Exposure = Sales Trading MP3's with my buddies = Exposure Do you get the point? I own 5,000 pieces of store bought music, most of which I bought after hearing the music. Very rarely will I buy something without hearing it first, I may be an insane collector of music but I don't like to waste my hard earned cash. So if I hear an MP3 I like I WILL GO OUT AND BUY the CD or record of the artist represented by the MP3. It's to bad Metallica is doing this. I was once an avid fan of Lars and company, in fact I was such a die hard fan that I broke open my piggy bank as a teenager to buy a Metallica t-shirt w (15 dollars in pennies) at one of their concerts years ago. I will never buy another piece of merchandise from them again. I will also encourage others to stop buying their music and merchandise.
"This is about musicians in general being stolen from"
How easy it is to forget the lessons of history. In the 1950's record companies would literally pay radio stations to play their artists music. This was called payola, becaus often times DJ's would be bribed to play a record labels music. The question is why would a record label do this? The answer - exposure and ultimately sales. Now as far as I see it being a musician and an avid collector of music ( I own over 5,000 thousand pieces of store bought music)and I have made records that were distributed and sold. Napster and other pieces of software similar to it, simply allow for an artist to get exposure. Now I know that Metallica is fairly well exposed as artists but it does not harm them in the least bit to get additional exposure , which ultimately translates into sales. Besides, the sound quality of an mp3 is not that great compared to the nice bass of a good chunk of vinyl or the crisp sound of a new cd. Mp3's are a way for artists at all levels in the business to be heard. Record labels use to actually pay for this kind of exposure and now Metallica is suing Universities and Napster, what better way to make enemies but to attack the agents who are attempting to expose your music? I personally like to hear a piece of music before I buy it. If that means hearing it on the radio or through a downloaded mp3 that my buddy shared with me makes very little difference , if I like the music enough I will go out and buy it! Sharing mp3's is not thievery just anthor means by which music is exposed and therefore sold.
First of it seems that you have posted your comments without really exploring the software or reading any of the help documentation available. It really annoys me when people criticize something impatiently without discovering and exploring the thing/tools they are complaining about. I believe that the size of the buttons on the browser, (don't quote this as a fact), have something to do with people who cannot see very well being able to use the browser easily. This I believe would be an attempt to make the web more accesible to those with difficulty seeing, which I believe is one of the wc3's prime objectives, (accesibility for all). In order to get rid of thesidebar, all you have to do is go to the view menu at the top of the browser and uncheck "sidebar". To get rid of the large buttons there is small triangle that points downwards below the file menu -click on this and it will remove the address bar and buttons. Of course there are problems that I have experienced with the this browser but it is just a test release. In fact if you read the disclaimer before downloading the browser it states clearly not to download it unless you are willing to deal with the problems inherent in the test releases of all software. Besides the freaking thing is free!! it's hard to be generous to people when there are so many self centered ingrates in this world. And as always if you don't like something do something about. If you find bugs or if there are features that you do not like then do something constructive and let netscape/mozilla know what the problems you're having are. Geez,Does everyone need there hand held when trying something new. I thought the crowd here at Slashdot represented the DIY ethic . Not the microsoft let me tell you how it works and thats it mentality.
Thank you all those who are working hard for the Mozilla org, Thank you all those working hard at Netscape .
Go to the view menu at the top of the browser- you will see a menu drop, in the menu there is an entry called sidebar, uncheck sidebar by clicking on it, wallah - no more side bar. hope this helps:-)
However the government sure has done alot for the car companies - umm let me see Chrysler - government bail out. Humm, GM - The US Governments main military vehicle supplier can you say subsidies? This is not an argument for more government participation. I just want to clear some things up about how are government treats corporationsas oppsed to average citizens like you and I. Next time you need to be bailed out just ask our government to help you. After you are bailed out the taxpayers that you employ bail lay them off and set up shop in another country. It is our governments duty and priviledge -(meaning it can be taken away by the mass consent of it's citizens), to play the referee at times.
Have you taken a look at the amount of stock Bill Gates owns in Microsft? Do you really know how corporations work and how decisions are made in corporations? I think it has something to do with the board of directors and a CEO, these are usually the investors who own the most stock in a company. I could be wrong.I would really like to know myself, being one of the peons with a 401 k. This not an attack on your post,It's just more food for thought.
Contrary to your opinion business is not like war. Business relies upon the ability of humanity to create , grow,cooperate and bargain. Without those 4 fundamental principles in place there can be no markets, therefore there can be no business. Warfare on the other hand is about killing,theft, rape and destruction, nothing is gained but all is lost. Warfare should only be resorted to in extreme circumstances i.e.. you hit me, I ask you to stop, you hit me again, finally I hit you back. Whereas business can be a healthy outlet for the competitive spirit of individuals and it is the outgrowth of everyones desire to help humanity progress. Ruthlessness does not make a winner in business. How popular was the bully at your school? How long do people put up with ruthless fools before retaliating? Ruthlessness is a destructive attitude propegated by unthinking and unfeeling legal entities/social constructs called corporations. However, the average World citizen , I tend to think looks with kindness and compassion towards other humans.The idea that business is like warfare is an ancient mental artifact rooted in outdated economic/political philosophies that hold that there is not enough of anything for all of us. Of course there is more than enough of everything that most humans need for all of us., it is just that some of our fellows think that it is allright to hoard more than their fare share. So it is alright to have another social construct\legal entity referee- sort of like a footballgame Which can be a healthy and good thing if practiced judiciously. Besides if you really believe what you are saying then it would be alright for just about anyone to come over to your home with a gun - plant their flag in your living room and call it their living room. Is this business? No it's war. Is it acceptable - I don't think so.
"Poor people don't need computers with internet access. Last time I looked they were more concerned with work, or where the next meal coming from. I won't even go into what this dropping $5 computers idea sounds like" . . . "face it, MS put out a damn good operating system and made it so ANYONE can use it. This is no way was hurting the consumers. This was actually helping consumers. Windows 95 made PCs enter the realm of the regular user. As a result, prices on PCs have fallen considerably in the past years. I bought my first Pentium machine for $1500, and it was not even top of the line at the time. Now I can get a top of the line PC for under $1000. More and more people have been buying computers because they are easy to use. This is way it should be."
Do you think about what you write...? Since when have you become a spokesperson for poor people? I am poor. I have a computer and an internet connection so do you think that all I think about is my next meal?. You have even stated in your previous posts that you were happy about the decreasing costs of pc's and now you are changing your mind? It sounds like the thoughts in your own head are somewhat inconsistent. Besides the issues at stake here are not about how user friendly an OS is or who can afford them. The issue here is a free market, unimpeded by corporations that wield to much power and also by governments who have to much power. Corporations are not people they are abstract legal entities that have no concern for humanity. Corporations have no political boundaries they wield their power internationally without regard for the individual. So even if I have I have very little faith in our government, I am actually glad that they have chosen to expose the follies of a particularly large and powerful corporation. Which may also level out the playing field a bit for the average working stiff who might have a dream, some ingenuity, the desire to work hard and a little bit of capital. And please don't fool yourself into believing that a corporation = an individual.It is just not the case, Corporations have priviledges the average law abiding citizen of any country in the world can not imagine. When was the last time you attempted to do business in another country as an individual? Just because Microsoft is being henpecked by the US gov. does not mean that you're right to work and trade freely will be affected because frankly you and I are nothing but peons to both the gov. and large corporations. By the way Bill Gate's father has a very succesful law firm in Washington. Bill Gates attended Harvard and dropped out. Bill gates has not invented nor has he created anything but a a large legally contrived conglemerate which has an unfair advantage over the individual in the market place. Free markets for individuals not for abstract unaccountable legal entities called Incs. LLP's, and.com's.
I found a very intersting link placed in post #640 but after logging in under my user name I lost track of the post. I wanted to reply in gratitude to the gentleman who posted this link concerning the "corporate death penalty"
http://www.lightparty.com/Misc/CorporateDeath.htm It made me aware of the fact that- we the people actually have the power to challenge and possibly revoke a corporation's charter if, the corporation in question violates the law. And for those who scream free trade/free markets - all I have to say is that a corporation is not an individual, therefore, a corporation should not be held to any lesser or greater standards/laws than indivduals are. Just remember if an individuals breaks a law they are imprisoned, which happens to be a very popular thing in this country right now-
Legal caveat- My syntax for the quotes above which relate to the use of corporate buzzwords such as "innovation" etc...Are not quotes taken from the article which Slashdot refers to,or the participants therein( Jeff Bezo and Tim O'Reilly), or the discussions contained anywhere within the information embodied in the entire internet site known as Slashdot.org You know it's best to protect yourself and parse your words when disagreeing with corporations. YEa right like I buy that ie.. calmly argue as they march you of to the Gulag.
Although it seems the marketers of Amazon have cleverly leveraged O'Reilly's advocacy to create a grassroots PR campaign which makes Amazon look like the underdog. I would venture to say that some very large corporations hold a piece of Amazon. It is obvious to me that Amazon is *owned* by corporate idealogies, lawyers, and clever marketers. Why else would one use the archaic system of patents to protect recent technology. As we all know there are more efficient ways to protect "inventions" and "innovations" in software than lousy highly "crackable" patents.
I must add Patents are not only within the doamain of the USA but the rest of the World. It takes hundreds of thousands of dollars to fully protect an invention. This is a reality that is much different than when Thomas Edison dwelled upon the Earth. The average person without a great deal of wealth could not fully protect himself/herself in the international arena against corporate theft. Therefore, (without much reason or logic) our current system is not balanced and is biased towards false values (how much money a person has) rather than an individuals intelligence or compassion.
Don't buy into it. This is the standard approach of any con.Make yourself look like the victim. Appeal to the hearts and minds of those that really care then, grab the mother fuckin wallet of the empathetic target before the target realizes what has happened. Jeff requested that this BS be posted- this leads me to believe some clever PR person is behind Amazon's approach. FEAR does not protect.Just rememberthis that a dog attacks a fearful person more readily than a person without fear-this is how nature works.Clever people try to twist this to take advantage of good hearted and generous individuals.
I think your idea is excellent. To start with our system treats corporations as if they are individuals. From my analysis of your idea - why not protect individuals instead of large institutions - Corporations. By the way Corporations have more rights than the average individual. Is this what the citizens of the USA want? Not only that but most Corparations represent us. Do we want this? Do we want to be associated with an Inc. by the rest of the world. How can a legal entity act with compassion? To add insult to injury we bail them out when they go bankrupt. Next time you fiel for bankruptcy ask the.gov for help. It probably will not happen, no matter how much you have paid in taxes in the past.
It is true that Barnes & Noble is not an alternative, but there are other options - try your local bookstore or smaller dealers of books online. Whatever the case is involving the government and patenting ideas that many of use as a matter of course is not the answer. There are more creative ways of battling large corporations. For instance, if Amazon was really concerned with the competition from B&N they could have been honest and explained their situation to all of us. This would have generated far more support than obtaining patents. FYI, I am also aware of large corporations stealing inventions from those less powerful then they are but in todays world it takes a small fortune to obtain a world around patent.In other words there must be another answer(I am still contemplating that).
I tried posting a review but the geniuses at Apple ahve it set up that you can not post reviews of websites until you buy something from the Apple Store. My review of iReview - total hoodwink complete scam. 0 *
Amazon's strategy of protectionism does not fly. Restriction, legislation and litigation never serve the community, the market or any entity which uses them to benefit itself. From what I gleaned from the article, Jeff is being unduly influenced by his lawyers or, Amazon is encountering an internal dearth of ideas brought about by Amazon's corporate investors and their restrictive ideas about the market and what the market means.My approach to this can be summarised as follows. First and foremost the idea of markets being a zero sum game has to go out the window - ideas(including the idea of the marketplace) can only be limited by the beings which create them(us).Secondly, Fear(false evidence appearing real) has never served our species well and obviously Jeff and his company are acting on fear. Thirdly, if Amazon acts confidently and trusts the market,(us),by not involving the government ie.. THE PATENT OFFICE, Amazon will grow steadily in goodwill and green paper.Therefore, rendering Jeff's arguments and his cleverly crafted PR attempt to make him and his company look like the victims null and void.
Just had a strange coincidence, right before coming to Slashdot. I was reading this page from a pissed off customer
http://cyberreviews.skwc.com/amazon.html
Aside, from that corporations have been ripping of the public for along time using the inept patent office is just one of the ways. Some excellent observations on how corporations play games with the law are given by R.Buckminster Fuller
http://www.bfi.org/grunch_of_giants.htm
This is an online book that he wrote in 1982 (old but relevant) his observations and suggestions may be very helpful to us in combating the fleecing of the American public by the inhuman and unfeeling legal entities called corporations. Like all good things we the people finance the endeavor (the internet/arpanet)(nuclear research) then corporations like Amazon.com come in and rob us of our freedom and our money by litigating and intimidating all but the most wealthy of us through our archaic and inept government.
Don't get me wrong I do not disagree with you in terms of actually going out and making observations. But, the question is usually what we decide to observe . The question of what,often begins with philosophical and or religous inquiry. Einstein was trying to prove the existance of God through physics. Whats more, theology as I understand, is not just defined by scripture but by rational inquiry into the definition of God and how he,she it relates to the universe.This is possible without texts. Even more strictly defined theology could be defined as merely "love of God" The term "Ad hominem" has to do with character and it can relate to a group ie..characters.. plural, as well as an individuali.. character.. singular. Of course it is possible that I am wrong. Also, I did not use theologians as an example of adding to the discussion concerning structure but I refered more to philosophers.BTW, does studying theology make you an expert in theology?
Just to add, some other variables might be considered in calculating the distance of an object from us when using the speed of light as a measurement ie.. what is between us and the star, density of matter etc... how much resitance or inertia is there? Another thing is how the speed of light is derived.,In the theory of relativity , c is the speed of light when it is in a vacuum.It slows down in water and in other forms of matter In fact some scientists have slowed it down to about 32 mph.
1.Poor ad hominum attacks on philosophers and theologians do not make for sound logic. 2.The universe can not be broken down into purely "if..then" statements, although doing this has been the domain of philosophers for many years just read Kant. 3.Just for demonstration why don't you derive a mathematical "if and only if " statement from it's equivalent in English. It is rather difficult but possible.(are language is not very sound in terms of pure logic). 4.Bacon was a well known philosopher and scientist 5.in Science, Math and in the pure mathematical logic used by proficient philosophers, premises and theories usually begin with a hunch aka-theorem,hypothesis,conjecture.Sometimes, theorems are derived from questioning,at other times from empirical observation and even..gasp.. horror,from a profound insight that cannot be explained,(very similar to a religous experience). 6.After a scientist has formed belief then method is used to demonstrate whether the believe is true or not. 7.And yes science can be very dogmatic in defending it's truth. this unfortunately is a quality that seems to be inherent in humanity -including myself. My final analysis is that all possibilities must be considered, all viewpoints must be taken into account and then let the deduction begin or vice versa start with tabula rosa and fill it up with your observations.But, wholesale rejection of the viewpoints, feelings, thoughts and proofs of others will only keep one in ignorance.
I speel purty bad to!! 2 - 1 = 2 I can't seem to subtract either.
Sorry to post this again but I did not want to be ignored due to posting anon. Thanks speeling is not my only problem! I can't add either
In defense of Forge,I believe he was saying that
scientists have been debating amongst themselves not scientists have been debating with theologians although this does take place.As for your other points definition of some terms may be in order. First look up the word philosopher in the dictionary- it simply means - "love of knowledge". All sciences and many other quests for knowledge have started with philosophical inquiry.Second, the concept of infinity is impossible for the human mind to grasp by it's very nature infinity cannot be conceptualized nor proven(yet)by our finite minds. A good example of this concept is demonstrated by a Moebius strip or even in programming through infinite recursion.However, these demonstrations do not prove that infinity does not exist. Third, demonstrate to us and prove that matter is not infinite. I do not believe that anyone knows with any certainty the sum total of matter that exists in the universe, although there has been quite a bit of conjecture concerning this issue. Fourth, the discovery of objects further from us in the universe can provide empirical proof of various theories concerning the universe, it's nature etc...ad infinitum(please pardon the pun).Finally, these discoveries help to illuminate the structure and physical nature of the univers as opposed to the metaphysical nature of the universe.Another thing- if we have actually seen the begiining of the unviverse could you reproduce a picture of this event for us you may well be on your way to a Nobel Prize.
Linux? I don't even know how to use \. yet. ha ha, But, all joking aside, I am fairly new to the world of using computers to the point of obsession. Maybe my computer love must have been latent? Any how, I have only been using computers on a regular basis for about 6 months and I must say in defense of Linux that it was fairly easy for me to obtain it - Slackware 7.0(ZIPslack) through ftp at cdrom.com and install it . I merely followed instructions. I still have not installed a GUI for my system yet but I do have access to the internet through an external Data Best modem that was going to be trashed.(my new system,I found has a winmodem). Besides I enjoy learning about my system from the bottom up so the Bash shell is fast becoming my friend.Point being - A relative novice with a minimal amount of knowledge and a Diy attitude can switch operating systems with relative ease.
Slashdot Mirror
Exposure = Sales
Trading MP3's with my buddies = Exposure
Do you get the point?
I own 5,000 pieces of store bought music, most of which I bought after hearing the music. Very rarely will I buy something without hearing it first, I may be an insane collector of music but I don't like to waste my hard earned cash. So if I hear an MP3 I like I WILL GO OUT AND BUY the CD or record of the artist represented by the MP3.
It's to bad Metallica is doing this. I was once an avid fan of Lars and company, in fact I was such a die hard fan that I broke open my piggy bank as a teenager to buy a Metallica t-shirt w (15 dollars in pennies) at one of their concerts years ago. I will never buy another piece of merchandise from them again. I will also encourage others to stop buying their music and merchandise.
"This is about musicians in general being stolen from"
How easy it is to forget the lessons of history.
In the 1950's record companies would literally pay radio stations to play their artists music.
This was called payola, becaus often times DJ's would be bribed to play a record labels music.
The question is why would a record label do this?
The answer - exposure and ultimately sales. Now as far as I see it being a musician and an avid collector of music ( I own over 5,000 thousand pieces of store bought music)and I have made records that were distributed and sold. Napster and other pieces of software similar to it, simply allow for an artist to get exposure. Now I know that Metallica is fairly well exposed as artists but it does not harm them in the least bit to get additional exposure , which ultimately translates into sales.
Besides, the sound quality of an mp3 is not that great compared to the nice bass of a good chunk of vinyl or the crisp sound of a new cd. Mp3's are a way for artists at all levels in the business to be heard. Record labels use to actually pay for this kind of exposure and now Metallica is suing Universities and Napster, what better way to make enemies but to attack the agents who are attempting to expose your music? I personally like to hear a piece of music before I buy it. If that means hearing it on the radio or through a downloaded mp3 that my buddy shared with me makes very little difference , if I like the music enough I will go out and buy it! Sharing mp3's is not thievery just anthor means by which music is exposed and therefore sold.
First of it seems that you have posted your comments without really exploring the software or reading any of the help documentation available. It really annoys me when people criticize something impatiently without discovering and exploring the thing/tools they are complaining about. I believe that the size of the buttons on the browser, (don't quote this as a fact), have something to do with people who cannot see very well being able to use the browser easily. This I believe would be an attempt to make the web more accesible to those with difficulty seeing, which I believe is one of the wc3's prime objectives, (accesibility for all). In order to get rid of thesidebar, all you have to do is go to the view menu at the top of the browser and uncheck "sidebar". To get rid of the large buttons there is small triangle that points downwards below the file menu -click on this and it will remove the address bar and buttons. Of course there are problems that I have experienced with the this browser but it is
just a test release. In fact if you read the disclaimer before downloading the browser it states clearly not to download it unless you are willing to deal with the problems inherent in the test releases of all software. Besides the freaking thing is free!! it's hard to be generous to people when there are so many self centered ingrates in this world. And as always if you don't like something do something about. If you find bugs or if there are features that you do not like then do something constructive and let netscape/mozilla know what the problems you're having are. Geez,Does everyone need there hand held when trying something new. I thought the crowd here at Slashdot represented the DIY ethic .
Not the microsoft let me tell you how it works and thats it mentality.
Thank you all those who are working hard for the Mozilla org, Thank you all those working hard at Netscape .
Go to the view menu at the top of the browser- you will see a menu drop, in the menu there is an entry called sidebar, uncheck sidebar by clicking on it, wallah - no more side bar. hope this helps :-)
However the government sure has done alot for the car companies - umm let me see Chrysler - government bail out.
Humm, GM - The US Governments main military vehicle supplier can you say subsidies?
This is not an argument for more government participation. I just want to clear some things up about how are government treats corporationsas oppsed to average citizens like you and I.
Next time you need to be bailed out just ask our government to help you. After you are bailed out the taxpayers that you employ bail lay them off and set up shop in another country. It is our governments duty and priviledge -(meaning it can be taken away by the mass consent of it's citizens), to play the referee at times.
Have you taken a look at the amount of stock Bill Gates owns in Microsft? Do you really know how corporations work and how decisions are made in corporations? I think it has something to do with the board of directors and a CEO, these are usually the investors who own the most stock in a company. I could be wrong.I would really like to know myself, being one of the peons with a 401 k. This not an attack on your post,It's just more food for thought.
Contrary to your opinion business is not like war.
Business relies upon the ability of humanity to create , grow
Warfare on the other hand is about killing,theft, rape and destruction, nothing is gained but all is lost.
Warfare should only be resorted to in extreme circumstances i.e.. you hit me, I ask you to stop, you hit me again, finally I hit you back.
Whereas business can be a healthy outlet for the competitive spirit of individuals and it is the outgrowth of everyones desire to help humanity progress. Ruthlessness does not make a winner in business.
How popular was the bully at your school? How long do people put up with ruthless fools before retaliating? Ruthlessness is a destructive attitude propegated by unthinking and unfeeling legal entities/social constructs called corporations. However, the average World citizen ,
I tend to think looks with kindness and compassion towards other humans.The idea that business is like warfare is an ancient mental artifact rooted in outdated economic/political philosophies that
hold that there is not enough of anything for all of us. Of course there is more than enough of everything that most humans need for all of us., it is just that some of our fellows think that it is allright to hoard more than their fare share.
So it is alright to have another social construct\legal entity referee- sort of like a footballgame Which can be a healthy and good thing if practiced judiciously.
Besides if you really believe what you are saying then it would be alright for just about anyone to come over to your home with a gun - plant their flag in your living room and call it their living room. Is this business? No it's war. Is it acceptable - I don't think so.
"Poor people don't need computers with internet access. Last time I looked they were more concerned with work, or where the next meal coming from. I won't even go into what this dropping $5 computers idea sounds like" . . .
...? .com's.
"face it, MS put out a damn good operating system and made it so ANYONE can use it. This is no way was hurting the consumers. This was actually helping consumers. Windows 95 made PCs enter the realm of the regular user. As a result, prices on PCs have fallen considerably in the past years. I bought my first Pentium machine for $1500, and it was not even top of the line at the time. Now I can get a top of the line PC for under $1000. More and more people have been buying computers because they are easy to use. This is way it should be."
Do you think about what you write
Since when have you become a spokesperson for poor people?
I am poor. I have a computer and an internet connection so do you think that all I think about is my next meal?. You have even stated in your previous posts that you were happy about the decreasing costs of pc's and now you are changing
your mind? It sounds like the thoughts in your own head are somewhat inconsistent.
Besides the issues at stake here are not about how
user friendly an OS is or who can afford them. The issue here is a free market, unimpeded by corporations that wield to much power and also by governments who have to much power.
Corporations are not people they are abstract legal entities that have no concern for humanity.
Corporations have no political boundaries they wield their power internationally without regard for the individual. So even if I have I have very little faith in our government, I am actually glad that they have chosen to expose the follies of a particularly large and powerful corporation. Which may also level out the playing field a bit for the average working stiff who might have a dream, some ingenuity, the desire to work hard and a little bit of capital.
And please don't fool yourself into believing that a corporation = an individual.It is just not the case, Corporations have priviledges the average law abiding citizen of any country in the world can not imagine. When was the last time you attempted to do business in another country as an individual? Just because Microsoft is being henpecked by the US gov. does not mean that you're right to work and trade freely will be affected because frankly you and I are nothing but peons to both the gov. and large corporations. By the way
Bill Gate's father has a very succesful law firm in Washington. Bill Gates attended Harvard and dropped out. Bill gates has not invented nor has he created anything but a a large legally contrived conglemerate which has an unfair advantage over the individual in the market place.
Free markets for individuals not for abstract unaccountable legal entities called Incs. LLP's,
and
I found a very intersting link placed in post #640
_ fleece/luke1.html
but after logging in under my user name I lost track of the post. I wanted to reply in gratitude to the gentleman who posted this link concerning the "corporate death penalty"
http://www.lightparty.com/Misc/CorporateDeath.htm
It made me aware of the fact that-
we the people actually have the power to challenge and possibly revoke a corporation's charter if, the corporation in question violates the law. And for those who scream free trade/free markets - all I have to say is that a corporation is not an individual, therefore, a corporation should not be held to any lesser or greater standards/laws than indivduals are.
Just remember if an individuals breaks a law they are imprisoned, which happens to be a very popular thing in this country right now-
http://www.superfluous.com/superstar/generation
Legal caveat- My syntax for the quotes above which relate to the use of corporate buzzwords such as "innovation" etc.. .Are not quotes taken from the article which Slashdot refers to ,or the participants therein( Jeff Bezo and Tim O'Reilly), or the discussions contained anywhere within the information embodied in the entire internet site known as Slashdot.org You know it's best to protect yourself and parse your words when disagreeing with corporations. YEa right like I buy that ie .. calmly argue as they march you of to the Gulag.
Although it seems the marketers of Amazon have cleverly leveraged O'Reilly's advocacy to create a grassroots PR campaign which makes Amazon look like the underdog. I would venture to say that some very large corporations hold a piece of Amazon. It is obvious to me that Amazon is *owned* by corporate idealogies, lawyers, and clever marketers. Why else would one use the archaic system of patents to protect recent technology. As we all know there are more efficient ways to protect "inventions" and "innovations" in software than lousy highly "crackable" patents.
Your sarcasm is intelligent and some what adept. However we need a version of subterfuge which is slightly more subtle. grazi. the Tabula Rosa Rules.
Corporations are not people.Why should they have more rights than individuals?
I must add Patents are not only within the doamain of the USA but the rest of the World. It takes hundreds of thousands of dollars to fully protect an invention. This is a reality that is much different than when Thomas Edison dwelled upon the Earth. The average person without a great deal of wealth could not fully protect himself/herself in the international arena against corporate theft. Therefore, (without much reason or logic) our current system is not balanced and is biased towards false values (how much money a person has) rather than an individuals intelligence or compassion.
Don't buy into it. This is the standard approach of any con.Make yourself look like the victim. Appeal to the hearts and minds of those that really care then, grab the mother fuckin wallet of the empathetic target before the target realizes what has happened. Jeff requested that this BS be posted- this leads me to believe some clever PR person is behind Amazon's approach. FEAR does not protect.Just rememberthis that a dog attacks a fearful person more readily than a person without fear-this is how nature works.Clever people try to twist this to take advantage of good hearted and generous individuals.
I think your idea is excellent. To start with our system treats corporations as if they are individuals. From my analysis of your idea - why not protect individuals instead of large institutions - Corporations. By the way Corporations have more rights than the average individual. Is this what the citizens of the USA want? Not only that but most Corparations represent us. Do we want this? Do we want to be associated with an Inc. by the rest of the world. How can a legal entity act with compassion? To add insult to injury we bail them out when they go bankrupt. Next time you fiel for bankruptcy ask the .gov for help. It probably will not happen, no matter how much you have paid in taxes in the past.
It is true that Barnes & Noble is not an alternative, but there are other options - try your local bookstore or smaller dealers of books online. Whatever the case is involving the government and patenting ideas that many of use as a matter of course is not the answer. There are more creative ways of battling large corporations. For instance, if Amazon was really concerned with the competition from B&N they could have been honest and explained their situation to all of us. This would have generated far more support than obtaining patents. FYI, I am also aware of large corporations stealing inventions from those less powerful then they are but in todays world it takes a small fortune to obtain a world around patent.In other words there must be another answer(I am still contemplating that).
I tried posting a review but the geniuses at Apple ahve it set up that you can not post reviews of websites until you buy something from the Apple Store. My review of iReview - total hoodwink complete scam. 0 *
Amazon's strategy of protectionism does not fly. Restriction, legislation and litigation never serve the community, the market or any entity which uses them to benefit itself. From what I gleaned from the article, Jeff is being unduly influenced by his lawyers or, Amazon is encountering an internal dearth of ideas brought about by Amazon's corporate investors and their restrictive ideas about the market and what the market means.My approach to this can be summarised as follows. First and foremost the idea of markets being a zero sum game has to go out the window - ideas(including the idea of the marketplace) can only be limited by the beings which create them(us).Secondly, Fear(false evidence appearing real) has never served our species well and obviously Jeff and his company are acting on fear. Thirdly, if Amazon acts confidently and trusts the market,(us),by not involving the government ie.. THE PATENT OFFICE, Amazon will grow steadily in goodwill and green paper.Therefore, rendering Jeff's arguments and his cleverly crafted PR attempt to make him and his company look like the victims null and void.
Just had a strange coincidence, right before coming to Slashdot. I was reading this page
from a pissed off customer
http://cyberreviews.skwc.com/amazon.html
Aside, from that corporations have been ripping of the public for along time using the inept patent
office is just one of the ways. Some excellent observations on how corporations play games with
the law are given by R.Buckminster Fuller
http://www.bfi.org/grunch_of_giants.htm
This is an online book that he wrote in 1982 (old but relevant) his observations and suggestions may be very helpful to us in combating the fleecing of the American public by the inhuman and unfeeling legal
entities called corporations. Like all good things we the people finance the endeavor (the internet/arpanet)(nuclear research) then corporations like Amazon.com come in and rob us of our freedom
and our money by litigating and intimidating all but the most wealthy of us through our archaic and inept government.
Don't get me wrong I do not disagree with you in terms of actually going out and making observations. But, the question is usually what we decide to observe . The question of what,often begins with philosophical and or religous inquiry. Einstein was trying to prove the existance of God through physics. Whats more, theology as I understand, is not just defined by scripture but by rational inquiry into the definition of God and how he ,she it relates to the universe.This is possible without texts. Even more strictly defined theology could be defined as merely "love of God" The term "Ad hominem" has to do with character and it can relate to a group ie ..characters.. plural, as well as an individuali.. character.. singular. Of course it is possible that I am wrong. Also, I did not use theologians as an example of adding to the discussion concerning structure but I refered more to philosophers.BTW, does studying theology make you an expert in theology?
Just to add, some other variables might be considered in calculating the distance of an object from us when using the speed of light as a measurement ie.. what is between us and the star, density of matter etc... how much resitance or inertia is there? Another thing is how the speed of light is derived. ,In the theory of relativity , c is the speed of light when it is in a vacuum .It slows down in water and in other forms of matter In fact some scientists have slowed it down to about 32 mph.
1.Poor ad hominum attacks on philosophers and theologians do not make for sound logic. ,at other times from empirical observation and even ..gasp.. horror,from a profound insight that
2.The universe can not be broken down into purely "if..then" statements, although doing this has been the domain of philosophers for many years just read Kant.
3.Just for demonstration why don't you derive
a mathematical "if and only if " statement from it's equivalent in English. It is rather difficult
but possible.(are language is not very sound in terms of pure logic).
4.Bacon was a well known philosopher and scientist
5.in Science, Math and in the pure mathematical logic
used by proficient philosophers, premises and theories usually begin with
a hunch aka-theorem,hypothesis,conjecture.Sometimes, theorems are derived from questioning
cannot be explained,(very similar to a religous experience).
6.After a scientist has formed belief then method is used
to demonstrate whether the believe is true or not.
7.And yes science can be very dogmatic in defending it's truth. this unfortunately is a quality that seems to be inherent in humanity
-including myself.
My final analysis is that all possibilities must be considered, all viewpoints must be taken into
account and then let the deduction begin or
vice versa start with tabula rosa and fill it up with your observations.But, wholesale rejection of the viewpoints, feelings, thoughts and proofs
of others will only keep one in ignorance.
I speel purty bad to!!
2 - 1 = 2 I can't seem to subtract either.
Sorry to post this again but I did not want to be ignored due to posting anon.
,I believe he was saying that
Thanks
speeling is not my only problem!
I can't add either
In defense of Forge
scientists have been debating amongst themselves
not scientists have been debating with theologians although this does take place.As for your other points definition of some terms may be in order. First look up the word philosopher in the dictionary- it simply means - "love of knowledge". All sciences and many other quests for knowledge have started with
philosophical inquiry.Second, the concept of infinity is impossible for the human mind to grasp
by it's very nature infinity cannot be conceptualized nor proven(yet)by our finite minds.
A good example of this concept is demonstrated by
a Moebius strip or even in programming through infinite recursion.However, these demonstrations do not prove that infinity does not exist.
Third, demonstrate to us and prove that matter is not infinite. I do not believe that anyone knows with any certainty the sum total of matter that exists in the universe, although there has been quite a bit of conjecture concerning this issue.
Fourth, the discovery of objects further from
us in the universe can provide empirical proof of various theories concerning the universe, it's nature etc...ad infinitum(please pardon the pun).Finally, these discoveries help to illuminate the structure and
physical nature of the univers as opposed to the
metaphysical nature of the universe.Another thing-
if we have actually seen the begiining of the unviverse could you reproduce a picture of this event for us you may well be on your way to a Nobel Prize.
I speel purty bad to!!
Linux? I don't even know how to use \. yet. ha ha, ,I found has a
But, all joking aside, I am fairly new to the world of using computers to the point of obsession. Maybe
my computer love must have been latent? Any how, I have only been using computers on a regular
basis for about 6 months and I must say in defense of Linux that it was fairly easy for me to obtain it - Slackware 7.0(ZIPslack) through ftp at cdrom.com
and install it . I merely followed instructions.
I still have not installed a GUI for my system yet
but I do have access to the internet through an external Data Best modem that was going to be trashed.(my new system
winmodem). Besides I enjoy learning about my system from the bottom up so the Bash shell is fast becoming my friend.Point being - A relative novice with a minimal amount of knowledge
and a Diy attitude can switch operating systems with relative ease.