Your own argument is a great example of incredibly simplistic logic that fails to account for the majority of variables present in a very complex situation.
It's like trying to transplant alien predators to cure some vermin problem on another continent.
> That's why they'll bend over backward to make the argument that it isn't stealing
No bending is required. It's copying.
If anyone is suffering from "intellectual lethargy" then it is you and everyone else like you that can't make a good ethical argument without using a weak transparent lie as a crutch.
Your ranting only undermines what you claim to shill for.
No. Most things labeled as property are finite things where the classic definition of property makes some sense.
That is the "right to exclude" BTW.
If you can't fence it in or put it in a box, then trying to call it property is a little absurd. That's not surprising since it is an entirely modern idea.
Loan officers were simply following corporate policy. It's the corporations that should have been held accountable. They're supposed to be people now. Perhaps they should be prosecuted and punished as such.
In the old days, there was an obvious means to discourage a loan officer from loaning you money that you could not pay back. If you failed to repay, then he or at least his company was on the hook. There was none of this shuffling off bad debt onto other people.
Although even that practice didn't completely trash our economy.
No. It took rampant pervasive corruption of ratings agencies to do that.
The current approach to doing business is simply not sustainable regardless of how you view the situation in moral or ethical terms.
The problem with MacOS is that you need a Mac to run it on. With what you would have to pay for a Mac, you can probably get a significantly better PC.
Either way the "must have a Mac" part remains a bit of a barrier.
If you are simply interested in teaching low level Unix-isms then you could acheive the same thing a Mac offers by installing Cygwin on any random Windows box.
That means that both Gods and aliens are largely if not completely irrelevant and belief in either is nothing to get terribly excited about. Never mind starting wars and such.
This tends to discourage people that might have the impression that they can't make the financial transaction (of getting that degree) make sound financial sense.
High minded ideals are nice and all but things in the real world tend to require cold hard cash or a crippling level of debt.
That may sound like a ghastly big number but Doctors can afford it. The far bigger problem is that those same insurance companies that like to ream doctors on med-mal premiums will then turn around and try to stiff them on medial insurance billing.
Insurance companies stick it to Doctors in both directions.
If you're thinking that socialized medicine would be any better don't. Medicaid/Medicare are even worse in this regard.
Also Doctors often get stuck with the results of poor hospital management practices that are out of a Doctor's control
That is a rather disingenuous description of what a modern corporation is. In practice, they are not terribly democratic entities. They are closely held cartels made up of a small number of the ultra wealthy.
No one else has any power.
This leads to small cartels of the ultra-wealthy being given unfettered abilities to distort public discourse in their favor.
Natural Rights should not be extended to entities that have no moral responsibility nor any moral awareness.
They already have modern tools. What they don't have is the latest bleeding edge version. Most companies operate like this because they have the same sorts of concerns that the school does. Stuff costs money and changes are disruptive.
> it's powerful enough that it won't have to be replaced before those three years are up
It's 2012, not 1983. The gap between old enough to be falling apart and "the latest and greatest" is simply not what it used to be. There's simply no need to blow a ton of money just so you can reassure yourself you will be able to use the same PC 3 years from now.
There's no good reason why you could not. If they are doing their job properly then they are teaching concepts. This does not require any particular brand or version of software.
If the teacher is not just wasting everyone's time and money then the skills the students learn can be applied to any "product".
> Cabling: ever here of bandwidth? expanding needs? Paying someone to even check it? Adding new clsases? more ports?
They're a school. What exactly do you think they would be doing with all of that bandwidth? You don't just to blindly "add more capacity" just because a certain number of years have gone by. Wired tech is actually rather mature and was rather mature even 8 years ago.
What's the actual need? What's the business case? You might be hard pressed to justify it for a business. Never mind a school.
These are civil servants. They have strong incentives to be wasteful. I don't think the relative costs of Macs is really relevant here. They would find a way to burn through that money regardless of what platform they were deploying.
Just about anyone here could do better with less even with Apple kit.
I can't help thinking about all of those perfectly usable monitors that will go into the trash heap just because they are built into the machine.
What does running "the latest and greatest" have to do with journalism exactly? Just use the old tools. Software doesn't wear out. Just what sort of revolutionary changes are supposed to have occurred in these programs in the interim?
Although the costs they're citing for replacements seem bloated even for Apple gear.
Slashdot Mirror
Your own argument is a great example of incredibly simplistic logic that fails to account for the majority of variables present in a very complex situation.
It's like trying to transplant alien predators to cure some vermin problem on another continent.
> What about the right of the copyright holder to be forgotten ?
He has no such right. Never had. Any suggestions to the contrary are bad attempts at reconning Copyright.
> That's why they'll bend over backward to make the argument that it isn't stealing
No bending is required. It's copying.
If anyone is suffering from "intellectual lethargy" then it is you and everyone else like you that can't make a good ethical argument without using a weak transparent lie as a crutch.
Your ranting only undermines what you claim to shill for.
Lars? Is that you? If you really think that way then give up all of your money and possessions now.
They only exist because of "piracy".
If it's been 30 years then I should be able to violate the author as much as I want. That's part of the bargain.
Genuine natural rights don't expire like that.
No. Most things labeled as property are finite things where the classic definition of property makes some sense.
That is the "right to exclude" BTW.
If you can't fence it in or put it in a box, then trying to call it property is a little absurd. That's not surprising since it is an entirely modern idea.
The basic idea is "copying == theft".
Loan officers were simply following corporate policy. It's the corporations that should have been held accountable. They're supposed to be people now. Perhaps they should be prosecuted and punished as such.
> If you were so high, mighty, and all knowing you would have sold your house for the profit
Or you simply would have avoided the insanity and been unable to gain from it.
It's still speculation and ultimately just gambling. It's most unwise to engage in unless you are at the stage where you can treat money like a toy.
We even have a term for that sort of thing. We call it predatory lending.
In the old days, there was an obvious means to discourage a loan officer from loaning you money that you could not pay back. If you failed to repay, then he or at least his company was on the hook. There was none of this shuffling off bad debt onto other people.
Although even that practice didn't completely trash our economy.
No. It took rampant pervasive corruption of ratings agencies to do that.
The current approach to doing business is simply not sustainable regardless of how you view the situation in moral or ethical terms.
The problem with MacOS is that you need a Mac to run it on. With what you would have to pay for a Mac, you can probably get a significantly better PC.
Either way the "must have a Mac" part remains a bit of a barrier.
If you are simply interested in teaching low level Unix-isms then you could acheive the same thing a Mac offers by installing Cygwin on any random Windows box.
Just us a Win7-centric approach to find it.
Being unfriendly to total n00bs is not the current Ubuntu problem.
Why would they be complaining about upgrading in a mere 6 months? Why would they bother?
Kind of like the Gun on Ice Planet Zero then?
That doesn't mean what you think it does.
That means that both Gods and aliens are largely if not completely irrelevant and belief in either is nothing to get terribly excited about. Never mind starting wars and such.
The PhD isn't free. Neither is the MD.
This tends to discourage people that might have the impression that they can't make the financial transaction (of getting that degree) make sound financial sense.
High minded ideals are nice and all but things in the real world tend to require cold hard cash or a crippling level of debt.
That may sound like a ghastly big number but Doctors can afford it. The far bigger problem is that those same insurance companies that like to ream doctors on med-mal premiums will then turn around and try to stiff them on medial insurance billing.
Insurance companies stick it to Doctors in both directions.
If you're thinking that socialized medicine would be any better don't. Medicaid/Medicare are even worse in this regard.
Also Doctors often get stuck with the results of poor hospital management practices that are out of a Doctor's control
That is a rather disingenuous description of what a modern corporation is. In practice, they are not terribly democratic entities. They are closely held cartels made up of a small number of the ultra wealthy.
No one else has any power.
This leads to small cartels of the ultra-wealthy being given unfettered abilities to distort public discourse in their favor.
Natural Rights should not be extended to entities that have no moral responsibility nor any moral awareness.
They already have modern tools. What they don't have is the latest bleeding edge version. Most companies operate like this because they have the same sorts of concerns that the school does. Stuff costs money and changes are disruptive.
> it's powerful enough that it won't have to be replaced before those three years are up
It's 2012, not 1983. The gap between old enough to be falling apart and "the latest and greatest" is simply not what it used to be. There's simply no need to blow a ton of money just so you can reassure yourself you will be able to use the same PC 3 years from now.
There's no good reason why you could not. If they are doing their job properly then they are teaching concepts. This does not require any particular brand or version of software.
If the teacher is not just wasting everyone's time and money then the skills the students learn can be applied to any "product".
> Cabling: ever here of bandwidth? expanding needs? Paying someone to even check it? Adding new clsases? more ports?
They're a school. What exactly do you think they would be doing with all of that bandwidth? You don't just to blindly "add more capacity" just because a certain number of years have gone by. Wired tech is actually rather mature and was rather mature even 8 years ago.
What's the actual need? What's the business case? You might be hard pressed to justify it for a business. Never mind a school.
These are civil servants. They have strong incentives to be wasteful. I don't think the relative costs of Macs is really relevant here. They would find a way to burn through that money regardless of what platform they were deploying.
Just about anyone here could do better with less even with Apple kit.
I can't help thinking about all of those perfectly usable monitors that will go into the trash heap just because they are built into the machine.
What does running "the latest and greatest" have to do with journalism exactly? Just use the old tools. Software doesn't wear out. Just what sort of revolutionary changes are supposed to have occurred in these programs in the interim?
Although the costs they're citing for replacements seem bloated even for Apple gear.
The wider your range, the wider your opportunities are.
Long commutes aren't limited to the US. There are plenty of Europeans that have already vouched for that fact.