Yes, China has a tyrannical government, but governments only get worse when you isolate them, look at North Korea being isolated pretty much ever since the cold war. Flood them with visitors, trade, etc. and they get more freedom when they are opened up. China is a perfect example, the more China has been internationally involved, the more its government has loosened restrictions on basic human rights. Look at China during the "cultural revolution" where it was rather isolated, and post-"cultural revolution" where it has been more active.
And yeah, so a former leader of a communist country came out and supported a few free market reforms, it only took, what, 40 some years? Chances are, if we would have flooded Cuba with US day-trippers from Florida, it wouldn't have taken that long.
But a contract can't contain anything that goes beyond what is legally enforceable. I can't write up a contract for someone to steal $50K from a bank then challenge them a court of law when they don't. That should be the case here, first sale doctrine is one of the 3 main pillars of our copyright system. A contract that excludes the first sale doctrine might as well say that the copyright is good for 32423423423423423423 years, to say that first sale doctrine doesn't apply is the same principle. A contract shouldn't be able to go beyond the basic bounds of law.
...No its not. Subsidizing industries is bad because it is the redistribution of wealth from persons A, B and C to corporation D which fucks up the free market because person E who lives in a different country looks at the balance sheet of corporation D thinking it is a good investment when it is only sustainable by redistribution of wealth.
The problem is, option D won't happen. Unless China's government radically changes to support the complete free market, option D is equivalent to option E which is a super-volcano erupts causing plate tectonics to shift and China to come hurtling towards the USA where it forms the United States of China. It isn't going to happen for a number of reasons.
For one, tariffs cause other countries to put up tariffs which reduces the economic wealth of both countries. We don't need more barriers to free trade that will cause prices of goods to go up while real wages go down.
Show me one case where tariffs really worked and lead to sustainable growth that didn't end in a crash. Two main tariffs that come to mind are the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act which pretty much got the US into the great depression and the Tariff of 1828 which pretty much destroyed the southern US's economy.
But it fucks up the entire point of copyright. The entire point of copyright is that it is a compromise that is the only way it works as intended. There are 3 main rights consumers have under copyright, one is limited copyright which has been eliminated, the other is fair use which is being challenged and the last one is first sale doctrine. Those 3 rights should never be able to be changed in any license. If I say my copyright is good for 10,000 years, that isn't enforceable right now because copyright doesn't extend that long (yet) so that point is null. A contract isn't legally binding when it contains illegal material, if a license breaks any of these 3 rights, consumers shouldn't have to follow those just like I don't have to follow a contract that says to steal $50,000 from a bank.
Whatever happened to copyright as it was originally made that copyright was a compromise between consumers and producers. In exchange for giving up the right to use materials how we wished we gained a few key rights among them were limited copyrights, fair use and the first sale doctrine.
Now, while producers now have more power, consumers have less. We no longer have limited copyright, fair use is being systematically eliminated and now the first sale doctrine is being challenged.
A free market works on balance on both sides of the scale, producers and consumers both have rights. A producer has some rights to screw customers but customers have rights to balance that out by being able to screw producers in numerous ways. But that balance is being broken with copyright.
Right, because we all know that trade restrictions do a great job to remove oppressive governments and working conditions. After all, thanks to that Cuba is a free country! Oh wait... Oh, I know, North Korea is now free since the western world has nothing to do with them! Oh wait...
What we consider "sub-par" here, is considered "making a living" over there. The idea that suddenly every Chinese corporation will raise working standards is laughable. What would happen is that they would employ a hell of a lot less people and make people starve because whenever countries raise tariffs it turns into a giant pissing match where they both try to raise their tariffs. So a number of things will happen.
A) China will turn inwards, cutting off trade with most people as their government turns even more oppressive and its people starve anytime there is a localized disaster.
B) Chinese corporations will lay off a massive amount of people so a lot of Chinese people starve if they aren't lucky enough to keep their jobs.
C) China raises its tariffs too both raising prices of goods in the US and decreasing US exports which hurt average people.
Creating artificial barriers to free trade is always a bad thing.
...And many people also keep a Facebook tab open all day, every day and my guess is more people keep a facebook tab open than a Gmail tab because more people check Facebook regularly than their e-mails, not to mention that my Gmail account is synced with my phone, iPod, etc. while Facebook chat isn't.
Which is why our current foreign policy is complete bullshit. Rather than maintaining honest friendships and alliances, we instead seek to keep other countries in the stone age and use diplomacy only when they gain equal technology.
Rather than encouraging the development of technologies, we try to hoard them based on a stupid belief that if we do this we will prevent other countries from developing weapon technologies, instead we cripple ourselves and are a laughingstock in front of other countries.
Think of how much more we as humanity could do when artificial barriers to trade are eliminated. It doesn't make us safer, it alienates us from the rest of the world and prevents us from doing beneficial things. Rather than having an unsustainable foreign policy of making sure that no one else other than the US gets technology, we need to have alliances and diplomatic principles that make it so when countries -do- get advanced technology they won't use it against us.
This is a good thing and a positive step for democracy, because, without knowing -what- our tax dollars are used for, how can we make decisions on how to spend them? Without the -full- intelligence from Iraq and Afghanistan, how can we know the true cost to make a rational decision on whether to continue them?
A democracy (or republic) can't work unless people have all the facts, otherwise it falls apart. The more information the better.
With the 360 version you only have the basic weaponry and only a handful of maps, so that means for example the Sniper only has the Sniper Rifle, SMG and his knife-sword-thing. On the other hand, in the PC version that same class not only has the basic weapons, but also items like a bow and arrow, a bottle of piss he can throw at people, a shield that can prevent backstabs, etc.
The 360 also eliminates the kill-taunts that were present in the PC version and a lot of other stuff. Every single class has a lot more weapons in the PC version than the 360 version. About the only saving grace is that it means that not everyone is flooding the game as an Engineer every time there is an engineer update, but thats it.
Look at the differences between the Orange Box version of Team Fortress 2 and the PC version. Yeah, its a pretty big deal. Plus, Xbox live has a team to crack down on modded consoles that could have cheats.
But yeah, its a pretty big deal not being able to have lots of content such as Team Fortress 2.
So let them. Let them eat all the candy they want, when they wake up the next morning with a stomach ache they won't do that anymore. Its called learning. Spending lunch money on video games? Tough luck, they don't eat that day. People will learn by experience. Trying to control them unreasonably will lead to resentment, simply saying what you'd like done and have them suffer the natural consequences is a lot better learning experience, plus they will be more apt to trust you later on. For example, if you spent all your lunch money on Pokemon cards, you don't eat, so you're really hungry by the end of the day.
Yeah, "crime prevention" more like dissident prevention. Lets see here, everything is tied into a single database which ties in voting, economics, etc. tied into a fingerprint database. A few forged prints here and there and you have a rock solid case to charge any dissident.
Exactly, and even I, who, if you look through my commenting history am very libertarian, very anti-authoritarian and oppose state control of anything am having a hard time finding anything really to disagree with here.
I always find it hilarious the double standards on both the left and the right.
Perhaps -you- should be a parent and rationally explain to your kids why you don't want them eating junk food. Chances are, you've been reinforcing behavior you don't want such as giving kids candy or other sweets when they've done something good.
And its his money, he should be able to spend it how he wishes. You've got to let kids grow up at some point and make their own decisions about their lives. When people place too much control over their kids, the kids go wild at some point in their lives, perhaps its late nights with friends, perhaps its when they turn 16 and have their own car, perhaps its in college, trying to control every aspect of someone's lives, especially something as basic as economic freedom and freedom of their own body is going to push them away from those who try to control them. Rationality is key, so is motivation. Yeah, they might be overweight now, but lets say he finds a girl he likes? Priorities will have changed. Lets say he then enjoys something else more than ice cream sandwiches and spends his money someplace else. People go through changes. Trying to control people makes them resent you.
Basic economics don't work when the government and unions are involved. Teachers are salaried and someone needs to be in there watching kids at all times. A teacher is going to get paid the same if the teacher actually teaches for an hour a day, or if the teacher teaches all day or if the teacher just babysits. You aren't just going to leave a classroom full of kids with iPads alone, there has to be a teacher there, that teacher gets paid the same amount of money if they sit there on Facebook or if they lecture the entire time or whatever else. Reducing teacher jobs is also generally counterproductive because of unions, in most schools it is the teachers who have been there the longest that are generally the worst at their job, kids hate them, etc. but a union isn't going to let you fire their most senior members which are really the ones that need cut.
What "system" is there to beat? The way I understand it is like this:
Billy has a pin of 1234, Billy has an account balance of $35.50, when Billy uses his pin of 1234 and has a $1.50 lunch, it decreases the balance on Billy's account so he has $34 left. Billy's parents can log in and make sure that Billy isn't buying everyone lunch whenever Billy says that he needs more lunch money.
The idea that this PIN is being used solely for tracking things is silly, its used like a debit card that reports things online for parents to use. Yeah, they shouldn't check the nutrition information, children need to be able to eat what they want, they learn that way. But other than that, I don't see the big deal.
I really, really don't see the big deal here other than they are verifying and tracking what the kids eat. I had essentially the exact same thing when my school implemented lunch cards in like 4th grade. You got your meal, they would take your card and scan it then put in what you eat, it was deducted from your lunch account.
And as far as I can tell, it was a component of the electronic gradebook that my school had.
When I got into college it was pretty much the exact same thing, I sorta wish though there was "meal tracking" because I think I was overcharged multiple times throughout my college experience....
I don't really see the huge deal here. A lot of it can be technically done already with pre-existing technologies. I remember that my school had lunch cards where they scanned in what you ate with a bar code, granted it only told the prices but once the technology improved I figured that inventory management would be the next thing. I understand the root of the problem, the government should never mandate what someone can and can't eat, on the other hand, its something easy to implement technically and essentially something I did in elementary school, you scan in your lunch card and it has your lunch account balance on it. College was the same way. I don't see whats too shocking other than what they use the data for.
Yes, its their servers. The only recourse the man has is to ask for his money back, if they don't give that to them, yeah there is a problem. But that never happened. They can do whatever to his account, but they can't deny his money back but that wasn't what happened.
...And opportunities would be available via private groups. Its been shown time and time again that people will donate when they believe they are actually making a difference, and private groups would be able to use decision making to give support to people who actually need it unlike the government. For example, I worked at a grocery store all through high school, and do you know how many people who use food stamps buy unneeded items with cash? A lot of them. I can't tell you how many times I saw people go in there, buy food then hand over cash and buy things like booze, TVs, electronics, etc. Government programs benefit those who game the system rather than people who actually might need it. Private programs can deny people which makes it a whole lot easier to give help to those who need it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, China has a tyrannical government, but governments only get worse when you isolate them, look at North Korea being isolated pretty much ever since the cold war. Flood them with visitors, trade, etc. and they get more freedom when they are opened up. China is a perfect example, the more China has been internationally involved, the more its government has loosened restrictions on basic human rights. Look at China during the "cultural revolution" where it was rather isolated, and post-"cultural revolution" where it has been more active.
And yeah, so a former leader of a communist country came out and supported a few free market reforms, it only took, what, 40 some years? Chances are, if we would have flooded Cuba with US day-trippers from Florida, it wouldn't have taken that long.
But a contract can't contain anything that goes beyond what is legally enforceable. I can't write up a contract for someone to steal $50K from a bank then challenge them a court of law when they don't. That should be the case here, first sale doctrine is one of the 3 main pillars of our copyright system. A contract that excludes the first sale doctrine might as well say that the copyright is good for 32423423423423423423 years, to say that first sale doctrine doesn't apply is the same principle. A contract shouldn't be able to go beyond the basic bounds of law.
...No its not. Subsidizing industries is bad because it is the redistribution of wealth from persons A, B and C to corporation D which fucks up the free market because person E who lives in a different country looks at the balance sheet of corporation D thinking it is a good investment when it is only sustainable by redistribution of wealth.
The problem is, option D won't happen. Unless China's government radically changes to support the complete free market, option D is equivalent to option E which is a super-volcano erupts causing plate tectonics to shift and China to come hurtling towards the USA where it forms the United States of China. It isn't going to happen for a number of reasons.
For one, tariffs cause other countries to put up tariffs which reduces the economic wealth of both countries. We don't need more barriers to free trade that will cause prices of goods to go up while real wages go down.
Show me one case where tariffs really worked and lead to sustainable growth that didn't end in a crash. Two main tariffs that come to mind are the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act which pretty much got the US into the great depression and the Tariff of 1828 which pretty much destroyed the southern US's economy.
But it fucks up the entire point of copyright. The entire point of copyright is that it is a compromise that is the only way it works as intended. There are 3 main rights consumers have under copyright, one is limited copyright which has been eliminated, the other is fair use which is being challenged and the last one is first sale doctrine. Those 3 rights should never be able to be changed in any license. If I say my copyright is good for 10,000 years, that isn't enforceable right now because copyright doesn't extend that long (yet) so that point is null. A contract isn't legally binding when it contains illegal material, if a license breaks any of these 3 rights, consumers shouldn't have to follow those just like I don't have to follow a contract that says to steal $50,000 from a bank.
Whatever happened to copyright as it was originally made that copyright was a compromise between consumers and producers. In exchange for giving up the right to use materials how we wished we gained a few key rights among them were limited copyrights, fair use and the first sale doctrine.
Now, while producers now have more power, consumers have less. We no longer have limited copyright, fair use is being systematically eliminated and now the first sale doctrine is being challenged.
A free market works on balance on both sides of the scale, producers and consumers both have rights. A producer has some rights to screw customers but customers have rights to balance that out by being able to screw producers in numerous ways. But that balance is being broken with copyright.
Right, because we all know that trade restrictions do a great job to remove oppressive governments and working conditions. After all, thanks to that Cuba is a free country! Oh wait... Oh, I know, North Korea is now free since the western world has nothing to do with them! Oh wait...
What we consider "sub-par" here, is considered "making a living" over there. The idea that suddenly every Chinese corporation will raise working standards is laughable. What would happen is that they would employ a hell of a lot less people and make people starve because whenever countries raise tariffs it turns into a giant pissing match where they both try to raise their tariffs. So a number of things will happen.
A) China will turn inwards, cutting off trade with most people as their government turns even more oppressive and its people starve anytime there is a localized disaster.
B) Chinese corporations will lay off a massive amount of people so a lot of Chinese people starve if they aren't lucky enough to keep their jobs.
C) China raises its tariffs too both raising prices of goods in the US and decreasing US exports which hurt average people.
Creating artificial barriers to free trade is always a bad thing.
...And many people also keep a Facebook tab open all day, every day and my guess is more people keep a facebook tab open than a Gmail tab because more people check Facebook regularly than their e-mails, not to mention that my Gmail account is synced with my phone, iPod, etc. while Facebook chat isn't.
Which is why our current foreign policy is complete bullshit. Rather than maintaining honest friendships and alliances, we instead seek to keep other countries in the stone age and use diplomacy only when they gain equal technology.
Rather than encouraging the development of technologies, we try to hoard them based on a stupid belief that if we do this we will prevent other countries from developing weapon technologies, instead we cripple ourselves and are a laughingstock in front of other countries.
Think of how much more we as humanity could do when artificial barriers to trade are eliminated. It doesn't make us safer, it alienates us from the rest of the world and prevents us from doing beneficial things. Rather than having an unsustainable foreign policy of making sure that no one else other than the US gets technology, we need to have alliances and diplomatic principles that make it so when countries -do- get advanced technology they won't use it against us.
This is a good thing and a positive step for democracy, because, without knowing -what- our tax dollars are used for, how can we make decisions on how to spend them? Without the -full- intelligence from Iraq and Afghanistan, how can we know the true cost to make a rational decision on whether to continue them?
A democracy (or republic) can't work unless people have all the facts, otherwise it falls apart. The more information the better.
Which is what my original post was about, how having sandboxed sign code causes problems for console games
With the 360 version you only have the basic weaponry and only a handful of maps, so that means for example the Sniper only has the Sniper Rifle, SMG and his knife-sword-thing. On the other hand, in the PC version that same class not only has the basic weapons, but also items like a bow and arrow, a bottle of piss he can throw at people, a shield that can prevent backstabs, etc.
The 360 also eliminates the kill-taunts that were present in the PC version and a lot of other stuff. Every single class has a lot more weapons in the PC version than the 360 version. About the only saving grace is that it means that not everyone is flooding the game as an Engineer every time there is an engineer update, but thats it.
Because Adobe has decided to take what should be a basic document format and added scripting to it.
Well, its not just one person and one organization its multiple people all across the world so I don't see why the number would be surprising.
Look at the differences between the Orange Box version of Team Fortress 2 and the PC version. Yeah, its a pretty big deal. Plus, Xbox live has a team to crack down on modded consoles that could have cheats.
But yeah, its a pretty big deal not being able to have lots of content such as Team Fortress 2.
So let them. Let them eat all the candy they want, when they wake up the next morning with a stomach ache they won't do that anymore. Its called learning. Spending lunch money on video games? Tough luck, they don't eat that day. People will learn by experience. Trying to control them unreasonably will lead to resentment, simply saying what you'd like done and have them suffer the natural consequences is a lot better learning experience, plus they will be more apt to trust you later on. For example, if you spent all your lunch money on Pokemon cards, you don't eat, so you're really hungry by the end of the day.
Yeah, "crime prevention" more like dissident prevention. Lets see here, everything is tied into a single database which ties in voting, economics, etc. tied into a fingerprint database. A few forged prints here and there and you have a rock solid case to charge any dissident.
Such as? Other than getting a job and getting into college, there isn't too much that need your SSN, and those that do, really -don't- need it.
Exactly, and even I, who, if you look through my commenting history am very libertarian, very anti-authoritarian and oppose state control of anything am having a hard time finding anything really to disagree with here.
I always find it hilarious the double standards on both the left and the right.
Perhaps -you- should be a parent and rationally explain to your kids why you don't want them eating junk food. Chances are, you've been reinforcing behavior you don't want such as giving kids candy or other sweets when they've done something good.
And its his money, he should be able to spend it how he wishes. You've got to let kids grow up at some point and make their own decisions about their lives. When people place too much control over their kids, the kids go wild at some point in their lives, perhaps its late nights with friends, perhaps its when they turn 16 and have their own car, perhaps its in college, trying to control every aspect of someone's lives, especially something as basic as economic freedom and freedom of their own body is going to push them away from those who try to control them. Rationality is key, so is motivation. Yeah, they might be overweight now, but lets say he finds a girl he likes? Priorities will have changed. Lets say he then enjoys something else more than ice cream sandwiches and spends his money someplace else. People go through changes. Trying to control people makes them resent you.
Basic economics don't work when the government and unions are involved. Teachers are salaried and someone needs to be in there watching kids at all times. A teacher is going to get paid the same if the teacher actually teaches for an hour a day, or if the teacher teaches all day or if the teacher just babysits. You aren't just going to leave a classroom full of kids with iPads alone, there has to be a teacher there, that teacher gets paid the same amount of money if they sit there on Facebook or if they lecture the entire time or whatever else. Reducing teacher jobs is also generally counterproductive because of unions, in most schools it is the teachers who have been there the longest that are generally the worst at their job, kids hate them, etc. but a union isn't going to let you fire their most senior members which are really the ones that need cut.
What "system" is there to beat? The way I understand it is like this:
Billy has a pin of 1234, Billy has an account balance of $35.50, when Billy uses his pin of 1234 and has a $1.50 lunch, it decreases the balance on Billy's account so he has $34 left. Billy's parents can log in and make sure that Billy isn't buying everyone lunch whenever Billy says that he needs more lunch money.
The idea that this PIN is being used solely for tracking things is silly, its used like a debit card that reports things online for parents to use. Yeah, they shouldn't check the nutrition information, children need to be able to eat what they want, they learn that way. But other than that, I don't see the big deal.
I really, really don't see the big deal here other than they are verifying and tracking what the kids eat. I had essentially the exact same thing when my school implemented lunch cards in like 4th grade. You got your meal, they would take your card and scan it then put in what you eat, it was deducted from your lunch account.
And as far as I can tell, it was a component of the electronic gradebook that my school had.
When I got into college it was pretty much the exact same thing, I sorta wish though there was "meal tracking" because I think I was overcharged multiple times throughout my college experience....
I don't really see the huge deal here. A lot of it can be technically done already with pre-existing technologies. I remember that my school had lunch cards where they scanned in what you ate with a bar code, granted it only told the prices but once the technology improved I figured that inventory management would be the next thing. I understand the root of the problem, the government should never mandate what someone can and can't eat, on the other hand, its something easy to implement technically and essentially something I did in elementary school, you scan in your lunch card and it has your lunch account balance on it. College was the same way. I don't see whats too shocking other than what they use the data for.
Yes, its their servers. The only recourse the man has is to ask for his money back, if they don't give that to them, yeah there is a problem. But that never happened. They can do whatever to his account, but they can't deny his money back but that wasn't what happened.
...And opportunities would be available via private groups. Its been shown time and time again that people will donate when they believe they are actually making a difference, and private groups would be able to use decision making to give support to people who actually need it unlike the government. For example, I worked at a grocery store all through high school, and do you know how many people who use food stamps buy unneeded items with cash? A lot of them. I can't tell you how many times I saw people go in there, buy food then hand over cash and buy things like booze, TVs, electronics, etc. Government programs benefit those who game the system rather than people who actually might need it. Private programs can deny people which makes it a whole lot easier to give help to those who need it.