I was initially thinking the the plans were not going to be very good value, but I would happily pay $99 a month for 100 down, 40 up and 1TB of bandwidth, which is the iinet top tier plan. I'll be signing up when it is available in Sydney.
Yes, how horrible it would be to have another "industrial revolution" type of growth where the abundance of cheap energy allows another massive increase in standard of living.
If you are actually concerned about the long term survival of the species, we need ever cheaper and easier sources of energy to expand into the galaxy, and the quicker the better (in terms of odds).
I was asking for the definition, as by my standard Windows is not and has never been the only operating system available, and Microsoft doesn't have a gun to anyone's head forcing them to buy it (that I know of). So far, the definition seems to be "if it feels like it"
So a monopoly is whatever the market leader is, having market share somewhere between 0 and 100%? The issue is very much whether they are a monopoly or not, as the monopoly has the restrictions.
And who is "forced" to use Microsoft stuff? If you don't like Windows get Linux (it's free even), or Mac. How can you call Windows a monopoly when there are literally dozens of alternatives, many of them free?
I used the wrong term. Copyright is about protecting my creative works as my property. Anyone can (or should be able to) use the ideas of any copyrighted work to create their own work so long as they aren't directly copying (ie. they are being being inspired by, not duplicating).
Because an idea is not property, it is an arrangement of neurons in your head. If one person takes a piece of property, he deprives everyone else of the use of that property... However, the same idea can exist simultaneously in every single mind in existence, and no person is deprived of the ability to hold that idea in their head by the fact that someone else is also holding that idea in their head. The natural, default state of an idea is that it is freely available to *everyone*.
But copyright doesn't (or at least shouldn't) cover ideas, it covers creative works. Millions of people could have the same idea and still no one would be producing copies of other's creative works. So copyright can't prevent anyone having ideas and producing creative works from them.
However, we recognize that certain people have ideas that most people couldn't have by themselves. In general, these ideas are useful to society, so we want these people to keep having them. In order to free these people from the distraction of having to earn a living by conventional means and allow them to spend all of their time coming up with more of their ideas, we create a mechanism by which people can profit from them... A completely artificial concept of imaginary property. We allow these people to be the only ones who may use their idea for profit for enough time to keep checks in their mailbox till they come up with their next idea. After this time passes, the idea reverts to its default state of being available to everyone.
Again, copyright shouldn't be about ideas but creative works. A creative work is neither imaginary or artificial, it's an idea realised by creative expression: the creator's work, so it is in the ownership of the creator by default. And so copyright protects the creator's property. Ideas are never denied to anyone.
The reality is, when you come up with a creative work, you do the original work of creating it *once.* Most people have to work continuously to earn a continuous living. What gives a creative person the right to earn a perpetual living off of a single act of creation?
The fact that it's the creative person's creative work. Their work, not anyone elses. Their copyright is not preventing anyone from creating their own creative works, just directly copying the creative works of others.
Why are you, or anyone else, owed free access to other people's work?
Copyright to me is about protecting my ideas, it's not a trade I make, it's about the state protecting my property.
Now I think that if I want that protection I should have to pay for it, and be required to renew copyrights periodicially, however I reject your claim to a right to my work.
Why do you think that the courier is supposed to be used whilst sitting at your desk? I don't know about you, but I frequently grab a notepad, and go to a location that is not my desk to sketch out ideas/concepts/etc. I don't want to be using a keyboard for that, I want exactly the interface that the courier provides: a pen and surface to write on. (Currently I have an iRex, but the extra features of the courier will have me buying one in a heartbeat)
Not every computing device must replace your desktop system, there are a myriad of situations where other interfaces are much more appropriate, and a myriad more where it can supplement other devices.
I (as a free-market advocate) consider law enforcement and regulation as two very different things. Law enforcment being the retaliatory use of force by the government against people who have violated the individual rights of another (theft, violence, etc) by initiated the use of force. I consider law enforcement a fundamental requirement of a free society (protection from looters and thugs), but regulation the antithesis of a free society (initiating the use of force to control people).
In my view, regulation is not law enforcement, it is the initiation of force by government against people who have not (and are not reasonably predicted to) violated anyone's rights, with the intent of getting that individual or organisation to behave in a desired manner. Now this doesn't seem so bad, when it is applied to something like net neutrality which seems like a good idea, however the principle is appalling to me: using force to get what you want. This is especially true when you have a government known to be at least influenced (if not controlled) by a few powerful people and organisations.
That's detailing what the standard for 'abuse' is, and not the standard for monopoly. Presumably, a small railroad and oil concern, which only has 1% of the market for each would not be considered a monopoly even though it may charge competitors more to ship the oil. So the question still remains, what constitutes a monopoly? (other than 100% of the market with competitors barred from entry by law)
What is the standard companies are measured against to determine if they are monopoly or not?
90% market share?
What ever 'feels' about right?
How can one avoid crossing anti-trust laws if one cannot know when they will apply or not?
Whilst this doesn't apply for internal emails and documents, and I realise there is a difference in storing archives insecurely on Google's servers than simply transmitting insecurely, I do find it interesting that many people are concerned about Google reading the contents of their email/documents, when they have been sending and receiving emails/documents for years in plain text, over routers and servers they know nothing about.
By your own claim, someone who is twice as rich as you, has twice as many things to protect, should pay twice as much tax ("paying their fair share"). A flat tax accomplishes that.
What you describe with progressive tax is someone who is twice as rich, with twice as many things to protect, paying 3 times as much tax; i.e. the rich paying for the services you use in addition to their own.
I would like to know by what standard anyone considers Microsoft a monopoly? They don't have 99.9% of the OS market, there are dozens of alternatives (many free ones, that are just as, if not more capable) that can freely be installed by anyone who is inclined to.
No government has granted protection to Microsoft by regulating competitors, and Microsoft isn't holding a gun to anyone's head.
How is Microsoft considered a monopoly by any other "standard" than being the market leader with would-be competitors whining that Microsoft puts their own interests first?
Slashdot Mirror
Says the person commenting on slashdot...
It's my understanding that they don't really brick the phones, all of the networks just block the phones by IMEI number based on a common database.
I was initially thinking the the plans were not going to be very good value, but I would happily pay $99 a month for 100 down, 40 up and 1TB of bandwidth, which is the iinet top tier plan. I'll be signing up when it is available in Sydney.
Yes, how horrible it would be to have another "industrial revolution" type of growth where the abundance of cheap energy allows another massive increase in standard of living. If you are actually concerned about the long term survival of the species, we need ever cheaper and easier sources of energy to expand into the galaxy, and the quicker the better (in terms of odds).
I was asking for the definition, as by my standard Windows is not and has never been the only operating system available, and Microsoft doesn't have a gun to anyone's head forcing them to buy it (that I know of). So far, the definition seems to be "if it feels like it"
So a monopoly is whatever the market leader is, having market share somewhere between 0 and 100%? The issue is very much whether they are a monopoly or not, as the monopoly has the restrictions.
And who is "forced" to use Microsoft stuff? If you don't like Windows get Linux (it's free even), or Mac. How can you call Windows a monopoly when there are literally dozens of alternatives, many of them free?
How is Windows a monopoly? I'm being serious, what constitutes a monopoly, what's the definition?
I used the wrong term. Copyright is about protecting my creative works as my property. Anyone can (or should be able to) use the ideas of any copyrighted work to create their own work so long as they aren't directly copying (ie. they are being being inspired by, not duplicating).
Because an idea is not property, it is an arrangement of neurons in your head. If one person takes a piece of property, he deprives everyone else of the use of that property... However, the same idea can exist simultaneously in every single mind in existence, and no person is deprived of the ability to hold that idea in their head by the fact that someone else is also holding that idea in their head. The natural, default state of an idea is that it is freely available to *everyone*.
But copyright doesn't (or at least shouldn't) cover ideas, it covers creative works. Millions of people could have the same idea and still no one would be producing copies of other's creative works. So copyright can't prevent anyone having ideas and producing creative works from them.
However, we recognize that certain people have ideas that most people couldn't have by themselves. In general, these ideas are useful to society, so we want these people to keep having them. In order to free these people from the distraction of having to earn a living by conventional means and allow them to spend all of their time coming up with more of their ideas, we create a mechanism by which people can profit from them... A completely artificial concept of imaginary property. We allow these people to be the only ones who may use their idea for profit for enough time to keep checks in their mailbox till they come up with their next idea. After this time passes, the idea reverts to its default state of being available to everyone.
Again, copyright shouldn't be about ideas but creative works. A creative work is neither imaginary or artificial, it's an idea realised by creative expression: the creator's work, so it is in the ownership of the creator by default. And so copyright protects the creator's property. Ideas are never denied to anyone.
The reality is, when you come up with a creative work, you do the original work of creating it *once.* Most people have to work continuously to earn a continuous living. What gives a creative person the right to earn a perpetual living off of a single act of creation?
The fact that it's the creative person's creative work. Their work, not anyone elses. Their copyright is not preventing anyone from creating their own creative works, just directly copying the creative works of others.
Why are you, or anyone else, owed free access to other people's work? Copyright to me is about protecting my ideas, it's not a trade I make, it's about the state protecting my property. Now I think that if I want that protection I should have to pay for it, and be required to renew copyrights periodicially, however I reject your claim to a right to my work.
Why do you think that the courier is supposed to be used whilst sitting at your desk? I don't know about you, but I frequently grab a notepad, and go to a location that is not my desk to sketch out ideas/concepts/etc. I don't want to be using a keyboard for that, I want exactly the interface that the courier provides: a pen and surface to write on. (Currently I have an iRex, but the extra features of the courier will have me buying one in a heartbeat) Not every computing device must replace your desktop system, there are a myriad of situations where other interfaces are much more appropriate, and a myriad more where it can supplement other devices.
I (as a free-market advocate) consider law enforcement and regulation as two very different things. Law enforcment being the retaliatory use of force by the government against people who have violated the individual rights of another (theft, violence, etc) by initiated the use of force. I consider law enforcement a fundamental requirement of a free society (protection from looters and thugs), but regulation the antithesis of a free society (initiating the use of force to control people).
In my view, regulation is not law enforcement, it is the initiation of force by government against people who have not (and are not reasonably predicted to) violated anyone's rights, with the intent of getting that individual or organisation to behave in a desired manner. Now this doesn't seem so bad, when it is applied to something like net neutrality which seems like a good idea, however the principle is appalling to me: using force to get what you want. This is especially true when you have a government known to be at least influenced (if not controlled) by a few powerful people and organisations.
What happens at 100 years that suddenly changes your outrage?
That's detailing what the standard for 'abuse' is, and not the standard for monopoly. Presumably, a small railroad and oil concern, which only has 1% of the market for each would not be considered a monopoly even though it may charge competitors more to ship the oil. So the question still remains, what constitutes a monopoly? (other than 100% of the market with competitors barred from entry by law)
That doesn't resolve anything though. How can you know if you're abusing a monopoly position if you don't know whether or not you're a monopoly?
What is the standard companies are measured against to determine if they are monopoly or not? 90% market share? What ever 'feels' about right? How can one avoid crossing anti-trust laws if one cannot know when they will apply or not?
Whilst this doesn't apply for internal emails and documents, and I realise there is a difference in storing archives insecurely on Google's servers than simply transmitting insecurely, I do find it interesting that many people are concerned about Google reading the contents of their email/documents, when they have been sending and receiving emails/documents for years in plain text, over routers and servers they know nothing about.
Politicians have been exhaling excrement for centuries.
By your own claim, someone who is twice as rich as you, has twice as many things to protect, should pay twice as much tax ("paying their fair share"). A flat tax accomplishes that. What you describe with progressive tax is someone who is twice as rich, with twice as many things to protect, paying 3 times as much tax; i.e. the rich paying for the services you use in addition to their own.
I would like to know by what standard anyone considers Microsoft a monopoly? They don't have 99.9% of the OS market, there are dozens of alternatives (many free ones, that are just as, if not more capable) that can freely be installed by anyone who is inclined to. No government has granted protection to Microsoft by regulating competitors, and Microsoft isn't holding a gun to anyone's head. How is Microsoft considered a monopoly by any other "standard" than being the market leader with would-be competitors whining that Microsoft puts their own interests first?