If we CAN'T have options to interact with external services then we have NO choice, that's not freedom
RMS' approved distros still have browsers, you're perfectly free to interact with Amazon whenever you want. They just don't tell Amazon what you've been searching on your own computer.
He's got a fixed view of things like that, and it is just not appropriate.
Why? Are principles now a bad thing?
Its also cultural. While we can say people should be entitled to a private and a public life you're not going to find very much agreement across cultures of what that means.
You won't have much agreement across cultures on whether women should or not be men's property, on whether believing or not believing in deities is acceptable, on whether free speech should be a right, and many other beliefs. Since when should that stop us from having our own and sharing them with others?
Meanwhile, the world is in fact getting better. In the East, millions have been lifted from abject poverty to livable poverty, Europe has experienced a period of peace never before seen in its history, in the US, minorities gained a lot of rights and recognition, the Drug War seems to be fading a little. Wages didn't really grew, but a lot of stuff - particularly consumer electronics, but not only - that was only dreamed of a few years ago is now on the reach of the average person, and I could go on.
Yes, we're ruled by an oligarchy. So what else is new
Even here in our corrupt little corner of Europe, multiple governmental projects (like CCTVs) have been struck down by our National Commission for Data Protection, and the Data Protection Act covers police forces as well.
But even if it only applied to businesses, it'd still be much better than the status quo in almost anywhere else.
Because that would not help them. It'd help future miners (which will probably include many other people) at their expense, since each BTC would be less valuable.
Well, at least he has a Nobel prize winner with him, one that the current Fed chairman claims to follow:
I've always been in favor of abolishing the Federal Reserve and substituting a machine program that would keep the quantity of money going up at a steady rate.
I'm not ignoring them; those are the regulations that created the problem in the first place, and you're now talking about putting more band-aids over it instead of fixing it.
It was the AT&T monopoly regulation that screwed-up the market, letting inefficient rural providers live off easy rents for decades, and now that new, smaller players entered the market, the rural providers are unable to offer decent rates.
You're talking about monopolies and the most powerful lobby, but how exactly do the small long-distance carriers - the ones pointed as dropping the calls - have that?
Sigh. I'm not talking about it being illegal to compile the program. I'm talking about it being illegal to download it. And it's kinda hard to compile sources without first copying them to your machine.
To use your analogy, I'm not saying that baking cookies is illegal; I'm saying that if the cookbook is on this library called "Github", it's illegal for you to photocopy it in order to bake cookies in your home.
That's why farmers form cooperatives. If the poor, illiterate farmers around here could, they can too.
My guess is that the farmers just got someone else to pay for their Internet connections, but I don't know enough about that case to tell if this is true.
You shouldn't expect anything because I don't make public policy, less alone in your country. But if they're using your land to connect other people, I don't see why you shouldn't get some benefits from it if you want to, like a discount on your fees.
Copyright is a right to copy. To use the code privately, you need to copy it to your machine. That's forbidden.
(Yes, I know that to read the files on Github you technically need to download them. Guess what, courts aren't idiots, and they're perfectly capable of understanding the distinction).
As I said elsewhere, if we want to help the poor buy food, we should do just that, and not use a crazy scheme that helps them only very indirectly, and wastes most of the money.
That argument is just a different type of "think of the children!!"
There's no market failure. The market isn't a magical way to create free lunches. It costs more to get a line to rural areas, and someone has to pay for that.
"The government has to step in" is a meaningless statement. The government doesn't have a magic wand that can make rural connectivity as cheap as urban. The only thing they can do is pass the costs to everyone else.
Yes, and the more that the farmers have to pay for communications, the more they'll have to charge you for food.
They already charge me for food. You mean charge more, I assume, but I'm fine with that. Even if we want to help some people who can't afford food, it's much saner to subsidize that (possibly with food stamps) than doing a crazy scheme of indirectly taxing and subsidizing everyone.
The Internet is not a luxury for farmers these days any more than it is for any other business. We're constantly being bombarded with news stories about how, by virtue of various data services farmers make themselves more productive.
Great! If it makes them more productive, that just means it actually costs them less.
One way or another, however, you - the farm products consumer - end up footing the bill for it. The question is, do you want farmers to have to pay for their data services at retail rates, one farm at a time, or wholesale rates, through some sort of organization?
However they want, I don't presume to decide for them. Farmers are not children, and they are much more informed than me about their local rates and whether it'd make sense or not to form a co-op.
Slashdot Mirror
If we CAN'T have options to interact with external services then we have NO choice, that's not freedom
RMS' approved distros still have browsers, you're perfectly free to interact with Amazon whenever you want. They just don't tell Amazon what you've been searching on your own computer.
He's got a fixed view of things like that, and it is just not appropriate.
Why? Are principles now a bad thing?
Its also cultural. While we can say people should be entitled to a private and a public life you're not going to find very much agreement across cultures of what that means.
You won't have much agreement across cultures on whether women should or not be men's property, on whether believing or not believing in deities is acceptable, on whether free speech should be a right, and many other beliefs. Since when should that stop us from having our own and sharing them with others?
Yes. Except Gmail is not even the largest email provider - much less the only "alive" one - so this case doesn't fit that prediction at all.
manufactured in China
Actually, I think most of the manufacturing is not in China, but in other countries, including the US.
Hitchens on Mother Teresa; Mommie Dearest.
Meanwhile, the world is in fact getting better. In the East, millions have been lifted from abject poverty to livable poverty, Europe has experienced a period of peace never before seen in its history, in the US, minorities gained a lot of rights and recognition, the Drug War seems to be fading a little. Wages didn't really grew, but a lot of stuff - particularly consumer electronics, but not only - that was only dreamed of a few years ago is now on the reach of the average person, and I could go on.
Yes, we're ruled by an oligarchy. So what else is new
I said the Act covered police forces, I didn't say it applies exactly the same rules.
Even here in our corrupt little corner of Europe, multiple governmental projects (like CCTVs) have been struck down by our National Commission for Data Protection, and the Data Protection Act covers police forces as well.
But even if it only applied to businesses, it'd still be much better than the status quo in almost anywhere else.
How much are you willing to pay?
I'll give you one for free: the original video of "Science: It's a girl thing!"
Because that would not help them. It'd help future miners (which will probably include many other people) at their expense, since each BTC would be less valuable.
I mean sure a recession is just another word for deflation (it really is)
Facts disagree. There were multiple periods during the gold standard when deflation was coupled with real growth in output.
See Good versus Bad Deflation: Lessons from the Gold Standard Era.
Well, at least he has a Nobel prize winner with him, one that the current Fed chairman claims to follow:
I've always been in favor of abolishing the Federal Reserve and substituting a machine program that would keep the quantity of money going up at a steady rate.
-- Friedman
A team is trying to make one to last ten millennia.
I'm not ignoring them; those are the regulations that created the problem in the first place, and you're now talking about putting more band-aids over it instead of fixing it.
It was the AT&T monopoly regulation that screwed-up the market, letting inefficient rural providers live off easy rents for decades, and now that new, smaller players entered the market, the rural providers are unable to offer decent rates.
You're talking about monopolies and the most powerful lobby, but how exactly do the small long-distance carriers - the ones pointed as dropping the calls - have that?
http://i2.wp.com/www.synthtopia.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/the-graph-the-music-industry-doesnt-want-you-to-see.jpg?w=640
Maybe; it's not clear whether you agree to allow forks to other machines or just "Github forks". I wouldn't depend on that ToS as a license.
Sigh. I'm not talking about it being illegal to compile the program. I'm talking about it being illegal to download it. And it's kinda hard to compile sources without first copying them to your machine.
To use your analogy, I'm not saying that baking cookies is illegal; I'm saying that if the cookbook is on this library called "Github", it's illegal for you to photocopy it in order to bake cookies in your home.
That's why farmers form cooperatives. If the poor, illiterate farmers around here could, they can too.
My guess is that the farmers just got someone else to pay for their Internet connections, but I don't know enough about that case to tell if this is true.
You shouldn't expect anything because I don't make public policy, less alone in your country. But if they're using your land to connect other people, I don't see why you shouldn't get some benefits from it if you want to, like a discount on your fees.
Good or bad, that regulation did what I said it can do: it imposed a cost on everyone else to subsidize more expensive lines.
Actually, grabbing it for personal use like that is technically fair use.
Citation needed. I've read Section 107 more than once and 'personal use' ain't in it.
Copyright is a right to copy. To use the code privately, you need to copy it to your machine. That's forbidden.
(Yes, I know that to read the files on Github you technically need to download them. Guess what, courts aren't idiots, and they're perfectly capable of understanding the distinction).
Not subsidizing Internet access is punishing? I guess I'm being punished!
Getting farmers connected is important
If they agree with that, I'm sure they'll invest in it. Farmers aren't stupid.
As I said elsewhere, if we want to help the poor buy food, we should do just that, and not use a crazy scheme that helps them only very indirectly, and wastes most of the money.
That argument is just a different type of "think of the children!!"
There's no market failure. The market isn't a magical way to create free lunches. It costs more to get a line to rural areas, and someone has to pay for that.
"The government has to step in" is a meaningless statement. The government doesn't have a magic wand that can make rural connectivity as cheap as urban. The only thing they can do is pass the costs to everyone else.
Yes, and the more that the farmers have to pay for communications, the more they'll have to charge you for food.
They already charge me for food. You mean charge more, I assume, but I'm fine with that. Even if we want to help some people who can't afford food, it's much saner to subsidize that (possibly with food stamps) than doing a crazy scheme of indirectly taxing and subsidizing everyone.
The Internet is not a luxury for farmers these days any more than it is for any other business. We're constantly being bombarded with news stories about how, by virtue of various data services farmers make themselves more productive.
Great! If it makes them more productive, that just means it actually costs them less.
One way or another, however, you - the farm products consumer - end up footing the bill for it. The question is, do you want farmers to have to pay for their data services at retail rates, one farm at a time, or wholesale rates, through some sort of organization?
However they want, I don't presume to decide for them. Farmers are not children, and they are much more informed than me about their local rates and whether it'd make sense or not to form a co-op.