention to someone (I don't see how you actually *read* an email without looking at your current phone, but I digress).
In other words, the iPhone makes it harder for you to be an asshole. You've utterly failed to convince me that this is a bad thing.
And I completely disagree with it.
the best way to acquire digital music remains buying the CD Best is subjective. For me, best includes ease-of-purchase (click vs go to store, physically search, and if found (not always!), buy), includes not having to rip/encode, includes having complete and accurate album info tags and artwork without having to search or double-check it, and includes not having a disc to store.
You can rip and encode it at any bit rate you want At 256kbps, this really isn't an issue for me. At 128k is was a mild concern for most music, and a more significant concern for classical.
you know you won't have any DRM issues to worry about I know that I won't have to worry about that with iTunes Plus tracks either. In fact, I'm far more likely to have DRM issues with a physical CD than I am with an iTunes Plus track.
you won't have to pay anything extra for it Extra as opposed to what? Plus tracks are 30 cents more than standard tracks, albums are the same price. CD albums and CD singles tend to cost more than iTunes prices. When CDs came out, they were priced higher than the formats they replaced as well.
I fully intend to never buy another CD again, ever.
When Jobs introduced the music store, he stated that this is exactly the case. It's not universal, but for some (many? a few? most? I have no idea) they went back to the original masters and used those to for the iTunes music store.
However, OP said "Our attorney says the calls are perfectly legal" which leads me to believe the company attorney is the one who should be looking for new employment! Right, because you, a non-laywer, know the law better than an actual lawyer?
+5 Informative? More like +5 Wishful Speculation.
It might be harassment in some philosophical sense, but it's not harassment in the legal sense (according to their attorney. Maybe it is, I don't know, but neither do I pretend to know, either).
Let's see, on the one hand, we have the deaths of innocent people. On the other, your kids' school doesn't have a playground, and they aren't allowed to climb trees which you do not own.
Which of these two are more indicative, in your own words, that the "world is screwed"?
That's the general. Now the specific. I really don't see what your examples are meant to convey. Schools can have playgrounds. In fact, many (most?) do. If *your* school tore down their playground, it wasn't because they aren't allowed to have one. It's because (assuming lawsuits had anything to do with it in the first place) they can't afford to make a safe playground. I'll bet you also whine about your taxes being too high. You get what you pay for, you know.
As for the park issue, I highly doubt the tree-climbing issue is a matter of safety-for-fear-of-lawsuits. More likely, it's meant to keep the commons from being trampled over. Do you think the "keep off the grass" and "don't pick the flowers" signs are about safety and lawsuits?
Sorry, but do you have any proof for this except from "it should be, because out ancestors did it"? You may disguise it with some evolutionary selection handwaving, but basically you are propagating the romantic notion of 'le bon sauvage' (the good wild [man]). Did you ever compare the average lifespan of 'our ancestors' with the current average lifespan? Where did that come from? You might have a point if there was some actual, physiological, benefit to sodas (the primary target of the GP's attack) over water. By all medical measures, water is superior to pop. The "noble savage" doesn't enter into it.
Maybe current culture does some things detrimental to your health, but overall it is much better then what our ancestors had to go through if you measure it by lifespan. This wasn't about "current culture", it was about soft drinks vs water. You're reading way too much into this.
The other hidden argument that you use is that it is morally better to restrict yourself and almost never indulge on luxury. What are you, some monk that derives pleasure (oh no, bad!) from chastising himself? Pop isn't a luxury. For most of us, it's a daily (even the primary) drink. It's not more healthy than water.
It could very well be that with normal consumption you never reach a significant dose that has any effect at all. It damages your DNA. Dosage, in the way you're talking about it, doesn't enter into it. The way you're using the term is the "LD50" type (Lethal Dosage 50% of the time). This additive will not kill you directly at the dosage in soda. What it *will* do is damage your DNA, so the damage is cumulative--the more you drink, the higher your risks, unlike a poison which will kill after a certain threshold.
There are two points here, which you seem to be conflating. One is soda in general. The other is sodium benzoate in particular. Soda is definitely not all that good for you, and often times is quite detrimental. It's not going to kill you right off, but it can lead to serious health issues (osteoporosis, diabetes, obesity) or, more often, lesser problems (but problems nonetheless). All of which, however, is within the realm of reasonable personal risks. Sodium benzoate, on the other hand, appears to be extremely dangerous, and seemingly has no business being added into our foods and drinks.
I do fully and completely agree with your premise that there's a lot of nonsense arguments against modern society which tends to be very anti-modernity and (ultimately) anti-human (hippies, amish, religious extremists, and reactionaries, are some examples of such people), but I really don't think it applies here at all.
You know, screw you. Everyone does something that could potentially harm someone else You know what? Fuck you.
First off, there's nothing wrong with lawsuits. They are the civilized way to resolve disputes. The only alternatives are to: A. resort to force or B. take whatever injustice you are unable to prevent (which is what you are advocating). This notion that lawsuits are bad is extremely disturbing.
Second, whether there's a lawsuit or not, there's a cost involved in the actions which the construction company and land developer (in this case) should be completely aware of. Namely, their actions may lead to the *DEATHS* of others. This cost is not part of the initial construction project, and is paid for by the victims. In any rational, civilized society, this is called an injustice. The point of a lawsuit in this case is to rectify (as much as possible) the injustice. Specifically, to force the developer to pay the costs for their actions, and not force them on to others.
Why is it that the anti-lawsuit types always seem to promote the notion that individuals should be held responsible for their actions, yet when it comes to corporations, any attempt to use the legal system to enforce responsibility for *their* actions is seen as some sort of atrocity?
The "founding fathers" were against parties, or as they called them factions. Getting rid of parties would do a lot to reform this country to what the "founding fathers" intended. You're right, which is why I really think that that was one of their biggest mistakes. The winner-takes-all system we have for elections naturally leads to two major parties.
You may disagree with that, and many do, but you did push the "I Agree" button in the end. This is the part I have a problem with.
First (just to get this out of the way), the "I Agree" button is not a binding contract (regardless of what it claims it is). Case law hasn't been clearly established on this front, but, at present, "I Agree" is not equivalent to a signed contract.
But my main problem is that Microsoft's EULA takes unreasonable advantage of the end user. For 90% of us, Windows is our only reasonable means of participating in modern society. Even though I don't use Windows personally, I realize Macs or Linux are not options many people are really all that aware of or comfortable with, so for them, Windows it is.
I'd wager that most people who click "I Agree", really *don't* agree, it's just that the "I Agree" button stands between them and using the computer they just purchased. Essentially what Microsoft has is a racket. This is exemplified by the fact that if you *don't* agree, it's basically impossible to get your money back. I know of no other contract like that. That's because it's not a contract, it's a power grab. It's not intended to protect Microsoft's side of the transaction you made for your computer. You already *paid* your money, you own a legitimate copy of Windows. It's meant to give them increased power over your future computing experience.
Slashdot Mirror
I know you were being ironic, but what you've said is actually correct.
Only a simpleton would believe what you intended to portray ("gee, the 'free' on one side doesn't equal the 'free' on the other side!").
For a comparison, "free societies always work best with strict government controls... Thats why they call them 'free'."
Would you intend that there not be strict governmental controls over things like murder and theft? What?
There's a lot of great hardware that is extremely poorly supported under Linux. Certainly, that's not the fault of Linux or its developers, but it's absurd to pretend it's just "shitty hardware".
It's got a complete BSD user space, and its kernel (xnu, not Mach) is a mixture of Mach and BSD.
If you were to completely excise BSD from OS X, even though most of what makes OS X what it is would remain, OS X would no longer function.
OS X is a Unix (properly certified, even, in Leopard), and it's derived in no small part from BSD.
2. No, it said it's "designed to be secure from day one"
3. Large?
4. Why not? Designed != is. That's why it's in beta. You *expect* to find the bugs at this point.
5. If that's what you want to call it, fine. Damage control and face-saving, it surely is, as is *any* security patch from *any* vendor. But your implication, especially with calling it a "PR stunt" is that that's all it is, that normally Apple wouldn't patch things like this. That's simply false.
Apple did everything right, at this point. To put them down for doing things right makes no sense. Oh hell, even television channels here in India, which usually stay aloof from all things tech, covered it! Which means? I have no problem with releasing patches once a month for vulnerabilities that have been disclosed to the vendor alone. All the vulnerabilities that have been patched or left unpatched in Safari were in the public domain. That's a load of shit. Or did Maynor actually finally post the "flaws" he found? Given his past record, he probably just found a way to crash Safari, and is equating that with actually finding a way to exploit the flaw, like he's done in the past.
Bitching about a company actually fixing a flaw in a timely manner is just insane. They should be lauded for it. What would you want them to do, *not* release the patch?
That's similar to how they weigh pigs in Texas.
They balance uniform plank across a fulcrum and carefully place the pig on one end. Next they place various rocks on the other end at an equal distance from the fulcrum as the pig is, until they find one that balances the pig. Then they guess the weight of the rock.
For an example of damage control, see the iPhone "SDK". It's a PR stunt. That implies it's all flash and no substance.
It looks to me like you are just trying to find a way to put it down. Compared to how MS deals with security issues, Apple is leagues ahead so far with Safari. Of course, it's been less than a week, so it's really too early to tell at this point, but there's seriously nothing one can complain about. It's like they earned an A (or A- if there really are some unpatched flaws) and you're upset they didn't get an A+.
And, granted, if there are still unpatched exploitable holes, that grade will drop over time. By your standard, however, Apple has a moth to patch them, since you seem to be fine with MS only releasing patches once a moth. Oh damn it, for serious active vulnerabilities I really WOULD like patches to be released quickly. Who wouldn't? The weird thing would be calling timely patches a "damage control PR stunt".
It just doesn't make any damned sense. Safari 3.0.1, however, is just damage control. That's amazing. Patching once-a-month is completely sensical, but patching ASAP is "damage control"?
It should be noted that Linux sysadmins seem to have no trouble installing patches when they come out. Why's it so hard for Windows sysadmins to do the same?
It's not hurting "the GPL folks feelings" that offends me, it's the disregard for their intentions (i.e., not about whether they are happy or sad, but whether their rightful will is being contradicted). Interesting, this is *exactly* the same issue he is trying to avoid happening to himself--having his source code forced out of his hands against *his* will.
He describes wanting to create some sort of appliance that runs Linux (or BSD), which (one can only assume) a significantly small amount of proprietary code on top of a free/open source system. He seems not to care one whit about open source/free software, other than that he doesn't have to pay for it. While that annoys me some, so long as it's within the letter and spirit of the license, it's not something that's going to bother me all that much, but it seems he really wants to push things further than that. This is why I suggest using BSD. It's the sort of thing the BSD people actually want (well, they probably don't *want* proprietary stuff so much as they want their code to be used, proprietary or not).
Your question about being a covert BSD troll was interesting. I strongly prefer the GPL to the BSD license, even though I'm pointing him away from GPLd code in this case. The reason is that the GPL is designed to protect freedom, while the BSD license is designed to allow for maximum freedom, including the freedom to take away freedom. What he wants is maximum freedom, and doesn't seem to care at all about protecting freedom (aside from his).
BSD is licensed to allow for people to do what you want. GPLd software is not.
I'm not opposed to proprietary software. Quite the contrary. But I do find the notion of taking an open source project, slapping on a bit of code, and trying to keep your part to yourself, to be extremely offensive. The people who contributed to GNU software did so with the expectation that their code is share and share alike. What you've described appears to run directly counter to that, completely disrespecting the wishes of the programmers involved. Unless I'm reading you wrong, you deserve a hearty "go to hell!".
BSD, on the other hand, is meant to allow for use exactly like you are proposing. Have at it. No hard feelings there as that's exactly in line with their programmers' wishes.
That's not to say it's not a problem that needs addressing, just that the *vast* majority of people really don't care.
The first and most problematic is that there's no such thing as a "fully open market" where you can "examine [all] the past interactions". Do you think if we removed all regulations that corporations would suddenly put their entire corporate history on the Internet for all to examine? It seems to me that clearly the opposite would happen, and they would disclose *far less* than they do now.
The second is that companies *right now* kill and steal, and we don't boycott them. The info is out on the Internet right now. Most of the theft and murder happens outside of the US, so we don't really care. Hell, Ford's knowing complicity in killing people through the Pinto happened right here, and people still buy Fords.
For a more accurate expectation of what a fully free market is like, look to places where there is no regulation (i.e., no laws).
It's all about power. If there isn't a government which is designed to serve the interests of the people, the people will be at the whim and mercy of those able to acquire sufficient power. Without the EPA, *and* without the restrictions preventing me from retaliating forcefully against the people producing toxins that enter into my lungs, it would be a whole lot cleaner, and you can guess why. Consider the scope of your question carefully. Scope: no laws (the definition of no regulations, the end-result of free market fundamentalism). Result: Corporation A dumps severely toxic waste into the stream that you rely on for drinking water. Illness and death plagues your family and you have no idea why (do you think Corporation A is going to tell you what they're doing?). Assuming you figure out the source of your misery, you head over to the front gate of Corporation A to politely seek redress. Of course, you get nowhere. You return to forcefully seek redress, but since you don't command a small military force, you again get nowhere. You threaten to tell the papers, but Corporation A laughs. They advertise in the papers. Or they take your threat seriously, invite you in for negotiations, and behind the walls surrounding Corporation A, you are never seen again.
Sound like insane paranoia? This exact sort of thing happens all over the world in places which have "freer" markets than we have here.
The free market most libertarians have in mind is impossible. It is an oxymoron. It contradicts itself out of existence.
Laws--restrictions on people's activities--are required to create a market structure under which capitalism can thrive.
Free market fundamentalists always rail against the few laws which really do suck, which really do hinder capitalism. Laws like the DMCA, or the obscenity regulations imposed by the FCC, and completely ignore the thousands of laws which they rely on every day, laws which, were they to vanish today would send the US into the third-world tomorrow.
Making murder illegal doesn't stop murder. Does that mean outlawing murder has not worked? That it "just can't be done sorry"? Of course not.
The question is, can there be a law which sufficiently addresses some issue, while not unreasonably infringing on individual liberty?
For example, a law which states an individual or a corporation (and all basic derivations of each) cannot own greater than 100 domains unless they can show that they make some form of use of them beyond placeholder or primarily ad-based pages? See how that's weighted *against* the innocent person who merely owns a handful (or few dozen!) defunct domains, but focuses directly on domain-squatters? See how it allows for an independent judgement to allow for people to own and use many domains, but stop those who try to weasel around the law?
Now, I know what you are thinking. Why can't someone just form multiple LLC's and buy 99 domains each? Tack into the law that if a person is directly affiliated with a net total exceeding 100 domains, they fall under the purview of the law. Or make forming additional companies to bypass the law illegal. This sort of loophole closing works for other laws. You have no particular right to any specific name. What does this even mean? If I buy a domain, I have the right to it, unless I'm infringing on someone else's right. First come first served may suck but it sucks less than any of the alternatives. I disagree. First-come first-served severely favors gaming the system and snatching up every word you can imagine. That's why it's so completely impossible to find a domain-name that isn't already taken.
Go ahead and try it. Most of the names you can come up with will just end up in some parked domain name.
That's the problem with libertarian free-market fundamentalists. Sometimes the market promotes undesirable behavior. For example, the free market promotes theft and murder. We regulate those activities because they are deemed to be sufficiently undesirable. Domain squatting isn't as bad as murder, but is in some ways like theft (blocking a limited resource with little-to-no societal benefit from being used productively by someone else, hence "squatting"). If you deem it sufficiently undesirable, the only logical solution is regulation. You're far more likely to find results with government regulation than you will with voluntary free-market regulation.
For example, without the EPA, do you think the environment would be cleaner or dirtier than it is now?
What you're saying is, you can't text while driving (!!), and read emails while pretending to pay attention to someone (I don't see how you actually *read* an email without looking at your current phone, but I digress).
In other words, the iPhone makes it harder for you to be an asshole. You've utterly failed to convince me that this is a bad thing.
I fully intend to never buy another CD again, ever.
When Jobs introduced the music store, he stated that this is exactly the case. It's not universal, but for some (many? a few? most? I have no idea) they went back to the original masters and used those to for the iTunes music store.
+5 Informative? More like +5 Wishful Speculation.
It might be harassment in some philosophical sense, but it's not harassment in the legal sense (according to their attorney. Maybe it is, I don't know, but neither do I pretend to know, either).
Let's see, on the one hand, we have the deaths of innocent people. On the other, your kids' school doesn't have a playground, and they aren't allowed to climb trees which you do not own.
Which of these two are more indicative, in your own words, that the "world is screwed"?
That's the general. Now the specific. I really don't see what your examples are meant to convey. Schools can have playgrounds. In fact, many (most?) do. If *your* school tore down their playground, it wasn't because they aren't allowed to have one. It's because (assuming lawsuits had anything to do with it in the first place) they can't afford to make a safe playground. I'll bet you also whine about your taxes being too high. You get what you pay for, you know.
As for the park issue, I highly doubt the tree-climbing issue is a matter of safety-for-fear-of-lawsuits. More likely, it's meant to keep the commons from being trampled over. Do you think the "keep off the grass" and "don't pick the flowers" signs are about safety and lawsuits?
There are two points here, which you seem to be conflating. One is soda in general. The other is sodium benzoate in particular. Soda is definitely not all that good for you, and often times is quite detrimental. It's not going to kill you right off, but it can lead to serious health issues (osteoporosis, diabetes, obesity) or, more often, lesser problems (but problems nonetheless). All of which, however, is within the realm of reasonable personal risks. Sodium benzoate, on the other hand, appears to be extremely dangerous, and seemingly has no business being added into our foods and drinks.
I do fully and completely agree with your premise that there's a lot of nonsense arguments against modern society which tends to be very anti-modernity and (ultimately) anti-human (hippies, amish, religious extremists, and reactionaries, are some examples of such people), but I really don't think it applies here at all.
First off, there's nothing wrong with lawsuits. They are the civilized way to resolve disputes. The only alternatives are to: A. resort to force or B. take whatever injustice you are unable to prevent (which is what you are advocating). This notion that lawsuits are bad is extremely disturbing.
Second, whether there's a lawsuit or not, there's a cost involved in the actions which the construction company and land developer (in this case) should be completely aware of. Namely, their actions may lead to the *DEATHS* of others. This cost is not part of the initial construction project, and is paid for by the victims. In any rational, civilized society, this is called an injustice. The point of a lawsuit in this case is to rectify (as much as possible) the injustice. Specifically, to force the developer to pay the costs for their actions, and not force them on to others.
Why is it that the anti-lawsuit types always seem to promote the notion that individuals should be held responsible for their actions, yet when it comes to corporations, any attempt to use the legal system to enforce responsibility for *their* actions is seen as some sort of atrocity?
Actually, the banking system is already socialized. It's called the FDIC and it's generally seen as a highly beneficial form of socialism.
You're confusing ID and signature.
First (just to get this out of the way), the "I Agree" button is not a binding contract (regardless of what it claims it is). Case law hasn't been clearly established on this front, but, at present, "I Agree" is not equivalent to a signed contract.
But my main problem is that Microsoft's EULA takes unreasonable advantage of the end user. For 90% of us, Windows is our only reasonable means of participating in modern society. Even though I don't use Windows personally, I realize Macs or Linux are not options many people are really all that aware of or comfortable with, so for them, Windows it is.
I'd wager that most people who click "I Agree", really *don't* agree, it's just that the "I Agree" button stands between them and using the computer they just purchased. Essentially what Microsoft has is a racket. This is exemplified by the fact that if you *don't* agree, it's basically impossible to get your money back. I know of no other contract like that. That's because it's not a contract, it's a power grab. It's not intended to protect Microsoft's side of the transaction you made for your computer. You already *paid* your money, you own a legitimate copy of Windows. It's meant to give them increased power over your future computing experience.
So what's wrong with telling them "The Internet" is the little red fox, and email is the envelope? That yes, this computer has Google?
The question is not whether people are often very technically illiterate, but whether Linux is easy enough to use to be suitable for such people.