If the access code is required to submit your actual work, then it's just part of the cost of buying that course, but then without copyrights you'd be able to offset that cost by getting a free (or a low cost) textbook, which is what copyrights prevent.
Another story, same exact shit. Patents and copyrights are part of the system that is oppressing the individual freedoms. You want to be monitored and maybe eventually sued, sent to a re-education camp even at some point? How about this: downloading copyrighted material is the sign of terrorist activity, there is a drone out there with a missile with your name on it.
Of-course this is enabled by copyrights, without copyrights anybody would be able to buy the access code (or however they get it) and then republish the text on a free website. Done.
If the publisher doesn't understand how to provide value, then others would do it for him if there were no government laws about copyrights. So you are clueless, but as I said many times - most people don't understand anything and not much can be done about it.
All patents and copyrights must be abolished and all of a sudden all of these problems go the way of a Dodo bird. Government must not be allowed to create monopolies, be it monopolies in utilities, in any creative materials, in any products and services.
I know that there is a huge number of people that disagree, then again, there is a huge number of people that don't understand the concept of freedom, the reason to have government in a supposedly 'free' society and anything about economics.
Maybe the POTUS should be doing more drinking and less doing anything while in office, same applies to the Congress and Senate alike. The nation would be healthier, the world would be a safer place.
I think that Constitution gives the government too much power, not that the government is constrained by it. I think government shouldn't even be able to create new laws at all. Why are they allowed to create new laws on the federal level, what's the purpose? The purpose is corruption, bribes, theft, murder, there is no other purpose.
The localities can come up with their laws, the cities, towns, but the federal government? There is no reason for any new laws at all and where it concerns foreign relations, they should be the purview of businessmen, not politicians.
You see, 'dumbed down education system', 'political direction', 'Luddite mentality', all of those are just symptoms and they are always present. What is the real counterbalance to all of that in a growing economy is the manufacturing, production. Americans still believe that they have the largest manufacturing sector in the world, but they do not. Assembling parts that came from actual factories that made those parts adds value, sure, but the reason even that is done in USA today is the tax code that gives breaks to companies when they do some 'manufacturing' in USA, but really, inserting part A into slot B is not manufacturing. It's not different from calling putting together an Ikea book case 'manufacturing'. Where were the shelves and parts made? Well, not in your house.
The manufacturing drives the need for education, not the other way around. Education does not drive the need for manufacturing.
Manufacturing provides the country the wealth necessary to have the necessary levels of education, not the other way around.
Government loans do not provide wealth necessary for education, government loans are taxes that have to be collected and/or devaluation of money (which most people do not have a slightest concept of, they absolutely, completely and fully do not understand economics and value of money).
This is the problem - use the political system to steal from the entrepreneurs enough and they will have to find more efficient ways to run their business and not go out of it, so they do find a more efficient way, but this means you are left without manufacturing. Once you don't have manufacturing, then the actual balance changes, all of a sudden you don't actually need any of that education and then the Luddites do take over.
Oracle probably doesn't care about the use of Java as a client side VM, Oracle is a server company.
But this means that they could in principle split Java into client side and server side concepts and maybe sell off client side Java to somebody who actually gives a shit.
So USA DOJ, FBI have global jurisdiction it seems, the so called 'sovereign' governments of the world simply do as they are told. Be it Kim Dotcom, Assange or these Spanish websites. Of-course, everybody who is not pro-US-government is a terrorist basically, and this really means that anybody who opposes the corporations that are part of the US government are terrorists.
The solution? You can't handle the solution. The solution is to remove power from the government that it is not authorised to have.
The iPad is about as innovative as the toaster. You can still read books without an iPad, and you can still toast bread without a toaster.
- wrong from the very first sentence.
The innovation here was not specifically the function of the device, the innovation was the ability of the company to present a new type of product that delivers functionality in a way that people feel is better, that is all.
Innovation does not have to be invention. Those are separate, different words.
Innovation CAN be something simple, it can be simply a better EXECUTION of the same thing as before, but done more efficiently, cheaper, faster, prettier even.
Innovation does not mean 'revolution', it should means 'better' for some purpose.
A free society doesn't mean you have freedom to do as you damn well please no matter what and screw everyone else.
- I agree, actions have consequences. It's the government that prevents consequences for many people's actions, why are all those failed banks and other companies still in business?
If you hadn't smoked so many joints you might understand this basic fact of human civilisation
- haven't touched any drugs in my life, do you have an argument or is this going to be another one of those things, where people who can't make arguments change subject to the inconsequential personal attacks?
the government should stop telling us e.g. that we can't use that empty house + land over there because it "belongs" to someone else.
- I agree, it's a private issue, not a governmental one.
not because being a pothead is somehow a grand expression of freedom. If they fail and harm themselves as a result, the state should treat them - with group freedom comes group responsibility
- of-course it's because of individual freedom and there is no such thing as 'group responsibility'.
drink driving is OK as long as you don't cause an accident
- correct. And if people cause accidents while drunk, this is also not a governmental issue. Government shouldn't be even involved in traffic control (or roads for that matter), again, all of it is a private issue that should be dealt privately. Private roads have private rules.
All drugs should be legalised, there is no reason to hunt people down for smoking whatever they want, drinking whatever they want. There are already plenty of laws regarding actual acts of violence and negligence (like causing an accident while drunk or drugged). The government likes to have control over your body as well as over all of your actions. Do you think you should be free people, even free to kill your IQ or do you think you should be controlled by the state, told what to do, what not to do, thrown in jail if you refuse to comply?
This is a wrong question. It's not about "how long do you want to live?", it's about: "do you want to die?"
You see, when rephrased this way it is more correct, it's final. It's not like after living for 60-100 years you have too many options left but dying, what are you going to do? But do you really think when the time comes you will want to die? In some cases people do want to die, even much sooner than their natural end.
We had a cat that lived for almost 20 years, she died a couple of months ago, she didn't want to die. She didn't want to die at all, even though it had various health problems and was in a bad shape, it couldn't eat by the end. One day before it died, it made a real effort to communicate for the last time. I don't it chose to die, it just could not continue living and there is a difference.
How much time do people want to live? Well, I can imagine that those who are not interested in going before their time would not want to die regardless of their age. OTOH if their did not mean that their health deteriorated, then why would they want to die at all?
The money 'invested' is just a money 'appropriated'. It's stolen. Don't expect much from any of this. I mean, really, what can you get for a million bucks today? This part of the summary is kind of funny:
Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (formerly part of the KGB)
- I'll tell you something right now, there is no 'formerly' when it comes to KGB.
I am using Linux to build my own products, I suppose this means I am a 'Linux professional' just as much as a professional in all the other things that I am using in my products. My normal systems are built with either Fedora or Ubuntu at this point, with OpenBSD used as firewall, PostgreSQL, Java, Tomcat Apache, Apache server. Everything else is just various Java stuff.
How do you become a 'professional'? You use it in a way that allows you to sell your product or service, that's what a 'professional' really means as opposed to an amateur. Amateur doesn't mean that the person has less skills, it just means he is not using it in his work.
So your solution is to pile on more and more controls, rules and laws, where the actual problem IS the controls, rules and laws? Well, that will surely work this time, why not?
--
The actual solution is to get rid of copyright and patent law altogether. Let the people and companies do whatever they have to do to compete in the market without the government handing them a monopoly.
By the way, you don't need to leak classified information of any kind to be considered 'anti-american' and to be locked up for decades in jail in USA, even as an old retired guy, all you need to do is to piss off the government agencies something fierce by taking them on.
Anti-American Agenda, what is that? Is that like Alcoholic Anonymous Association?
Hi, my name is Julian Assange and I used to drink a lot, I mean I used to be pro-American, but I've been sober for 5 years now, so sorry, for all my 'anti-american agenda'.
WTF does that mean? Is it un-American to point out that the government is now essentially tyrannical? How is it un-American to be politically active, to bring to light all the transgressions of the powerful elite running the system?
Congratulations then, you have proven how worthless your education was (whoever gave it to you, they shouldn't have bothered), because you don't understand how to build arguments at all.
I am not an American, I was born in the former USSR. Unfortunately for me I actually had to read Marx and Lenin too.
Now, do you have an actual argument, or was that it?
I guess my point, that by your standard, every politician on Earth is a Marxist, is basically conceded?
- not so. Almost politicians on this planet are using socialist agenda to stay in power and under the covers they use fascist methods to stay in power.
The socialist agenda is the promise to steal from the productive part of the economy and to subsidise the unproductive.
The fascist agenda is to create the rules, laws, regulations and taxes to ensure survival only of the monopolies in the market and then to milk those monopolies for support money.
Marxists are not as common as socialists and fascists, Marxists are the true believers that there is class warfare, that ownership of means of production is the wrong idea, socially, economically, politically. That's Obama.
If you actually did read my comment, and if you understood it, then you should realise that what was done was not a normal bankruptcy procedure, it was confiscation of means of production and transfer of those means of production to the labour union.
On what basis do you claim that GM was "confiscated"?
The bankruptcy was challenged from the start by bondholders, who held $27 billion in GM debt. Senior bondholders, by law, are supposed to receive 100% of assets before anyone else gets anything. However, the bankruptcy judge gave them a minor 10% stake of the company. In contrast, the union, for $20 billion owed to its health trust, received 17% if the stock, $2.5 billion in cash and $6.5 billion in preferred stock. So the union received over three times in value what the secured debt holders received and they should have been behind them receiving anything at all. The government, for $50 billion, received 61% of the company, also disregarding the senior bond holder's first-place position.
Many bondholders were furious, and rightfully so. There is anecdotal evidence that there was threats and strong-arming that eventually had them back down. Here is a clip of the transcript of a radio interview of Thomas Laurie, the attorney representing the Chrysler creditors at the time:
Lauria: "Let me tell you it's no fun standing on this side of the fence, opposing the President of the United States. In fact, let me just say, people have asked me who I represent. That's a moving target. I can tell you for sure that I represent one less investor today than I represented yesterday. One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House Press Corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight. That's how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence."
This administration's actions in designing the GM bankruptcy was gangster-like and an outrageous disregard of bankruptcy law. The Obama administration essentially confiscated the assets of the bondholders and gave them to the union; wealth distribution at its finest! If this is what it took for GM to remain alive, should it be alive..."
The company was confiscated against by the government from the rightful owners against all judicial precedent.
---
As to FDIC - this is just another policy, designed by the government to ensure that the banks do not lose their business and in the process of doing it, the government has created the very moral hazard that was responsible for the banks behaving like the casinos, which coupled with the government fake insurance and fake money created the housing bubble and it is now creating the dollar and bond bubble.
Slashdot Mirror
Irrelevant. That was supplementary material.
If the access code is required to submit your actual work, then it's just part of the cost of buying that course, but then without copyrights you'd be able to offset that cost by getting a free (or a low cost) textbook, which is what copyrights prevent.
Another story, same exact shit. Patents and copyrights are part of the system that is oppressing the individual freedoms. You want to be monitored and maybe eventually sued, sent to a re-education camp even at some point? How about this: downloading copyrighted material is the sign of terrorist activity, there is a drone out there with a missile with your name on it.
Of-course this is enabled by copyrights, without copyrights anybody would be able to buy the access code (or however they get it) and then republish the text on a free website. Done.
If the publisher doesn't understand how to provide value, then others would do it for him if there were no government laws about copyrights. So you are clueless, but as I said many times - most people don't understand anything and not much can be done about it.
All patents and copyrights must be abolished and all of a sudden all of these problems go the way of a Dodo bird. Government must not be allowed to create monopolies, be it monopolies in utilities, in any creative materials, in any products and services.
I know that there is a huge number of people that disagree, then again, there is a huge number of people that don't understand the concept of freedom, the reason to have government in a supposedly 'free' society and anything about economics.
I trust that people who sell licenses are in it to make money and promote monopolies and limit individual freedoms.
Again, you can't run your own distillery in USA for your own personal use without licenses.
Maybe the POTUS should be doing more drinking and less doing anything while in office, same applies to the Congress and Senate alike. The nation would be healthier, the world would be a safer place.
I think that Constitution gives the government too much power, not that the government is constrained by it. I think government shouldn't even be able to create new laws at all. Why are they allowed to create new laws on the federal level, what's the purpose? The purpose is corruption, bribes, theft, murder, there is no other purpose.
The localities can come up with their laws, the cities, towns, but the federal government? There is no reason for any new laws at all and where it concerns foreign relations, they should be the purview of businessmen, not politicians.
Knowing humans I'd be surprised to find out we didn't interbreed with whatever. I mean people try to interbreed with horses.
It is the destroyed manufacturing sector.
You see, 'dumbed down education system', 'political direction', 'Luddite mentality', all of those are just symptoms and they are always present. What is the real counterbalance to all of that in a growing economy is the manufacturing, production. Americans still believe that they have the largest manufacturing sector in the world, but they do not. Assembling parts that came from actual factories that made those parts adds value, sure, but the reason even that is done in USA today is the tax code that gives breaks to companies when they do some 'manufacturing' in USA, but really, inserting part A into slot B is not manufacturing. It's not different from calling putting together an Ikea book case 'manufacturing'. Where were the shelves and parts made? Well, not in your house.
The manufacturing drives the need for education, not the other way around. Education does not drive the need for manufacturing.
Manufacturing provides the country the wealth necessary to have the necessary levels of education, not the other way around.
Government loans do not provide wealth necessary for education, government loans are taxes that have to be collected and/or devaluation of money (which most people do not have a slightest concept of, they absolutely, completely and fully do not understand economics and value of money).
This is the problem - use the political system to steal from the entrepreneurs enough and they will have to find more efficient ways to run their business and not go out of it, so they do find a more efficient way, but this means you are left without manufacturing. Once you don't have manufacturing, then the actual balance changes, all of a sudden you don't actually need any of that education and then the Luddites do take over.
Oracle probably doesn't care about the use of Java as a client side VM, Oracle is a server company.
But this means that they could in principle split Java into client side and server side concepts and maybe sell off client side Java to somebody who actually gives a shit.
So USA DOJ, FBI have global jurisdiction it seems, the so called 'sovereign' governments of the world simply do as they are told. Be it Kim Dotcom, Assange or these Spanish websites. Of-course, everybody who is not pro-US-government is a terrorist basically, and this really means that anybody who opposes the corporations that are part of the US government are terrorists.
The solution? You can't handle the solution. The solution is to remove power from the government that it is not authorised to have.
The iPad is about as innovative as the toaster. You can still read books without an iPad, and you can still toast bread without a toaster.
- wrong from the very first sentence.
The innovation here was not specifically the function of the device, the innovation was the ability of the company to present a new type of product that delivers functionality in a way that people feel is better, that is all.
Innovation does not have to be invention. Those are separate, different words.
Innovation CAN be something simple, it can be simply a better EXECUTION of the same thing as before, but done more efficiently, cheaper, faster, prettier even.
Innovation does not mean 'revolution', it should means 'better' for some purpose.
A free society doesn't mean you have freedom to do as you damn well please no matter what and screw everyone else.
- I agree, actions have consequences. It's the government that prevents consequences for many people's actions, why are all those failed banks and other companies still in business?
If you hadn't smoked so many joints you might understand this basic fact of human civilisation
- haven't touched any drugs in my life, do you have an argument or is this going to be another one of those things, where people who can't make arguments change subject to the inconsequential personal attacks?
the government should stop telling us e.g. that we can't use that empty house + land over there because it "belongs" to someone else.
- I agree, it's a private issue, not a governmental one.
not because being a pothead is somehow a grand expression of freedom. If they fail and harm themselves as a result, the state should treat them - with group freedom comes group responsibility
- of-course it's because of individual freedom and there is no such thing as 'group responsibility'.
drink driving is OK as long as you don't cause an accident
- correct. And if people cause accidents while drunk, this is also not a governmental issue. Government shouldn't be even involved in traffic control (or roads for that matter), again, all of it is a private issue that should be dealt privately. Private roads have private rules.
All drugs should be legalised, there is no reason to hunt people down for smoking whatever they want, drinking whatever they want. There are already plenty of laws regarding actual acts of violence and negligence (like causing an accident while drunk or drugged). The government likes to have control over your body as well as over all of your actions. Do you think you should be free people, even free to kill your IQ or do you think you should be controlled by the state, told what to do, what not to do, thrown in jail if you refuse to comply?
This is a wrong question. It's not about "how long do you want to live?", it's about: "do you want to die?"
You see, when rephrased this way it is more correct, it's final. It's not like after living for 60-100 years you have too many options left but dying, what are you going to do? But do you really think when the time comes you will want to die? In some cases people do want to die, even much sooner than their natural end.
We had a cat that lived for almost 20 years, she died a couple of months ago, she didn't want to die. She didn't want to die at all, even though it had various health problems and was in a bad shape, it couldn't eat by the end. One day before it died, it made a real effort to communicate for the last time. I don't it chose to die, it just could not continue living and there is a difference.
How much time do people want to live? Well, I can imagine that those who are not interested in going before their time would not want to die regardless of their age. OTOH if their did not mean that their health deteriorated, then why would they want to die at all?
The money 'invested' is just a money 'appropriated'. It's stolen. Don't expect much from any of this. I mean, really, what can you get for a million bucks today? This part of the summary is kind of funny:
Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (formerly part of the KGB)
- I'll tell you something right now, there is no 'formerly' when it comes to KGB.
I am using Linux to build my own products, I suppose this means I am a 'Linux professional' just as much as a professional in all the other things that I am using in my products. My normal systems are built with either Fedora or Ubuntu at this point, with OpenBSD used as firewall, PostgreSQL, Java, Tomcat Apache, Apache server. Everything else is just various Java stuff.
How do you become a 'professional'? You use it in a way that allows you to sell your product or service, that's what a 'professional' really means as opposed to an amateur. Amateur doesn't mean that the person has less skills, it just means he is not using it in his work.
I find it ironic that this guy writes an article about the kitchen sink and 'human rights' and inside it he makes this statement:
I've been hit by a car. I've cracked up a car. I'm willing to stipulate that humans have no business driving at all.
- so do I understand him correctly, he wants to prevent people from driving?
He is suffering from the same exact problem he is accusing everybody else of - wanting to control other people's lives.
So your solution is to pile on more and more controls, rules and laws, where the actual problem IS the controls, rules and laws? Well, that will surely work this time, why not?
--
The actual solution is to get rid of copyright and patent law altogether. Let the people and companies do whatever they have to do to compete in the market without the government handing them a monopoly.
that's nothing, check out the rest of it
By the way, you don't need to leak classified information of any kind to be considered 'anti-american' and to be locked up for decades in jail in USA, even as an old retired guy, all you need to do is to piss off the government agencies something fierce by taking them on.
Anti-American Agenda, what is that? Is that like Alcoholic Anonymous Association?
Hi, my name is Julian Assange and I used to drink a lot, I mean I used to be pro-American, but I've been sober for 5 years now, so sorry, for all my 'anti-american agenda'.
WTF does that mean? Is it un-American to point out that the government is now essentially tyrannical? How is it un-American to be politically active, to bring to light all the transgressions of the powerful elite running the system?
Is telling truth to power a bad thing somehow? How about telling truth to majority .
Congratulations then, you have proven how worthless your education was (whoever gave it to you, they shouldn't have bothered), because you don't understand how to build arguments at all.
I am not an American, I was born in the former USSR. Unfortunately for me I actually had to read Marx and Lenin too.
Now, do you have an actual argument, or was that it?
I guess my point, that by your standard, every politician on Earth is a Marxist, is basically conceded?
- not so. Almost politicians on this planet are using socialist agenda to stay in power and under the covers they use fascist methods to stay in power.
The socialist agenda is the promise to steal from the productive part of the economy and to subsidise the unproductive.
The fascist agenda is to create the rules, laws, regulations and taxes to ensure survival only of the monopolies in the market and then to milk those monopolies for support money.
Marxists are not as common as socialists and fascists, Marxists are the true believers that there is class warfare, that ownership of means of production is the wrong idea, socially, economically, politically. That's Obama.
If you actually did read my comment, and if you understood it, then you should realise that what was done was not a normal bankruptcy procedure, it was confiscation of means of production and transfer of those means of production to the labour union.
On what basis do you claim that GM was "confiscated"?
The bankruptcy was challenged from the start by bondholders, who held $27 billion in GM debt. Senior bondholders, by law, are supposed to receive 100% of assets before anyone else gets anything. However, the bankruptcy judge gave them a minor 10% stake of the company. In contrast, the union, for $20 billion owed to its health trust, received 17% if the stock, $2.5 billion in cash and $6.5 billion in preferred stock. So the union received over three times in value what the secured debt holders received and they should have been behind them receiving anything at all. The government, for $50 billion, received 61% of the company, also disregarding the senior bond holder's first-place position.
Many bondholders were furious, and rightfully so. There is anecdotal evidence that there was threats and strong-arming that eventually had them back down. Here is a clip of the transcript of a radio interview of Thomas Laurie, the attorney representing the Chrysler creditors at the time:
Lauria: "Let me tell you it's no fun standing on this side of the fence, opposing the President of the United States. In fact, let me just say, people have asked me who I represent. That's a moving target. I can tell you for sure that I represent one less investor today than I represented yesterday. One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House Press Corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight. That's how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence."
This administration's actions in designing the GM bankruptcy was gangster-like and an outrageous disregard of bankruptcy law. The Obama administration essentially confiscated the assets of the bondholders and gave them to the union; wealth distribution at its finest! If this is what it took for GM to remain alive, should it be alive..."
read more
The company was confiscated against by the government from the rightful owners against all judicial precedent.
---
As to FDIC - this is just another policy, designed by the government to ensure that the banks do not lose their business and in the process of doing it, the government has created the very moral hazard that was responsible for the banks behaving like the casinos, which coupled with the government fake insurance and fake money created the housing bubble and it is now creating the dollar and bond bubble.