"Microsoft legally can do this because they own the software but not my hardware. Very cleaver workaround. My guess is the this company has a similiar saying claiming that its their software and god given right to do whatever they want because of it. If you do not like then don't use it!"
You'll find that this was my point, *and* my solution. Don't use windows. Don't use Palladium. Resist.
Of course you are the only one that can determine the extent to which you consider *your* system your property, and to what extent you are willing to accept certain *percieved* deprivations for forsaking Windows.
Me, I consider freedom and functional ownership of my own system and data a *feature.* One which MS cannot, and will not, match.
If this means I can't play the latest game with latest invasive EULA, well, there *are* other games.
For that matter Linux can do nearly anything Windows can ( And the odd holes are being filled with amazing rapidity),BUT - you have to be willing to make the step of being willing to realize that Linux does so *differently.*
This is the step that many are not willing to make. In fact, many are so tied to the Windows way of doing things that they believe that if Linux doesn't accomplish the *same end* in the *same way* it doesn't do it at all.
There really is a "Windows way" and a "Unix philosophy." When in Rome you'll get along better if you do as the Romans. Life really is just as livable in other cultures, even computer cultures.
KFG
Which is all well and good, for *you*
on
Decentralization
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The downside is that you have to abrogate your ability to take care of yourself to another party. That *is* what you are doing when you take a specialized job ( payed or volunteer) whether you look at it that way or not. Someone has to provide you with money to buy food/shelter/clothing or provide you with the food/clothing/shelter itself if *all* you do is code.
The American "job system" is really just a form of fuedalism in disguise. YOU do not provide for yourself and your family, your "Lord" does, although he wraps it in a pretty package to artfully disguise the true relationship.
This is no particular surprise. The system evoloved directly out of the British Fuedal system which merely replaced the agricultural Lord with a mine manager. The "workers" were, and are, serfs in everything but name anyway. The only added "freedom" is the right to change allegience to another "Lord," or starve.
Or make one's own way.
There are coders who are perfectly comfortable at the workstation AND in the board room. I can think of a particular example off the top of my head who is world famous for being a coder *and* a positively *rapacious* businessman. You may have heard of him. His name is Bill something or other.
And if you work for him you are *his,* and *he* makes the money in your paycheck.
There are even a few odd coders here and there who are good enough at business that they've managed to put a good many dollars in their pocket producing "free" code. The two are *not* incompatible.
Me, I think specialization is for insects, but that's me. Your milage may vary.
You may, as far as *I* am concerned, manage to find a living in any lawful ( and perhaps even a few select *unlawful*) means available to you that works for you.
This does not invalidate the point of the parent poster that the differentiation between "coders" and "businessmen" is bullshit. This is true even when the differentiation is between the production of "free" vs. propriatary software.
*People* ( as opposed to *you*) are more diverse than that.
against unauthorized access. Perhaps if the "average Joe" started to insist they apply to *his* computer as well the corporate server things would get, ummmmmmm, interesting.
Of course if your computer software comes attached with an offensive EULA in which you "agree" to have no rights to your own system/network you might well be hosed. I'd like to see someone challange this in court *on the basis that you can't be coerced into signing away a basic property right, even by contract.*
To my knowledge this hasn't been tried yet in America ( in some other countries the EULA is already considered invalid prima facie). All it takes is someone devoted to the cause with $50,000 American and five years of their life to devote to it.
Of course there's another option. *Don't use EULAed software.*
In that case the assumption of having to give some sort of explicit permission to enter your system ought to hold just as much for the personally computer as it does for the corporate/government computer.
Hacking is a crime. Do your homework, secure your system, and then insist on *prosocuting* any "hacking" of you system, no matter who the "hacker" is.
Laws are double edged swords that can cut the person who "bought" the law just as well as those it was intended to be a weapon against if the intended victim learns how to use the "weapon."
"Gamers" play all sorts of things. That includes FPS's, which are, indeed, the most popular genre among many gamers, but as has already been pointed out *there is no particular shortage* of games available under Linux for those that enjoy FPS's.
Gamers *do* also play stratagy games and walkthroughs that take hours, weeks and months to play. For them *another* FPS, even though most of them *also* play FPS's, is annoying. The poster was not antiFPS. He was anti oversaturation with FPS's when so many other genres go begging.
You sir, are the sort who likes to kick back and play a game now and again to unwind ( and quite frankly most gamers would say that means you're only a guy who likes to play a game and wouldn't admit you to the rank of "gamer" in the first place) and there's nothing wrong with that. FPS's are nearly ideal * for you.* Not "gamers."
I might also point out that turn based stratagy games are absolutely *perfect* for the person with limited time to play.
And "gamers" think these games are, well, gamers don't use the term "1337" except faceciously.
Ubiquitous to the point that your very idea of "consumer electronic devices" is obsolete.
The existence of light emiting and electrically conductive liquid polymers that air cure is going to be completely transformative. Both display and electronic circuits are going to be printable on anything you can feed through your inkjet printer.
Think about that for a minute. *ANYTHING* you can get to feed through a printer ( or anything you can adapt a printer to print on) can be both a display and electronic circuit to provide driver and logic functions.
Think of all the things that are printed right now. Now think of all of them having "embeded" display and logic functions.
Like your paper placemat at the diner. And yes, they are even working on being able to provide *power*, self contained, in that paper placemat.
Your computer monitor will be pretty cool too. It could be nothing more than a sheet of 1/8" Lexan with the pixels printed on it. In fact, that same sheet of 1/8" Lexan could be your entire PDA or tablet PC if your data storage requirements aren't too great. Or on a sheet of polyethylene film you can fold up and put in your pocket.
All that will be pretty cool.
But it's the paper placemat thing that will be transformative. *Anything* can be a simple logic and display device. *Anything* can be a consumer electronic device.
Like Junkmail. Ready to get your free AOL *device*?
even more seriously than it does Linux. What do you think the real point of the "browser wars" was?
One can write a complete system, GUI and apps, in java that runs in any browser.
Three quarters of the ".NET" idea is simply to subvert this possibility and lock people in to a Microsoft version before someone else impliments it.
Personally, I don't like Java. I think the code is clunky and ugly, but that's because I'm mathmatically trained and *prefer* "arcane" code notations that look like scribbles on the blackboard.
But for the most part Java works and with every iteration of Moore's law becomes more viable as a main system language.
All of the above was copyrighted. All were my orginal work of authorship. The point was that in the *US* an entirely different set of copyright protections apply to the first example than to the last two, even though all three simply spell "hi."
*as it currently is* a "trade secret" is simply a protected original work which you have not published.
I'm sorry, but there's simply no issue here. The so called "incompatibility" with trade secret law is not one of contradiction, but rather one where the legal ramifications of trade secret law * no longer apply.*
You are perhaps thinking of patents rather than copyrights. For a patent to be valid it is required to make a *public revelation* of the invention. Thus some companies choose *not* to patent and rely on trade secret "law" ( which is case, not code).
*No such pulic revelation* is required for a work to be copyrighted. Hence the lack of conflict with trade secret law.
to which the US is now a signatory, all original works are automatically copyrighted at the time of creation. No special filing is required.
The code is copyright protected and the property of MS.
DeCSS is a slightly different case as it broke certain provisions of the *US's* DMCA regarding *encryption* of digital files. Adobe is now trying to claim those provisions even apply to works in the *public domain.* The provisions of the law are NOT part of the international code, but poor Jan is in court anyway.
libraries will only be distributing pulic domain works in digital form. They aren't in the business of collecting royalties for authors, nor do they wish to be. That's kind of part of the point.
And for the most part customers of libraries *don't want ebooks.*
This is not to say they do not *pay* royalties to authors though.
What do you suppose would happen if *libraries stopped buying books*?
I guess most people aren't aware of the fact that for a comparitively huge percentage of books published library sales make up a huge percentage of *total* sales.
If libraries boycotted publishers an awful lot of publishers would simply go out of business overnight. Particularly the "specialty" houses.
What the hell kind of world are we building anyways when *public libraries* are regarded as "theives"?
Although I'm sure you meant insightful and merely typed the synonym by mistake ( which I do myself with terrifying regularity) it appears to have been pretty inciteful as well.:)
and set by Linux. Whether MS likes it or not, and whoever acknowledges it or not, the effective price of a functioning OS, complete with bundled office suite, is now $0. The effective method of delivery is with full source code.
The genie is out of the bottle. MS is the follower.
MS is running a slow retreat. It will do so as slowly as it can, as seldom as it can.
That is why it's offering the code to India but fought the DoJ tooth and nail. The *Indian* government's interest in Linux is one that MS believes is serious. It does not yet take the American govenments *use* of Linux seriously. When it does the American *government* will get code, but just exactly that least amount of code that will "seal the deal."
Rinse and repeat.
This is always the case when a business is based on "secret knowledge." Once someone else learns the knowledge they undercut the orginal seller. Once the knowledge is ubiquitous the knowledge has no commercial value per se and the "price" of the knowledge becomes the price of the labor to impliment it.
So it has been. So it is. So it shall be.
Eventually Windows and MS Office will sell, together, for about $40, about the price of a boxed Red Hat distro, and come with a certain amount of user readable and modifiable code.
It's where the market is already, it's just going to take a bit of time for it to overcome it's inertia and readjust to the current state of affairs.
With MS kicking and screaming all the way.
Because of this Linux *will never win.* At least in the sense of being the one true OS that dominates the world. It will eventually have too much competition *at it's own level.*
But that will be because its *principles* carried the day.
Somewhere in its heart MS realizes this. This is why it's so willing to aggresively seek various means of forcing Windows usage. It's the only tactic it has left.
Which is a clear indication that the game is already lost.
everything I've said only relates to the intended functionality and communicativness of art and design.
Otherwise it's just a question of taste, and as they say, there's no accounting for it, and all parties bring their own biases "to the table," producers and viewers alike.
Communication between humans has always been a nasty and contentious undertaking.
You sir, are what your ancestors would have recognized as "wise."
Going to the bathroom during commercial breaks is not stealing. Blocking popup ads is not stealing.
Stealing is the *unlawful* taking away from someone that which is *rightfully* theirs.
For starters, I don't know how to break it to the "blocking ads is stealing" folks, but-there's no bloody law against it. Nor does the advertiser own or otherwise have a *right* your attention.
They have to *induce* your participation of your own free will.
Advertising is a *speculative* behaviour on the part of the advertisers. They pay to place ads in the *hope* that you will view it. You have made no contract with them. Not even an implied one by turning on your TV set. You don't have to read other people's Adidas T-shirts either.
In legal philosophy there is no essential difference between saying blocking ads is stealing than saying not buying the product is stealing. Simply because you have a product does not give you a *right* to my attention or money. You must *induce* me to participate in a *contractual* arrangement.
Yes, you're selfish. No, that isn't the capitalist lesson (sic).
A certain selfishness is inate to being a lifeform. Life lives on life. Someone, or something, has suffered and died so that you may continue to live. Amoeba are predators. Even plants which do not predate live off the bodies of dead plants and animals and compete with their own species for living space and resources. For the most part, without sufficient selfishness you will die.
Contrary to the apparent opinion of some, as a human being, you are also innately somewhat *socialistically* inclined. If this were not so there would be no civilization, and hence no capitalism. Humans are inherently family group/tribally oriented. We live together in vaguely cooperative groups for our mutual benifit. We could not even raise our own young without this social tendency. Capitalism is innately really nothing more than a score keeping system for moderating between the selfish and the social tendencies of both the individual and the group. It is a system of * fair exchange* based on *contractual* participationn of all parties. The free will of all must be engaged in the process.
It is *not* innately a system for "getting as much as you can however you can" or *forcing* behaviours out of others.
The term for that is "Rapacious Bastard"
A highway robber is rapacious. A highway robber is not a capitalist. A coporate robber is not a capitalist either, he's a robber just like the highwayman. Nothing more, nothing less.
In the words of Woody Guthrie:
"Some rob you with a six gun, and some with a fountain pen."
That's why we bother to have civil courts. Capitalism has *rules.* Break the rules suffciently and you'll end up in criminal court rather than civil. A theif is as a theif does.
If a company wants to *obligate* me to watch their ads, they must *contract* with me. Explicitly.
to consider that we just don't want to buy the crap they're selling?
I mean really. When did it become the *advertising's* fault that your product is an undesirable piece of shit?
It's the basic premise of capitalist exchange people. I have money. You want it.
*You have to offer me something I wish to possess more than my money.*
Christ almighty on a shingle, the marketroids are actually starting to believe their dumb ads "make" us buy stuff and that if they run the ad we're somehow obligated to purchase.
Hey, you over there, in the suit. Yeah, you. Get a clue or get a real job, ok?
Slashdot Mirror
"Microsoft legally can do this because they own the software but not my hardware. Very cleaver workaround. My guess is the this company has a similiar saying claiming that its their software and god given right to do whatever they want because of it. If you do not like then don't use it!"
You'll find that this was my point, *and* my solution. Don't use windows. Don't use Palladium. Resist.
Of course you are the only one that can determine the extent to which you consider *your* system your property, and to what extent you are willing to accept certain *percieved* deprivations for forsaking Windows.
Me, I consider freedom and functional ownership of my own system and data a *feature.* One which MS cannot, and will not, match.
If this means I can't play the latest game with latest invasive EULA, well, there *are* other games.
For that matter Linux can do nearly anything Windows can ( And the odd holes are being filled with amazing rapidity),BUT - you have to be willing to make the step of being willing to realize that Linux does so *differently.*
This is the step that many are not willing to make. In fact, many are so tied to the Windows way of doing things that they believe that if Linux doesn't accomplish the *same end* in the *same way* it doesn't do it at all.
There really is a "Windows way" and a "Unix philosophy." When in Rome you'll get along better if you do as the Romans. Life really is just as livable in other cultures, even computer cultures.
KFG
The downside is that you have to abrogate your ability to take care of yourself to another party. That *is* what you are doing when you take a specialized job ( payed or volunteer) whether you look at it that way or not. Someone has to provide you with money to buy food/shelter/clothing or provide you with the food/clothing/shelter itself if *all* you do is code.
The American "job system" is really just a form of fuedalism in disguise. YOU do not provide for yourself and your family, your "Lord" does, although he wraps it in a pretty package to artfully disguise the true relationship.
This is no particular surprise. The system evoloved directly out of the British Fuedal system which merely replaced the agricultural Lord with a mine manager. The "workers" were, and are, serfs in everything but name anyway. The only added "freedom" is the right to change allegience to another "Lord," or starve.
Or make one's own way.
There are coders who are perfectly comfortable at the workstation AND in the board room. I can think of a particular example off the top of my head who is world famous for being a coder *and* a positively *rapacious* businessman. You may have heard of him. His name is Bill something or other.
And if you work for him you are *his,* and *he* makes the money in your paycheck.
There are even a few odd coders here and there who are good enough at business that they've managed to put a good many dollars in their pocket producing "free" code. The two are *not* incompatible.
Me, I think specialization is for insects, but that's me. Your milage may vary.
You may, as far as *I* am concerned, manage to find a living in any lawful ( and perhaps even a few select *unlawful*) means available to you that works for you.
This does not invalidate the point of the parent poster that the differentiation between "coders" and "businessmen" is bullshit. This is true even when the differentiation is between the production of "free" vs. propriatary software.
*People* ( as opposed to *you*) are more diverse than that.
KFG
against unauthorized access. Perhaps if the "average Joe" started to insist they apply to *his* computer as well the corporate server things would get, ummmmmmm, interesting.
Of course if your computer software comes attached with an offensive EULA in which you "agree" to have no rights to your own system/network you might well be hosed. I'd like to see someone challange this in court *on the basis that you can't be coerced into signing away a basic property right, even by contract.*
To my knowledge this hasn't been tried yet in America ( in some other countries the EULA is already considered invalid prima facie). All it takes is someone devoted to the cause with $50,000 American and five years of their life to devote to it.
Of course there's another option. *Don't use EULAed software.*
In that case the assumption of having to give some sort of explicit permission to enter your system ought to hold just as much for the personally computer as it does for the corporate/government computer.
Hacking is a crime. Do your homework, secure your system, and then insist on *prosocuting* any "hacking" of you system, no matter who the "hacker" is.
Laws are double edged swords that can cut the person who "bought" the law just as well as those it was intended to be a weapon against if the intended victim learns how to use the "weapon."
KFG
I've got similar service from Road Runner (although it sets me back $50/month), but as we all know the cable pipe is *shared.*
The original poster took that into account.
35*40=1400/month/subnet
Maybe you share with 50 others to get the cheaper price.
KFG
"gamers."
"Gamers" play all sorts of things. That includes FPS's, which are, indeed, the most popular genre among many gamers, but as has already been pointed out *there is no particular shortage* of games available under Linux for those that enjoy FPS's.
Gamers *do* also play stratagy games and walkthroughs that take hours, weeks and months to play. For them *another* FPS, even though most of them *also* play FPS's, is annoying. The poster was not antiFPS. He was anti oversaturation with FPS's when so many other genres go begging.
You sir, are the sort who likes to kick back and play a game now and again to unwind ( and quite frankly most gamers would say that means you're only a guy who likes to play a game and wouldn't admit you to the rank of "gamer" in the first place) and there's nothing wrong with that. FPS's are nearly ideal * for you.* Not "gamers."
I might also point out that turn based stratagy games are absolutely *perfect* for the person with limited time to play.
And "gamers" think these games are, well, gamers don't use the term "1337" except faceciously.
KFG
Ubiquitous.
Ubiquitous to the point that your very idea of "consumer electronic devices" is obsolete.
The existence of light emiting and electrically conductive liquid polymers that air cure is going to be completely transformative. Both display and electronic circuits are going to be printable on anything you can feed through your inkjet printer.
Think about that for a minute. *ANYTHING* you can get to feed through a printer ( or anything you can adapt a printer to print on) can be both a display and electronic circuit to provide driver and logic functions.
Think of all the things that are printed right now. Now think of all of them having "embeded" display and logic functions.
Like your paper placemat at the diner. And yes, they are even working on being able to provide *power*, self contained, in that paper placemat.
Your computer monitor will be pretty cool too. It could be nothing more than a sheet of 1/8" Lexan with the pixels printed on it. In fact, that same sheet of 1/8" Lexan could be your entire PDA or tablet PC if your data storage requirements aren't too great. Or on a sheet of polyethylene film you can fold up and put in your pocket.
All that will be pretty cool.
But it's the paper placemat thing that will be transformative. *Anything* can be a simple logic and display device. *Anything* can be a consumer electronic device.
Like Junkmail. Ready to get your free AOL *device*?
KFG
n/t
KFG
in the morning! And in the "old days" we didn't have to waste time and money *adding* lights to our computer cases.
You want "eerie glow?" I got yer eerie glow right here buddy.
Plus you could use them to keep your bagel warm and nicely soft.
Of course you couldn't use them to mill grain like you could with a Babbage machine. There are always downsides to new technology.
KFG
even more seriously than it does Linux. What do you think the real point of the "browser wars" was?
One can write a complete system, GUI and apps, in java that runs in any browser.
Three quarters of the ".NET" idea is simply to subvert this possibility and lock people in to a Microsoft version before someone else impliments it.
Personally, I don't like Java. I think the code is clunky and ugly, but that's because I'm mathmatically trained and *prefer* "arcane" code notations that look like scribbles on the blackboard.
But for the most part Java works and with every iteration of Moore's law becomes more viable as a main system language.
KFG
Brain cell? Please meet my other brain cell.
Would you two mind rubbing together once in a while, please?
KFG
All of the above was copyrighted. All were my orginal work of authorship. The point was that in the *US* an entirely different set of copyright protections apply to the first example than to the last two, even though all three simply spell "hi."
KFG
*as it currently is* a "trade secret" is simply a protected original work which you have not published.
I'm sorry, but there's simply no issue here. The so called "incompatibility" with trade secret law is not one of contradiction, but rather one where the legal ramifications of trade secret law * no longer apply.*
You are perhaps thinking of patents rather than copyrights. For a patent to be valid it is required to make a *public revelation* of the invention. Thus some companies choose *not* to patent and rely on trade secret "law" ( which is case, not code).
*No such pulic revelation* is required for a work to be copyrighted. Hence the lack of conflict with trade secret law.
KFG
"What on *earth* are you doing there?"
"I'm ripping the patch off this inner tube."
"You're taking the patch off? Whatever for?"
"Well, you see, it's got this big hole in it."
"Ummmmmmmmm, are you *sure* you know what you're doing?"
"Don't worry, I can patch the patch when I get home and then nail it back on."
KFG
to which the US is now a signatory, all original works are automatically copyrighted at the time of creation. No special filing is required.
The code is copyright protected and the property of MS.
DeCSS is a slightly different case as it broke certain provisions of the *US's* DMCA regarding *encryption* of digital files. Adobe is now trying to claim those provisions even apply to works in the *public domain.* The provisions of the law are NOT part of the international code, but poor Jan is in court anyway.
KFG
libraries will only be distributing pulic domain works in digital form. They aren't in the business of collecting royalties for authors, nor do they wish to be. That's kind of part of the point.
And for the most part customers of libraries *don't want ebooks.*
This is not to say they do not *pay* royalties to authors though.
What do you suppose would happen if *libraries stopped buying books*?
I guess most people aren't aware of the fact that for a comparitively huge percentage of books published library sales make up a huge percentage of *total* sales.
If libraries boycotted publishers an awful lot of publishers would simply go out of business overnight. Particularly the "specialty" houses.
What the hell kind of world are we building anyways when *public libraries* are regarded as "theives"?
KFG
1001000 1101001
Is covered by an entire set of special restrictive laws compared to this:
**** **
and this:
Hi
When the only difference between them is *the font*?
KFG
Go back and read the post again. This time pay attention to what I said. Not what you think I said.
.iso's.
As to the question of payment people buy Red Hat. I know an A+ with broadband who bought it, even though he knew where to download it.
There is a price point at which most people would *rather* buy it than spend 8 hours downloading it and then another hour burning the
That price point seems to be about forty bucks. And with forty bucks you get eggroll. . er, manuals, and support.
KFG
bring the trolls out in force.
In the words of my dear departed granny:
"Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke."
KFG
Although I'm sure you meant insightful and merely typed the synonym by mistake ( which I do myself with terrifying regularity) it appears to have been pretty inciteful as well. :)
KFG
its purely survival driven "lizard brain"? :)
KFG
and set by Linux. Whether MS likes it or not, and whoever acknowledges it or not, the effective price of a functioning OS, complete with bundled office suite, is now $0. The effective method of delivery is with full source code.
The genie is out of the bottle. MS is the follower.
MS is running a slow retreat. It will do so as slowly as it can, as seldom as it can.
That is why it's offering the code to India but fought the DoJ tooth and nail. The *Indian* government's interest in Linux is one that MS believes is serious. It does not yet take the American govenments *use* of Linux seriously. When it does the American *government* will get code, but just exactly that least amount of code that will "seal the deal."
Rinse and repeat.
This is always the case when a business is based on "secret knowledge." Once someone else learns the knowledge they undercut the orginal seller. Once the knowledge is ubiquitous the knowledge has no commercial value per se and the "price" of the knowledge becomes the price of the labor to impliment it.
So it has been. So it is. So it shall be.
Eventually Windows and MS Office will sell, together, for about $40, about the price of a boxed Red Hat distro, and come with a certain amount of user readable and modifiable code.
It's where the market is already, it's just going to take a bit of time for it to overcome it's inertia and readjust to the current state of affairs.
With MS kicking and screaming all the way.
Because of this Linux *will never win.* At least in the sense of being the one true OS that dominates the world. It will eventually have too much competition *at it's own level.*
But that will be because its *principles* carried the day.
Somewhere in its heart MS realizes this. This is why it's so willing to aggresively seek various means of forcing Windows usage. It's the only tactic it has left.
Which is a clear indication that the game is already lost.
KFG
You're one of those people who think the glass is half full, arn't you?
KFG
everything I've said only relates to the intended functionality and communicativness of art and design.
Otherwise it's just a question of taste, and as they say, there's no accounting for it, and all parties bring their own biases "to the table," producers and viewers alike.
Communication between humans has always been a nasty and contentious undertaking.
KFG
You sir, are what your ancestors would have recognized as "wise."
Going to the bathroom during commercial breaks is not stealing. Blocking popup ads is not stealing.
Stealing is the *unlawful* taking away from someone that which is *rightfully* theirs.
For starters, I don't know how to break it to the "blocking ads is stealing" folks, but-there's no bloody law against it. Nor does the advertiser own or otherwise have a *right* your attention.
They have to *induce* your participation of your own free will.
Advertising is a *speculative* behaviour on the part of the advertisers. They pay to place ads in the *hope* that you will view it. You have made no contract with them. Not even an implied one by turning on your TV set. You don't have to read other people's Adidas T-shirts either.
In legal philosophy there is no essential difference between saying blocking ads is stealing than saying not buying the product is stealing. Simply because you have a product does not give you a *right* to my attention or money. You must *induce* me to participate in a *contractual* arrangement.
Yes, you're selfish. No, that isn't the capitalist lesson (sic).
A certain selfishness is inate to being a lifeform. Life lives on life. Someone, or something, has suffered and died so that you may continue to live. Amoeba are predators. Even plants which do not predate live off the bodies of dead plants and animals and compete with their own species for living space and resources. For the most part, without sufficient selfishness you will die.
Contrary to the apparent opinion of some, as a human being, you are also innately somewhat *socialistically* inclined. If this were not so there would be no civilization, and hence no capitalism. Humans are inherently family group/tribally oriented. We live together in vaguely cooperative groups for our mutual benifit. We could not even raise our own young without this social tendency. Capitalism is innately really nothing more than a score keeping system for moderating between the selfish and the social tendencies of both the individual and the group. It is a system of * fair exchange* based on *contractual* participationn of all parties. The free will of all must be engaged in the process.
It is *not* innately a system for "getting as much as you can however you can" or *forcing* behaviours out of others.
The term for that is "Rapacious Bastard"
A highway robber is rapacious. A highway robber is not a capitalist. A coporate robber is not a capitalist either, he's a robber just like the highwayman. Nothing more, nothing less.
In the words of Woody Guthrie:
"Some rob you with a six gun, and some with a fountain pen."
That's why we bother to have civil courts. Capitalism has *rules.* Break the rules suffciently and you'll end up in criminal court rather than civil. A theif is as a theif does.
If a company wants to *obligate* me to watch their ads, they must *contract* with me. Explicitly.
That's the rule.
KFG
to consider that we just don't want to buy the crap they're selling?
I mean really. When did it become the *advertising's* fault that your product is an undesirable piece of shit?
It's the basic premise of capitalist exchange people. I have money. You want it.
*You have to offer me something I wish to possess more than my money.*
Christ almighty on a shingle, the marketroids are actually starting to believe their dumb ads "make" us buy stuff and that if they run the ad we're somehow obligated to purchase.
Hey, you over there, in the suit. Yeah, you. Get a clue or get a real job, ok?
KFG