A movie like Avatar can help remind corporations mining distant planets thousands of years from now to remember the axiom: Nuke the site from orbit; it's the only way to be sure.
Perhaps it's the way you decided to criticize him. Especially considering that in the text you quoted he shows he's nothing but naive when he states his baby, "needs his father more and more." You also don't realize that opening the source allows people who are experiencing problems to sift through the code and fix it for themselves.
The attitudes toward sharing are different because it's not the same as plagiarism. Which is worse--sharing music with friends or taking someone's song and selling it as your own creation?
A long time ago I read an account by a psychologist who believed that people have a latent fear that the dead will return to life. He convinced a local funeral parlor owner to offer locks on caskets as an option and they sold extremely well.
I'm not a prude by any stretch but believe sexuality is there to be enjoyed not sold. Underlying this is concern about the corrupting influence of power expressed via money; the willingness with which the almost literal underclass performs any bizarre act requested, even implicitly, by their (literal) corporate overlords...
How did prohibition work for alcohol? Drugs? Does it work for sex? Banning what people want doesn't work, it only creates shortages and a black market to satisfy that demand. This means an illegal, unregulated industry with no protection for any party involved, leading to worse conditions for that "literal underclass."
Lest we forget, Amazon started out as an online book retailer. Over the years they've built up a huge and incredibly efficient warehouse infrastructure and are now the largest online retailer, carrying much more than just books and mp3s.
Having said that, it does seem like Amazon is being attacked on all fronts. In digital music they have to compete with Apple and soon Google. I'm not sure whether Google wants to get into selling e-books, but with their planned store of out-of-print material, they will have the infrastructure to do so. And in the retail sector, among others like Target and Barnes & Noble, Wal-Mart is already a behemoth in meatspace. It's possible that they can take Amazon's top spot in online retail.
Unless Google abuses its dominant market position through anti-competitive actions, they should be allowed to do whatever they please. Antitrust laws protect the consumer from companies that abuse a monopoly position. Merely having a monopoly is not illegal.
Actually, in "SOCIALIST MEDECINE" of Canada, we have plenty of vaccine doeses for everybody. But we are so not worried about H1N1 that most canadians don't even want to bother with it. Ironic isn't it?
If most Canadians don't want the vaccine, how in the world is it good that Canada has ordered vaccines for every citizen? I guess just tossing out millions of dollars of vaccine at the end of the year will just be a footnote on the story about great government success.
What's ignored here is that in "CAPITALIST HEALTHCARE" of America, the government is the largest purchaser of vaccines and actually regulates the price at which they buy them. This drove most vaccine makers out of the industry and breeds the yearly shortage we have grown accustomed to.
To be fair, this argument can be applied to voting, which is anonymous and cannot be verified by the general public. If highly visible people want to provide momentum for a movement, they can voice their support to the public on their own. It is possible to hold legitimate elections while respecting the privacy of voters, so the same can be true for petitions.
I am not saying petitions should be private, however. Disclosing petitioners and donors, unfortunately, is a necessary evil in identifying which groups support various politicians and initiatives.
There's already recourse for harassment or stalking. It's called a restraining order. I see no reason why we need special laws to guard against "special" cases like online social networks. I recall reading about a person being charged with violating a restraining order for "poking" someone on Facebook, so it appears at least one court understands how old laws continue to apply as society changes.
Slashdot Mirror
A movie like Avatar can help remind corporations mining distant planets thousands of years from now to remember the axiom: Nuke the site from orbit; it's the only way to be sure.
Is there no end to Libertarian douchebaggery?
Are you telling me there's an end to Democrat and Republican douchebaggery? There is a god!
Perhaps it's the way you decided to criticize him. Especially considering that in the text you quoted he shows he's nothing but naive when he states his baby, "needs his father more and more." You also don't realize that opening the source allows people who are experiencing problems to sift through the code and fix it for themselves.
I have a, perhaps worse, habit of repeatedly drag-selecting the paragraph I'm reading.
/. is an odd crowd. Many people here seem to ignore reading the post they're responding to.
The attitudes toward sharing are different because it's not the same as plagiarism. Which is worse--sharing music with friends or taking someone's song and selling it as your own creation?
It still doesn't let you hide your geek friends from your normal ones.
A long time ago I read an account by a psychologist who believed that people have a latent fear that the dead will return to life. He convinced a local funeral parlor owner to offer locks on caskets as an option and they sold extremely well.
Or they could just be weary of grave robbers.
I'm not a prude by any stretch but believe sexuality is there to be enjoyed not sold. Underlying this is concern about the corrupting influence of power expressed via money; the willingness with which the almost literal underclass performs any bizarre act requested, even implicitly, by their (literal) corporate overlords...
How did prohibition work for alcohol? Drugs? Does it work for sex? Banning what people want doesn't work, it only creates shortages and a black market to satisfy that demand. This means an illegal, unregulated industry with no protection for any party involved, leading to worse conditions for that "literal underclass."
Lest we forget, Amazon started out as an online book retailer. Over the years they've built up a huge and incredibly efficient warehouse infrastructure and are now the largest online retailer, carrying much more than just books and mp3s.
Having said that, it does seem like Amazon is being attacked on all fronts. In digital music they have to compete with Apple and soon Google. I'm not sure whether Google wants to get into selling e-books, but with their planned store of out-of-print material, they will have the infrastructure to do so. And in the retail sector, among others like Target and Barnes & Noble, Wal-Mart is already a behemoth in meatspace. It's possible that they can take Amazon's top spot in online retail.
Unless Google abuses its dominant market position through anti-competitive actions, they should be allowed to do whatever they please. Antitrust laws protect the consumer from companies that abuse a monopoly position. Merely having a monopoly is not illegal.
Actually, in "SOCIALIST MEDECINE" of Canada, we have plenty of vaccine doeses for everybody. But we are so not worried about H1N1 that most canadians don't even want to bother with it. Ironic isn't it?
If most Canadians don't want the vaccine, how in the world is it good that Canada has ordered vaccines for every citizen? I guess just tossing out millions of dollars of vaccine at the end of the year will just be a footnote on the story about great government success.
What's ignored here is that in "CAPITALIST HEALTHCARE" of America, the government is the largest purchaser of vaccines and actually regulates the price at which they buy them. This drove most vaccine makers out of the industry and breeds the yearly shortage we have grown accustomed to.
To be fair, this argument can be applied to voting, which is anonymous and cannot be verified by the general public. If highly visible people want to provide momentum for a movement, they can voice their support to the public on their own. It is possible to hold legitimate elections while respecting the privacy of voters, so the same can be true for petitions.
I am not saying petitions should be private, however. Disclosing petitioners and donors, unfortunately, is a necessary evil in identifying which groups support various politicians and initiatives.
There's already recourse for harassment or stalking. It's called a restraining order. I see no reason why we need special laws to guard against "special" cases like online social networks. I recall reading about a person being charged with violating a restraining order for "poking" someone on Facebook, so it appears at least one court understands how old laws continue to apply as society changes.