I don't know what Locke said about property, but I do know that just because people label somthing a "property right" - doesn't mean that it is. For years people screamed about slave ownership as a property right, and that it was "free market", and so on... it was all crap and had nothing to do with property and everything to do with controll.
Also about communisim, perhaps I should have called it Marxisim, because the whole idea was never voluntary community based at all. The bottom line is though, that no matter how "enlightened" the origanal approach was, it involved coercive power over just behavior....
Maybe I had the will to create a shoe factory, maybe I had the resources and knowhow too, but if that "enlightened planner" decided otherwise then it was DOA.
... when you have that kind of power, bad things happen, and they did. When it comes to restricting what people coppy, Microsoft clearly has the power to make bad things happen, and they will. As for that kind of potential to abuse power in the GPL community.... there is none.
* freedom matters *
Congrats, you have just explained exactly why the GPL has caused a shift in public RnD away from the government sector and back to the private sector where it has always belonged. At a time where most private RnD efforts are being cut back, ventures like OSDL are taking off. IMHO, this is just the beginning.
Let me get this straight: *I can make a piece of code. *Put it out there for people to use freely. *Someone can come along and fence it off with their own license *Then they can sue any of my freinds or neighbors who use that copy of or a derivative of it for copyright infringement.
Well WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD ANYBODY WANT TO DO THAT!!!!
Thats what the gist of the BSD tools argument is about, having better tools has nothing to do with it.
You know, the communisim that I renember was about controlling the information that people have access to at all costs. In that sense, the GPL is about freedom, and Microsoft is about commuinisim.
Also, what the hell does a government backed monopoly that coerces what people can or can't copy have to do with property rights? Answer: nothing - property rights derive from the fact that property has physical limits and that not everybody can use it at the same time. Copyrights derive from kings who granted publishers a monopoly in return for not publishing bad things about the monarchy. The copyrights=property argument is propaganda, plain and simple.
cowards don't stand up to bullies
on
Why I Love The GPL
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What are you talking about, I work with companies that make money using Linux all the time. And frankly, they don't want controll over Linux, I've never worked for a company in the opperating system business.
I don't care if you make money from GPL'd code - what I care about is that if I make a piece of code available to you freely - that you won't turn arround, fence off a slightly modified copy of it, and then start to sue my friends and neighbors who use it for "copyright" infringement. Maybe you think I'm a coward for not giving you that "right", well go to hell.
I Love the GPL - because I love business
on
Why I Love The GPL
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
First off, companies are about people, it is colsed licenses that seperate companies from people. If I am in a business and I run Linux, I can share it everywhere, at home, at work, with friends, try doing that with a closed sorce product. The GPL unites business and people, and that is one reason why it has been so successfull in the marketplace.
Second off, right now, this very day - I can open a business and roll my own operating system for a few $1000 dollars of work. It can be a ksiok, it can be a platform that runs some special hardware, whatever - the point is that power enables 1000's of small businesses that would likely have had to spend millions otherwise - the GPL is anything but anti-business.
Third, I am allowing you to do things I don't aprove of - TO YOURSELF, but when you take code and information that was given to you freely by all of us, and then fence it off, and then start threatening my friends and neighbors with copyright lawsiuts - and then get angry because we now use a license that won't let you do what you "want to do" - well sorry. Tough shit.
MORAL: Free markets are about freedom 1st
on
Why I Love The GPL
·
· Score: 1
Allot of people like to think that if you create an environment that is conducive to business and commerce, then freedom and prosperity will follow.
I think just the opposite, I think when you create an environmet that is conducive to freedom and liberty (in this case, not coercively limit what people can copy using the force of government) Then that will create prosperity on it's own and lead to new markets and new opportunities that could never be gained before.
Otherwise, why would they be trying to muscle into the Linux space. However speaking of jealousy, how about a nice look at the history Scott McNealy and Bill gates.
To be honest, I came from the opposite side of the spectrum where I begged upper managment to listen to me when I told them that a few of these cheap linux x86 servers can do more than that big expensive sun server. Of course, I often just got the blow off while they went out and wined and dined with their Sun rep.
Well, a few years later, the dot.com crashed - and they decided that it was better to try Linux than to be gung ho on Sun till the point of bankruptcy. Well guess what. Those cheap linux boxes could do more than those Sun servers that cost 10 times as much. And even more, they turned out to be just as reliable and supportable without a platinum sun contract. (have you ever priced one of those).
Too bad Sun was so jealous of MS that they couldn't accept the Linux thing until it was too late. In fact, it still seems they can't accept it - it seems like they feel it's better to be in a Sun+Microsoft only world than a Linux world too.
One of the logical/philosophical flaws in the BSDL is that it fails to see copyrights (the restriction of copying) as inherently anti freedom. Maybe it's because so many people consider copyrights the norm or like a property right, but the very nature of restricting what people can copy is still andi freedom.
A similar doctorine, logic wise - not humanity wise, woud be "you have the freedom to own slaves, or not to" - obviously this does not do anything to promote freedoms wether it's the norm, a property, or whatnot. Even though the BSDL is certainly better than the MS-EULA.
For all his rough edges, the simple truth is RMS is right about the GPL and technology. Freedom matters, and it is an end in itself unlike technology and wealth which are a means.
Well, I don't want the planet to go to waste either, but the thing is - this is not a zero sum game. For example, I as an individual am free to make a technology that would be less polluting and more economically effifient - giving everyone reason to switch without a single regulation. When big mega regulations are put in - it kills those kind of expectations and personal responsibilities.
You are right, all those people killed by government were all killed by individuals. But that didn't come about by accident, it came about because good people supported systems that rewarded people that controll others rather than people that make free choices like above.
Governments are destined by curcumstances, individuals are destined by choices. If a system is't working, than the solution isn't more system, but more liberty to make choices.
.... No, the big scary predictions are there to scare us back onto the straight and narrow.
I don't know how many people have died from bad enviromental conditions, but I know 100's and 100's of millions have died from governments that try to reach too much into peoples lives. 2 million in Cambodia over Po Pots "return to nature" campaign, not to menaion Castro's campaign of more recent - "return to the fields" - I don't know how much it's helping the environment, but I sure know what it's doing to people.
It's not a let it ride attiturd, it's plan for the worst, and hope for the best at it's pinicle.
In the last 100 years we have had 2 world wars, 100 military conflicts, created the bomb and nuclear power, landed a man on the moon and sent space craft to the far reaches of our solar system. The US the and USSR came within inches of total nuclear annialation, and we have effectively wiped out polio and small pox. Allot can happen in 100 years, allot will happen, and it never ceases to shock me how people make these kind of predictions, call them absolute and proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and then worst of all... they want to have super GOD like microregulation powers over every single man woman and child on the planet to save us from our imminent doom. In fact, they absolutely positively insist that super regulation is the ONLY solution, and nothing else will be "good" enough.
Dare I suggest, maybe the people who are pushing this the hardest just see that kind power as the ends and not the means, and if it wasn't global warming - they'd find some other excuse.
I'm not sure if I agree with their approach. I would think that loose fitting, light, super high strength baggy outfits would be the best way to go. They could be weaved in with netted fibre, like a hot air baloon. As long as they have enough pressure to maintain proper-psi on the skin, it doesn't matter if they're a little loose. or if they puff out a little. Shoes could be regular tennies worn on the outside of the suit, maybe something similar with leather gloves. Humidity, temperature, and varying air pressure would half to be managed (maybe a high humidity zone for breathing, and a low humidity zone for sweating). A portable (roll along?) unit hooked up to a long tube would be eaiser to work with. If a problem happens, the could just disconnect the tube, walk back to the unit, and plug in there, take a spare along too. For radiation, there could be carry along umbrellas, or shelters. Maybe light protection in the suit, but not to weigh it down.
IMHO, The idea of laser custom fit suits, and spraid on super-skin just seems like problems waiting to happen. It's better to keep it simple to use, simple to change, repair, simple to manage, and inherently uncomplicated.
...You will see that Bill has given $27 Billion...
Imagine that a Linux type OS hit the mainstream 20 years earlier. The value to society would have made $27 billion seem like a drop in the bucket, but that didn't happen specifically because Bill Gates and friends chose to criminalize copying rather than embrace it.
A free (as in "freedom") OS would not only have been worth hundreds of billions more to society, but empowered people in a way so that they could help themselves rather than begging to uncle Bill every time. Well, I'm sorry, but the plantation masters of the 1850's were noted for being chariatable too. Maybe it's because they, like Bill, know they are criminals and are just trying to justify it. Thanks, but no thanks. A free slave
The US is already taxed and fee'd to the max. What's it gonna take for you guys to "get it" and back off? Wouldn't it be just deserts if I supported those views, and pushed them to the max, and see who ends up getting screwed the most when everything goes to hell. (ps it won't be the people who "get it")
No No No No, the only thing I agree is that it's not the planet, it is us! Countries have had all sorts of pressure, eg the former USSR, but that has not caused global political disaster beacuse even when in desperate straights people can still make the choices necissary to act in their own best interest.
The *REAL* issue is that today many countries have signed a treaty (Kyoto) and the only reason why they think that it is a good deal is because it tries to screw the US harder than all the other countries combined. Its promoters know that they only chance they have of getting it thru is by screaming bloody murder that the sky is falling every time a weather or temperature anoymaly occurs. And since the last few years have had record sun spots (which coorelate 1000 times better than man made activities BTW) they have been exploiting that to the max.
The most pity-full part is that the treaty would actually make things far worse if implemented. The new regulations would increase the barriers to entry for the fossel fuel industries, which would drive down competition, which would allow them to reap more profits, which would guarantee the securement of financing to use up as much pollution "shares" as possible - and if anyone thinks that the rules wouldn't be "tweeked" once they've maxed out and locked in their monopoly, then I have some shares of the Brookland bridge to sell you.
Ironically, countries like US today tend to be moving away from an industrial production based economey that uses heavy environmental resources to an information based service one that tends to be more efficient. Kyoto would do allot to help dying industrial rellics lock in high prices to live a little longer, but nothing to promote such a service based economy or the environment.
You are forgetting that copyrights are not a natural law property right, but straight and pure coercion over what people can freely copy backed by the full force and might of the federal government. Nobody uses force and coercion to copy something, but to controll copying they certainly do exercise force and coercion at every level of society, both personal and business.
The fact that they leveraged this in other markets was made possible by copyrights, and thus by government force.
Your mistake is the "they". School systems don't work in a vacuum. The question that should be asked is "What are we doing wrong?"
Aargh, as soon as I read the parent post I knew someone was going to say this, and I should have known someone would say this too.....
Taking money away from a poorly performing school district basically changes it to a hugely underperforming district.
After hearing the same counter replies for so many years in other discussions, I would think I would get used to it - but it still shocks me every single time. Why is is that people try so desperately to "fix" a "system", even when it's clearly beyond repair. Systems are the means, not the end, but in fact, it seems no matter how bad a "system" gets, there is always someone who thinks that if they just try harder to make the system work - then things will get better. No matter how ineffective they are, no matter how many people some "system" harms, no matter how awfull even if a "system" leads to genocide - there is always somebody that seems to want to step up to the plate and prolong it a little longer for the sake of saving the "system" and "making it work". God dammit! What the hell is it gonna take!
With the public school system, I can't imagine that most parents wouldn't want to have their kids have a good education. The problem isn't that the parent's aren't trying hard enough, it's not that people aren't spending the money wisely enough. It is simple and plain accountability. I repeat - accountablilty!!! . In fact, how much you wanna bet that in that exact same area there is a private school where the teachers are paid half as much, and the cost per student is a third as much, and still the kids come out better educated. I'd be willing to put money down on it right now.
If the parents are doing anything wrong, it's that they are supporting a system that doesn't work, shouldn't work because it likely supports itself unfairly, and can't work no matter how hard you try because the very nature of it's financing and leadership ruin any real chances of direct accountability.
What's wrong with just letting people save money on their own for their retirement? I say we end Social Security and let people plan for themselves.
What's wrong is that the money I would normally set aside for my families retirement is being sucked away from me in the form of social security taxes - that are actually twice as high as you think they are because your employer must match your SSI *contribution* that you get deducted from your paycheck. Only an idiot would believe that that too isn't coming from your bottom line.
Every year or so I get a statement from the SS people reminding me of how much I am *entitled* to. I bitterly resent that, because only an idiot would believe that there gonna get their money's worth out of it too. Not to mention that I resent being forced into a scheme that I find unethical at best.
If I sweet talked an old lady out of her retirement money and had her put in an investmant that wasn't in her best interest - that would be called expoliting the elderly and is universally condemned by every religion in the world.
If I forced someone to participate in an investment scheme thru coercion or threat, then that is called running a racket and is a felony in all 50 states.
If I created an investment service where new investments paid out the interest on the old investments, that would be called running a ponzi scheme and is universally recognized as in an irrational investment in every sector.
However, if we make everybody to do all 3, and then give it a fradulent name like social security - then oh my God, it becomes a right without any worthy negative consequences! Yeah right!
Dealing with SSI is easy. We need to deal with it like any other such scheme. Stop the lies and exploitation and hold the pushers accountable, stop coercing mandatory investment, and finally - liquidate whatever's left in the most equitable way.
When you look at the DMCA as a tool by which the "media sector" is trying to micro-regulate the "tech sector" for the sake of controlling revenue streams - this statistic alone basically shows why the DMCA is doomed along with all the industries that rely on it. I say a clash of the titans is comming of the likes of which we haven't seen in a long time.
Yeah, but if you look at this chart since the recovery, it is clear the FOSS sector is recovering from the recesson, the proprietary software sector is not. Translation: Microsoft cant compete.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know what Locke said about property, but I do know that just because people label somthing a "property right" - doesn't mean that it is. For years people screamed about slave ownership as a property right, and that it was "free market", and so on ... it was all crap and had nothing to do with property and everything to do with controll.
Also about communisim, perhaps I should have called it Marxisim, because the whole idea was never voluntary community based at all. The bottom line is though, that no matter how "enlightened" the origanal approach was, it involved coercive power over just behavior....
Maybe I had the will to create a shoe factory, maybe I had the resources and knowhow too, but if that "enlightened planner" decided otherwise then it was DOA.
... when you have that kind of power, bad things happen, and they did. When it comes to restricting what people coppy, Microsoft clearly has the power to make bad things happen, and they will. As for that kind of potential to abuse power in the GPL community .... there is none.
* freedom matters *
Congrats, you have just explained exactly why the GPL has caused a shift in public RnD away from the government sector and back to the private sector where it has always belonged. At a time where most private RnD efforts are being cut back, ventures like OSDL are taking off. IMHO, this is just the beginning.
Let me get this straight:
*I can make a piece of code.
*Put it out there for people to use freely.
*Someone can come along and fence it off with their own license
*Then they can sue any of my freinds or neighbors who use that copy of or a derivative of it for copyright infringement.
Well WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD ANYBODY WANT TO DO THAT!!!!
Thats what the gist of the BSD tools argument is about, having better tools has nothing to do with it.
You know, the communisim that I renember was about controlling the information that people have access to at all costs. In that sense, the GPL is about freedom, and Microsoft is about commuinisim.
Also, what the hell does a government backed monopoly that coerces what people can or can't copy have to do with property rights? Answer: nothing - property rights derive from the fact that property has physical limits and that not everybody can use it at the same time. Copyrights derive from kings who granted publishers a monopoly in return for not publishing bad things about the monarchy. The copyrights=property argument is propaganda, plain and simple.
What are you talking about, I work with companies that make money using Linux all the time. And frankly, they don't want controll over Linux, I've never worked for a company in the opperating system business.
I don't care if you make money from GPL'd code - what I care about is that if I make a piece of code available to you freely - that you won't turn arround, fence off a slightly modified copy of it, and then start to sue my friends and neighbors who use it for "copyright" infringement. Maybe you think I'm a coward for not giving you that "right", well go to hell.
First off, companies are about people, it is colsed licenses that seperate companies from people. If I am in a business and I run Linux, I can share it everywhere, at home, at work, with friends, try doing that with a closed sorce product. The GPL unites business and people, and that is one reason why it has been so successfull in the marketplace.
Second off, right now, this very day - I can open a business and roll my own operating system for a few $1000 dollars of work. It can be a ksiok, it can be a platform that runs some special hardware, whatever - the point is that power enables 1000's of small businesses that would likely have had to spend millions otherwise - the GPL is anything but anti-business.
Third, I am allowing you to do things I don't aprove of - TO YOURSELF, but when you take code and information that was given to you freely by all of us, and then fence it off, and then start threatening my friends and neighbors with copyright lawsiuts - and then get angry because we now use a license that won't let you do what you "want to do" - well sorry. Tough shit.
Allot of people like to think that if you create an environment that is conducive to business and commerce, then freedom and prosperity will follow.
I think just the opposite, I think when you create an environmet that is conducive to freedom and liberty (in this case, not coercively limit what people can copy using the force of government) Then that will create prosperity on it's own and lead to new markets and new opportunities that could never be gained before.
Otherwise, why would they be trying to muscle into the Linux space. However speaking of jealousy, how about a nice look at the history Scott McNealy and Bill gates.
To be honest, I came from the opposite side of the spectrum where I begged upper managment to listen to me when I told them that a few of these cheap linux x86 servers can do more than that big expensive sun server. Of course, I often just got the blow off while they went out and wined and dined with their Sun rep.
Well, a few years later, the dot.com crashed - and they decided that it was better to try Linux than to be gung ho on Sun till the point of bankruptcy. Well guess what. Those cheap linux boxes could do more than those Sun servers that cost 10 times as much. And even more, they turned out to be just as reliable and supportable without a platinum sun contract. (have you ever priced one of those).
Too bad Sun was so jealous of MS that they couldn't accept the Linux thing until it was too late. In fact, it still seems they can't accept it - it seems like they feel it's better to be in a Sun+Microsoft only world than a Linux world too.
One of the logical/philosophical flaws in the BSDL is that it fails to see copyrights (the restriction of copying) as inherently anti freedom. Maybe it's because so many people consider copyrights the norm or like a property right, but the very nature of restricting what people can copy is still andi freedom.
A similar doctorine, logic wise - not humanity wise, woud be "you have the freedom to own slaves, or not to" - obviously this does not do anything to promote freedoms wether it's the norm, a property, or whatnot. Even though the BSDL is certainly better than the MS-EULA.
For all his rough edges, the simple truth is RMS is right about the GPL and technology. Freedom matters, and it is an end in itself unlike technology and wealth which are a means.
Well, I don't want the planet to go to waste either, but the thing is - this is not a zero sum game. For example, I as an individual am free to make a technology that would be less polluting and more economically effifient - giving everyone reason to switch without a single regulation. When big mega regulations are put in - it kills those kind of expectations and personal responsibilities.
You are right, all those people killed by government were all killed by individuals. But that didn't come about by accident, it came about because good people supported systems that rewarded people that controll others rather than people that make free choices like above.
Governments are destined by curcumstances, individuals are destined by choices. If a system is't working, than the solution isn't more system, but more liberty to make choices.
.... No, the big scary predictions are there to scare us back onto the straight and narrow.
I don't know how many people have died from bad enviromental conditions, but I know 100's and 100's of millions have died from governments that try to reach too much into peoples lives. 2 million in Cambodia over Po Pots "return to nature" campaign, not to menaion Castro's campaign of more recent - "return to the fields" - I don't know how much it's helping the environment, but I sure know what it's doing to people.
It's not a let it ride attiturd, it's
plan for the worst, and hope for the best at it's pinicle.
....the planet will be fine ....
... they want to have super GOD like microregulation powers over every single man woman and child on the planet to save us from our imminent doom. In fact, they absolutely positively insist that super regulation is the ONLY solution, and nothing else will be "good" enough.
And we will be to.
In the last 100 years we have had 2 world wars, 100 military conflicts, created the bomb and nuclear power, landed a man on the moon and sent space craft to the far reaches of our solar system. The US the and USSR came within inches of total nuclear annialation, and we have effectively wiped out polio and small pox. Allot can happen in 100 years, allot will happen, and it never ceases to shock me how people make these kind of predictions, call them absolute and proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and then worst of all
Dare I suggest, maybe the people who are pushing this the hardest just see that kind power as the ends and not the means, and if it wasn't global warming - they'd find some other excuse.
I'm not sure if I agree with their approach. I would think that loose fitting, light, super high strength baggy outfits would be the best way to go. They could be weaved in with netted fibre, like a hot air baloon. As long as they have enough pressure to maintain proper-psi on the skin, it doesn't matter if they're a little loose. or if they puff out a little. Shoes could be regular tennies worn on the outside of the suit, maybe something similar with leather gloves. Humidity, temperature, and varying air pressure would half to be managed (maybe a high humidity zone for breathing, and a low humidity zone for sweating). A portable (roll along?) unit hooked up to a long tube would be eaiser to work with. If a problem happens, the could just disconnect the tube, walk back to the unit, and plug in there, take a spare along too. For radiation, there could be carry along umbrellas, or shelters. Maybe light protection in the suit, but not to weigh it down.
IMHO, The idea of laser custom fit suits, and spraid on super-skin just seems like problems waiting to happen. It's better to keep it simple to use, simple to change, repair, simple to manage, and inherently uncomplicated.
...You will see that Bill has given $27 Billion ...
Imagine that a Linux type OS hit the mainstream 20 years earlier. The value to society would have made $27 billion seem like a drop in the bucket, but that didn't happen specifically because Bill Gates and friends chose to criminalize copying rather than embrace it.
A free (as in "freedom") OS would not only have been worth hundreds of billions more to society, but empowered people in a way so that they could help themselves rather than begging to uncle Bill every time. Well, I'm sorry, but the plantation masters of the 1850's were noted for being chariatable too. Maybe it's because they, like Bill, know they are criminals and are just trying to justify it. Thanks, but no thanks. A free slave
The US is already taxed and fee'd to the max. What's it gonna take for you guys to "get it" and back off? Wouldn't it be just deserts if I supported those views, and pushed them to the max, and see who ends up getting screwed the most when everything goes to hell. (ps it won't be the people who "get it")
No No No No, the only thing I agree is that it's not the planet, it is us! Countries have had all sorts of pressure, eg the former USSR, but that has not caused global political disaster beacuse even when in desperate straights people can still make the choices necissary to act in their own best interest.
The *REAL* issue is that today many countries have signed a treaty (Kyoto) and the only reason why they think that it is a good deal is because it tries to screw the US harder than all the other countries combined. Its promoters know that they only chance they have of getting it thru is by screaming bloody murder that the sky is falling every time a weather or temperature anoymaly occurs. And since the last few years have had record sun spots (which coorelate 1000 times better than man made activities BTW) they have been exploiting that to the max.
The most pity-full part is that the treaty would actually make things far worse if implemented. The new regulations would increase the barriers to entry for the fossel fuel industries, which would drive down competition, which would allow them to reap more profits, which would guarantee the securement of financing to use up as much pollution "shares" as possible - and if anyone thinks that the rules wouldn't be "tweeked" once they've maxed out and locked in their monopoly, then I have some shares of the Brookland bridge to sell you.
Ironically, countries like US today tend to be moving away from an industrial production based economey that uses heavy environmental resources to an information based service one that tends to be more efficient. Kyoto would do allot to help dying industrial rellics lock in high prices to live a little longer, but nothing to promote such a service based economy or the environment.
You are forgetting that copyrights are not a natural law property right, but straight and pure coercion over what people can freely copy backed by the full force and might of the federal government. Nobody uses force and coercion to copy something, but to controll copying they certainly do exercise force and coercion at every level of society, both personal and business.
The fact that they leveraged this in other markets was made possible by copyrights, and thus by government force.
That is, for those of us who still have magnetic media arround like tapes and floppys (renember those)
Your mistake is the "they". School systems don't work in a vacuum. The question that should be asked is "What are we doing wrong?"
Aargh, as soon as I read the parent post I knew someone was going to say this, and I should have known someone would say this too.....
Taking money away from a poorly performing school district basically changes it to a hugely underperforming district.
After hearing the same counter replies for so many years in other discussions, I would think I would get used to it - but it still shocks me every single time. Why is is that people try so desperately to "fix" a "system", even when it's clearly beyond repair. Systems are the means, not the end, but in fact, it seems no matter how bad a "system" gets, there is always someone who thinks that if they just try harder to make the system work - then things will get better. No matter how ineffective they are, no matter how many people some "system" harms, no matter how awfull even if a "system" leads to genocide - there is always somebody that seems to want to step up to the plate and prolong it a little longer for the sake of saving the "system" and "making it work". God dammit! What the hell is it gonna take!
With the public school system, I can't imagine that most parents wouldn't want to have their kids have a good education. The problem isn't that the parent's aren't trying hard enough, it's not that people aren't spending the money wisely enough. It is simple and plain accountability. I repeat - accountablilty!!! . In fact, how much you wanna bet that in that exact same area there is a private school where the teachers are paid half as much, and the cost per student is a third as much, and still the kids come out better educated. I'd be willing to put money down on it right now.
If the parents are doing anything wrong, it's that they are supporting a system that doesn't work, shouldn't work because it likely supports itself unfairly, and can't work no matter how hard you try because the very nature of it's financing and leadership ruin any real chances of direct accountability.
What's wrong with just letting people save money on their own for their retirement? I say we end Social Security and let people plan for themselves.
What's wrong is that the money I would normally set aside for my families retirement is being sucked away from me in the form of social security taxes - that are actually twice as high as you think they are because your employer must match your SSI *contribution* that you get deducted from your paycheck. Only an idiot would believe that that too isn't coming from your bottom line.
Every year or so I get a statement from the SS people reminding me of how much I am *entitled* to. I bitterly resent that, because only an idiot would believe that there gonna get their money's worth out of it too. Not to mention that I resent being forced into a scheme that I find unethical at best.
Let's get this this straight ....
If I sweet talked an old lady out of her retirement money and had her put in an investmant that wasn't in her best interest - that would be called expoliting the elderly and is universally condemned by every religion in the world.
If I forced someone to participate in an investment scheme thru coercion or threat, then that is called running a racket and is a felony in all 50 states.
If I created an investment service where new investments paid out the interest on the old investments, that would be called running a ponzi scheme and is universally recognized as in an irrational investment in every sector.
However, if we make everybody to do all 3, and then give it a fradulent name like social security - then oh my God, it becomes a right without any worthy negative consequences! Yeah right!
Dealing with SSI is easy. We need to deal with it like any other such scheme. Stop the lies and exploitation and hold the pushers accountable, stop coercing mandatory investment, and finally - liquidate whatever's left in the most equitable way.
When you look at the DMCA as a tool by which the "media sector" is trying to micro-regulate the "tech sector" for the sake of controlling revenue streams - this statistic alone basically shows why the DMCA is doomed along with all the industries that rely on it. I say a clash of the titans is comming of the likes of which we haven't seen in a long time.
Yeah, but if you look at this chart since the recovery, it is clear the FOSS sector is recovering from the recesson, the proprietary software sector is not. Translation: Microsoft cant compete.