Yes, I do...but I also understand that "that's the way things work."
I think we have to play the "game" to be competitive. We don't have to be unethical. (Hard but possible) We can use the system to put better choices in front of Gvmt.
I've just come to realize that it's just the way things are...I still try to change them, but I don't hold my breath. When I have to work with a system that is corrupt, I try to do it honestly, and ethically, but inside the system where possible. Your chances of success from outside the system are distinctly limited.
The powers/existance of Non-Persons [Corps] should also be reduced or even eliminated. Just like the constitution/founding fathers intended.
If power was only vested in the individual, then the imbalance and over-reaching of Gvmt could be smaller. There will still be power imbalance problems from very powerful/wealthy individuals, but it would be easier to deal with.
I find your stand that Gvmt exercises control over corps in an unconstitional manner. In fact, the constitution hardly even allows for the existance of corp entities. Esp not in their context today - so what's unconstitional? The corps themselves, or Gvmt streaching to control/milk $$ from said corp?
I don't work for Gvmt, and don't think I ever will... I compare this to say, Verizon or Qwest. The techs/trench people are mostly pretty great. The problems lies at the top of the food chain. If we fixed [read ELIMINATE] the stupid PHB's at the top, the organization would run lots better.
Same with Gvmt. Politics is a corrupt game. The people who ultimately make the decisions, are in turn impacted by getting elected, and generating campaign contributions. That makes for bad legislation, and general apathey for those below, as they see the mess generated.
I think Gvmt has a purpose, and an important one. I just with the political system above the Gvmt was more representative and responsive to the average joe. The one without lots of dough to give!
The Linux we all know and love, the notion of free [beer/speech] Linux won't make it by itself, that's because the Political system responds to money and power. Linux won't cut it there... But pair Linux to some big biz with big bucks. and it might happen....
The political system only responds to those who have money. Think of it this way. You're a senator or congressman or pres/vp or state elected official. You need money to stay in your job - a job you really wanted, else you wouldn't have gone through the hassle to get in the first place. Now, to get money, you have to be a "good" investment. (An aside - these rules are more true for higher $ political races, and apply less and less as the job gets "smaller")
Now, Corp A or Very Rich Man B want to give you money - why? - because they want an investment vehicle. These "investors" will continue to invest only as long as you make a return for them. If they find someone who offers better returns, they'll invest elsewhere.
So, you only have so much time or influence. If you value your job, you'll maximize your return (campaign contributions) by maximizing the return on your biggest job security people (the people who donate the most money).
So in base, if you're not able to play with the big boys (big contributors) your chance of making a difference is very small. I would suggest that that only way you will, is if you are unopposed by a moneyied (sp) interest. If you are on the opposing side of an issue against a interest with money, and you don't have money, or nearly as much, just kiss it goodbye.
So, we have to pair Linux to IBM or others who will play the money political game, we can win. But that will probably end up changing Linux to some degree too.
It's sort of like a pact with the devil. I say go for it, and try to keep Linux true to its' ideals.
I agree that MS has basically won the Desktop war. But, where you and I may disagree, is that MS will take it's win in the desktop environ, and leverage it to win in other markets.
Do any of you remember, Paradox was the best DOS & Windows PC database around. Then MS got access and office 4.3 and 95 out the door. They got the OEM's to ship the software "free" (leverage) and MS Office became the defacto standard. (By the way, there are lots of other stories just like this one, I just offer this up for example.) Paradox disappeared! Sure, the WP/Novell/Corel/Borland disaster didn't help things, but the DB never disappeard, it was always available. In fact, the language behind Paradox (follow-on to PAL) has to be the most sophisticated scripting/programming language I've ever seen in a desktop DB. It's still light-years ahead of Access. [But I digress...]
We have to challange MS in some fashion that will prevent it from leveraging it's stanglehold elsewhere. How to do that, I am not sure. We must be sure not to fight the last war, and loose.
The PC isn't going away, sure there will be lots of specific use devices, and breaking the MS monopoly there is VERY important, but we have to also respond on the Desktop too.
As to not "being hyper-focused on beating Microsoft today" - I agree. I could really care less about MS. All I really want is decent competition. If RH/Linux (I'm sure that made RMS's skin crawl!) becomes the next standard, and they have no competition, it's be as sad as MS is now. But, beating MS is a means to and end. By beating MS, there is a window opened that allows many options to actually become options. That's the point.
Anyway, good post, I do agree with most of the points. To reiterate, we have to break the monopoly to be able to really offer a competitive alternative. To do so, I think will have to be challenged on the desktop. It might not be a direct challange, but it will have to even out the playing field. Is that Linux, or some other alternative? I don't know, I just know that there's going to have to be some decent, realistic, and viable alternative otherwise, we'll be saddled with MS for a LONG time to come.
We just have white devout Christian men who aren't even willing to die for their beliefs. They just park a truck in front of the building and run away. Or white Christian men who shoot doctors and clinic workers. Again, not willing to sacrifice themselves.
Frankly, I have more respect for the Muslims...
So, crank up that profile machine and cavity search every white christian man!
And how do you think they came up with the statistical methodology? They didn't. Someone most likely just "guesses" what the score for different behavior uses.
We're not told what method they use, but I suspect that there isn't too much data that they can statistically model to get there.
So, we're just to trust that those "guesses" won't be too bad, and that they're fair.
We trusted the police to be "fair" in traffic stops and drug stops. They weren't. Now I see you advocating a similar position now, on the basis that these checks are different - they're statistically valid - bah - might be, but I'm not holding my breath.
[Then]
You're allowed to participate in the Gvmt if you're a friend of the King.
[Now]
You're allowed to actually influence the Gvmt if you're rich friend of the Pres/Congress.
The point was that revolution/revolt was what they did. We like to pick on others and claim that we need to work the system. The system tends to reinforce the powers of those in power. Breaking that cycle is very difficult. I don't agree with the subject of the story we're posting about, but when others come and pipe up "you can change the system" - I think this is a foolish position. Sure you can, but it's horrendously difficult. The system is stacked, but if you have enough outrage, you have a chance. That only means that if you're the majority, or you can elicit the sympathy of the majority, you get something done.
Revolution occurs when the opression get so bad that looking your life over change looks like an even trade. We're not there yet, but gaining fast. Another facet is that _we_ (the US) effect others too, and that our effect on them may spawn revolution against us. (i.e. Russian/China/Bin Laden/Name your own whacko or not so whacko group here decides that the US is too self centered, and needs to be taught a lesson...
There are some examples of non-revolution style reforms, but they're by far the minority, and the actual change is usually not that great. Blacks will say that MLK changed the system, but that it still has vast problems for blacks in general. There were many who thought that revolution would have been better.
Zapatistas? Oh, the ones who are being supressed with the US "drug interdiction" aid we're giving Mexico? The ones who haven't seen much improvement in their lifestyle?
Basically, I think our country is screwed. It may be the best around, but still, it's a 6/10. I would like to see a more honest and responsive system.
How about the _MAJORITY_ of Americans that think the Bush administration is hiding things on Enron? Is that making them "open" up?
How about the millions of people who want campaign finance reform - any significant effect there - not much.
I'll bet when Phil Knight (a resident of my state - i.e. Nike) writes or calls our senators/house members he gets a response. I recently wrote all my senators and house members, and didn't get a SINGLE response. (faxed, so it got there - not lost with the antrax thing.)
In fact, when I called Gordon Smith, I got to speak with a staff member who carried on other conversations _WHILE I WAS TALKING TO HER ON THE PHONE_! If you think that this happens to those who have the resources to sit in their offices and donate significant cash, I want some of what you're smoking.
You don't think that people with money (lots of it) get to make more than their proportional (i.e. one vote) worth of changes? I'll tell you what - these people and corporations are not stupid. They expect return on their investment. And campaign contributions are an investment. If they don't get return, the stockholders should fire them - and I assure you that they do get their return.
I'd like to see you propose a better standardized scale than how much money you have.
How about the one our founders thought should apply. One vote, one person. There weren't great political PAC's that gave huge contributions to politicians. There weren't lobbyists, which by the way outnumber by a factor of 4 the legislators.
I didn't say that the system wasn't the way the people wanted it. I think we're a corrupt nation. We voted for Clinton and Regan - the most corrupt manipulative presidents in recent history that come to mind. We don't care if our Gvmt goes and screws over some other nation, as long as it lines our pockets. Sure, we've got the Gvmt that we deserve. But I don't think it's right, and I would like to see it change.
Part of the difficulty in seeing change, is that systems like "he who has the most money has the most influence" just make it even harder to get a system that is rational.
As for the colonies - sure we don't have colonies. We have something better. We exploit contries like China (and other low wage nations) to make goods for us, so we can import them back into our nation and make a killing. Or how about Bopal (sp) India. An American chemical company had a massive accident that killed many many Indians. If that isn't just as bad as the Brits, I must be missing something. It's just a different structure. Instead of the Official Gvmt opressing those with less power, it's the un-official Gvmt (those who virtually control what the government does) who are opressing others. I don't claim to be blame free either - I enjoy Levi's dockers that are made be people really cheap, and exploited by Levi's, and Nike sneakers that do the same. But I do try to do what's right when I can. It again makes it very difficult when you have additional obstacles in your path - campain finance reform is one of them!
Change is VERY difficult for the common man...Why? Money! That's why.
The political system only responds to those who have money. Think of it this way. You're a senator or congressman or pres/vp or state elected official. You need money to stay in your job - a job you really wanted, else you wouldn't have gone through the hassle to get in the first place. Now, to get money, you have to be a "good" investment. (An aside - these rules are more true for higher $ political races, and apply less and less as the job gets "smaller")
Now, Corp A or Very Rich Man B want to give you money - why? - because they want an investment vehicle. These "investors" will continue to invest only as long as you make a return for them. If they find someone who offers better returns, they'll invest elsewhere.
So, you only have so much time or influence. If you value your job, you'll maximize your return (campaign contributions) by maximizing the return on your biggest job security people (the people who donate the most money).
So in base, if you're not able to play with the big boys (big contributors) your chance of making a difference is very small. I would suggest that that only way you will, is if you are unopposed by a moneyied (sp) interest. If you are on the opposing side of an issue against a interest with money, and you don't have money, or nearly as much, just kiss it goodbye.
That's why this stance makes no sense. (I would also agree that the style of rebellion shown by the subject of the story is foolhardy too.) But I can sense the frustration both of myself and others who find that the premise that "you can change the system" is really a bunch of bunk. Monied interests can change the system. If millions of people are ready to stone their congressman, then they can change the system. Anything else from the public side short of that outrage will not!
Lastly,
You DO NOT have the right to break other laws and vandalize other peoples property in the name of your protected speech.
And what do you call the Boston Tea Party? These were the people who became the founding fathers of our nation (provided we're both US citizens) and they found vandalism an acceptable response. (It's interesting how we portray our fight against the Brits in such a noble light - we were a bunch of whiners who didn't want to pay, and rebelled against the Brit gvmt. Sure they were heavy handed and brutal, but can't you see that our government is the same to both it's citizens and those of other countries. It's also ironic how when we do it, it's protecting our interests, but when others do it, it's terrorism. Think the Shaw of Iran, Guatemela, School of the Americas etc.)
Just some food for thought - obviously I won't get mod points for it!
Very good statement...It's really simple isn't it.
But we here in the USA _MUST_ consume to "right" the acts of those _EVIL_ people! Right?!
Virtually our whole culture is based on consumption. That drives things like telemarketing and SPAM. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't fight such things, but it probably means that we are not going to win such battles.
Is it just me, or do your communication skills suck? (Sorry, that's probably too harsh, but your ideas are not clearly explained or organized...)
To answer your questions...comments...
What are ARTS?
The public benefit is that at the end of the LIMITED TIME, the Arts and Sciences are now public domain.
Thus XP will eventually be public domain, so will the GIF file format etc.
Yes, I do agree that the limited time has been extended, when it should have actually been shortened if anything - but the basic problem is that the view is on the creator, not the public. If legislators viewed this as for the public, we would have better laws! This applies in many other areas, as the legislative and executive and to a lesser degress the judicial branch only responds to $$$ - directly of indirectly.
The whole idea of a copywright is so that if someone write a report or something then they can copywright it and if you use their ideas you are supposed to reference them. Copywright was made for documents like books and publications. We've since taken it to a bad place.
From the US Constitution
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
This doesn't give a right to the author and/or inventor for the inventor's benefit. It's for the public benefit. The incentive to benefit the public is an exclusive right for a _LIMITED_ time.
The framers of the constitution knew that we need to benefit the author to benefit the public, but we must not loose sight that the purpose is TO BENEFIT THE PUBLIC by "promote(ing) the Progress of Science and useful Arts"
Putting security into a system that lacks it in the first place is a hurclean task. (This has been said here by others already)
Putting together a team that really "values" security, and structures the programming and QA and testing of software, is a long and difficult task too.
Sure, I don't doubt that MS _could_ impliment these things. But they're not flashy - you don't get to "sell" anything based on this strategy for a _long_ time, and it doesn't really help you beat any competitor until you can show it works.
Thus, I predict that if MS isn't just using a marketing play and claiming that security is the next big thing - we'll have it "real soon now", it will be hard to stay the course. Thus, if I were a betting man, I woudn't bet on MS actually pulling it off successfully. Sure they might, but I'm not holding my breath, or waiting for MS to provide a secure solution, as opposed to anyone else that already is...
No physical harm, I just sprayed ink everywhere - I didn't intend to do so...
That still doesn't absolve me of liability!
I crashed into your car on the highway, but I didn't intend to do so...does that absolve me of liability?
Didn't think so...
The rub is "regular sane coding"
To me regular sane coding is a rigourously tested and developed product. Not, "Oh we threw some code together, did a bit o'testing and released it to the public..."
Sure, we bury that cost in the books somewhere, and act as though it's [delete "not"] a cost of supporting the business, rather than a direct cost of supporting the product.
Also
(ie. killing off viruses that should [add "not"]have been possible in the first place, fixing crashes etc...)
Don't you think that insecure software costs alot too?
Using the example, who bears the costs for the virus outbreaks on MS products? The user - that's a big cost for business too.
Sure, we bury that cost in the books somewhere, and act as though it's not a cost of supporting the business, rather than a direct cost of supporting the product.
Sure Windows might cost more if it wasn't so vulnerable, but that increase in initial purchase price would be offset by decreased costs in supporting it (ie. killing off viruses that should have been possible in the first place, fixing crashes etc...)
That doesn't mean we won't have viruses, but it would at least increase MS's concern that without doing some due dilligence in making it more difficult to create and spread virueses, the company would be liable in court for damages -
Fine, but the courts will decide based on a "reasonable man" test.
That's what a jury and presentation of evidence is for. If as you say...
I just bought this lawnmower, but it was light enough to move around and somehow I pushed it down the hill into my fishpond and... I want my money back, and I'm sueing you for the loss of fish!"
...the jury would be very likely to say...No the manufacturer didn't produce a defective product, thus you're not injured, and no you don't get compensation.
TaDa! The system works as designed. Sure, there are problems in the civil justice system. But should we deny everyone the right to seek justice when there are a few miscarrages in justice?
That smacks me as really fair. There are problems, and sometimes the defendant or plaintiff are wronged - thus the solution is to prevent any plaintiff from seeking redress?!
Sheesh, I would presume that you're smarter than that!
These changes in the law just allow for civil actions.
Your free speech rights to slander me are limited - was congress and and founding fathers on crack when they alowed me to sue you for civil damages if you slandered me?
This doesn't do anything of the sort (Limits free speech). As I have already posted - it allows the tort system to help regulate faulty products. This is a check and balance in the free market system.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I do...but I also understand that "that's the way things work."
I think we have to play the "game" to be competitive. We don't have to be unethical. (Hard but possible) We can use the system to put better choices in front of Gvmt.
I've just come to realize that it's just the way things are...I still try to change them, but I don't hold my breath. When I have to work with a system that is corrupt, I try to do it honestly, and ethically, but inside the system where possible. Your chances of success from outside the system are distinctly limited.
The powers/existance of Non-Persons [Corps] should also be reduced or even eliminated. Just like the constitution/founding fathers intended.
If power was only vested in the individual, then the imbalance and over-reaching of Gvmt could be smaller. There will still be power imbalance problems from very powerful/wealthy individuals, but it would be easier to deal with.
I find your stand that Gvmt exercises control over corps in an unconstitional manner. In fact, the constitution hardly even allows for the existance of corp entities. Esp not in their context today - so what's unconstitional? The corps themselves, or Gvmt streaching to control/milk $$ from said corp?
Cheers!
I agree...
I don't work for Gvmt, and don't think I ever will... I compare this to say, Verizon or Qwest. The techs/trench people are mostly pretty great. The problems lies at the top of the food chain. If we fixed [read ELIMINATE] the stupid PHB's at the top, the organization would run lots better.
Same with Gvmt. Politics is a corrupt game. The people who ultimately make the decisions, are in turn impacted by getting elected, and generating campaign contributions. That makes for bad legislation, and general apathey for those below, as they see the mess generated.
I think Gvmt has a purpose, and an important one. I just with the political system above the Gvmt was more representative and responsive to the average joe. The one without lots of dough to give!
Cheers!
I've said this before, but here goes again...
The Linux we all know and love, the notion of free [beer/speech] Linux won't make it by itself, that's because the Political system responds to money and power. Linux won't cut it there... But pair Linux to some big biz with big bucks. and it might happen....
The political system only responds to those who have money. Think of it this way. You're a senator or congressman or pres/vp or state elected official. You need money to stay in your job - a job you really wanted, else you wouldn't have gone through the hassle to get in the first place. Now, to get money, you have to be a "good" investment. (An aside - these rules are more true for higher $ political races, and apply less and less as the job gets "smaller")
Now, Corp A or Very Rich Man B want to give you money - why? - because they want an investment vehicle. These "investors" will continue to invest only as long as you make a return for them. If they find someone who offers better returns, they'll invest elsewhere.
So, you only have so much time or influence. If you value your job, you'll maximize your return (campaign contributions) by maximizing the return on your biggest job security people (the people who donate the most money).
So in base, if you're not able to play with the big boys (big contributors) your chance of making a difference is very small. I would suggest that that only way you will, is if you are unopposed by a moneyied (sp) interest. If you are on the opposing side of an issue against a interest with money, and you don't have money, or nearly as much, just kiss it goodbye.
So, we have to pair Linux to IBM or others who will play the money political game, we can win. But that will probably end up changing Linux to some degree too.
It's sort of like a pact with the devil. I say go for it, and try to keep Linux true to its' ideals.
Cheers!
I agree that MS has basically won the Desktop war. But, where you and I may disagree, is that MS will take it's win in the desktop environ, and leverage it to win in other markets.
Do any of you remember, Paradox was the best DOS & Windows PC database around. Then MS got access and office 4.3 and 95 out the door. They got the OEM's to ship the software "free" (leverage) and MS Office became the defacto standard. (By the way, there are lots of other stories just like this one, I just offer this up for example.) Paradox disappeared! Sure, the WP/Novell/Corel/Borland disaster didn't help things, but the DB never disappeard, it was always available. In fact, the language behind Paradox (follow-on to PAL) has to be the most sophisticated scripting/programming language I've ever seen in a desktop DB. It's still light-years ahead of Access. [But I digress...]
We have to challange MS in some fashion that will prevent it from leveraging it's stanglehold elsewhere. How to do that, I am not sure. We must be sure not to fight the last war, and loose.
The PC isn't going away, sure there will be lots of specific use devices, and breaking the MS monopoly there is VERY important, but we have to also respond on the Desktop too.
As to not "being hyper-focused on beating Microsoft today" - I agree. I could really care less about MS. All I really want is decent competition. If RH/Linux (I'm sure that made RMS's skin crawl!) becomes the next standard, and they have no competition, it's be as sad as MS is now. But, beating MS is a means to and end. By beating MS, there is a window opened that allows many options to actually become options. That's the point.
Anyway, good post, I do agree with most of the points. To reiterate, we have to break the monopoly to be able to really offer a competitive alternative. To do so, I think will have to be challenged on the desktop. It might not be a direct challange, but it will have to even out the playing field. Is that Linux, or some other alternative? I don't know, I just know that there's going to have to be some decent, realistic, and viable alternative otherwise, we'll be saddled with MS for a LONG time to come.
Cheers!
What? Sheesh!
We just have white devout Christian men who aren't even willing to die for their beliefs. They just park a truck in front of the building and run away. Or white Christian men who shoot doctors and clinic workers. Again, not willing to sacrifice themselves.
Frankly, I have more respect for the Muslims...
So, crank up that profile machine and cavity search every white christian man!
[I am a white christian man by the way...]
Cheers!
And how do you think they came up with the statistical methodology? They didn't. Someone most likely just "guesses" what the score for different behavior uses.
We're not told what method they use, but I suspect that there isn't too much data that they can statistically model to get there.
So, we're just to trust that those "guesses" won't be too bad, and that they're fair.
We trusted the police to be "fair" in traffic stops and drug stops. They weren't. Now I see you advocating a similar position now, on the basis that these checks are different - they're statistically valid - bah - might be, but I'm not holding my breath.
Cheers!
[Then]
You're allowed to participate in the Gvmt if you're a friend of the King.
[Now]
You're allowed to actually influence the Gvmt if you're rich friend of the Pres/Congress.
The point was that revolution/revolt was what they did. We like to pick on others and claim that we need to work the system. The system tends to reinforce the powers of those in power. Breaking that cycle is very difficult. I don't agree with the subject of the story we're posting about, but when others come and pipe up "you can change the system" - I think this is a foolish position. Sure you can, but it's horrendously difficult. The system is stacked, but if you have enough outrage, you have a chance. That only means that if you're the majority, or you can elicit the sympathy of the majority, you get something done.
Revolution occurs when the opression get so bad that looking your life over change looks like an even trade. We're not there yet, but gaining fast. Another facet is that _we_ (the US) effect others too, and that our effect on them may spawn revolution against us. (i.e. Russian/China/Bin Laden/Name your own whacko or not so whacko group here decides that the US is too self centered, and needs to be taught a lesson...
There are some examples of non-revolution style reforms, but they're by far the minority, and the actual change is usually not that great. Blacks will say that MLK changed the system, but that it still has vast problems for blacks in general. There were many who thought that revolution would have been better.
Zapatistas? Oh, the ones who are being supressed with the US "drug interdiction" aid we're giving Mexico? The ones who haven't seen much improvement in their lifestyle?
Basically, I think our country is screwed. It may be the best around, but still, it's a 6/10. I would like to see a more honest and responsive system.
Cheers!
if you have a history of drinking, lying and cheating you won't be going into space anytime soon
And I guess that rules out most of America...
How about the _MAJORITY_ of Americans that think the Bush administration is hiding things on Enron? Is that making them "open" up?
How about the millions of people who want campaign finance reform - any significant effect there - not much.
I'll bet when Phil Knight (a resident of my state - i.e. Nike) writes or calls our senators/house members he gets a response. I recently wrote all my senators and house members, and didn't get a SINGLE response. (faxed, so it got there - not lost with the antrax thing.)
In fact, when I called Gordon Smith, I got to speak with a staff member who carried on other conversations _WHILE I WAS TALKING TO HER ON THE PHONE_! If you think that this happens to those who have the resources to sit in their offices and donate significant cash, I want some of what you're smoking.
You don't think that people with money (lots of it) get to make more than their proportional (i.e. one vote) worth of changes? I'll tell you what - these people and corporations are not stupid. They expect return on their investment. And campaign contributions are an investment. If they don't get return, the stockholders should fire them - and I assure you that they do get their return.
I'd like to see you propose a better standardized scale than how much money you have.
How about the one our founders thought should apply. One vote, one person. There weren't great political PAC's that gave huge contributions to politicians. There weren't lobbyists, which by the way outnumber by a factor of 4 the legislators.
I didn't say that the system wasn't the way the people wanted it. I think we're a corrupt nation. We voted for Clinton and Regan - the most corrupt manipulative presidents in recent history that come to mind. We don't care if our Gvmt goes and screws over some other nation, as long as it lines our pockets. Sure, we've got the Gvmt that we deserve. But I don't think it's right, and I would like to see it change.
Part of the difficulty in seeing change, is that systems like "he who has the most money has the most influence" just make it even harder to get a system that is rational.
As for the colonies - sure we don't have colonies. We have something better. We exploit contries like China (and other low wage nations) to make goods for us, so we can import them back into our nation and make a killing. Or how about Bopal (sp) India. An American chemical company had a massive accident that killed many many Indians. If that isn't just as bad as the Brits, I must be missing something. It's just a different structure. Instead of the Official Gvmt opressing those with less power, it's the un-official Gvmt (those who virtually control what the government does) who are opressing others. I don't claim to be blame free either - I enjoy Levi's dockers that are made be people really cheap, and exploited by Levi's, and Nike sneakers that do the same. But I do try to do what's right when I can. It again makes it very difficult when you have additional obstacles in your path - campain finance reform is one of them!
Again, a simple retort...
Sure, anyone has a chance...but not an equal one.
If you start out with 1,000,000 it's a whole lot easier to get an additional 1,000,000 than from 0.
Why? Contacts. Social structure, social knowhow and lots of other things.
I don't have a great solution to fix things here, but I don't pretend that there aren't any problems with the current structure as it is.
The world isn't fair, and we should _TRY_ to make it more fair, even if it isn't to our own benefit. Everyone does better when the rules are neutral.
You're a bit niave...
Change is VERY difficult for the common man...Why? Money! That's why.
The political system only responds to those who have money. Think of it this way. You're a senator or congressman or pres/vp or state elected official. You need money to stay in your job - a job you really wanted, else you wouldn't have gone through the hassle to get in the first place. Now, to get money, you have to be a "good" investment. (An aside - these rules are more true for higher $ political races, and apply less and less as the job gets "smaller")
Now, Corp A or Very Rich Man B want to give you money - why? - because they want an investment vehicle. These "investors" will continue to invest only as long as you make a return for them. If they find someone who offers better returns, they'll invest elsewhere.
So, you only have so much time or influence. If you value your job, you'll maximize your return (campaign contributions) by maximizing the return on your biggest job security people (the people who donate the most money).
So in base, if you're not able to play with the big boys (big contributors) your chance of making a difference is very small. I would suggest that that only way you will, is if you are unopposed by a moneyied (sp) interest. If you are on the opposing side of an issue against a interest with money, and you don't have money, or nearly as much, just kiss it goodbye.
That's why this stance makes no sense. (I would also agree that the style of rebellion shown by the subject of the story is foolhardy too.) But I can sense the frustration both of myself and others who find that the premise that "you can change the system" is really a bunch of bunk. Monied interests can change the system. If millions of people are ready to stone their congressman, then they can change the system. Anything else from the public side short of that outrage will not!
Lastly,
You DO NOT have the right to break other laws and vandalize other peoples property in the name of your protected speech.
And what do you call the Boston Tea Party? These were the people who became the founding fathers of our nation (provided we're both US citizens) and they found vandalism an acceptable response. (It's interesting how we portray our fight against the Brits in such a noble light - we were a bunch of whiners who didn't want to pay, and rebelled against the Brit gvmt. Sure they were heavy handed and brutal, but can't you see that our government is the same to both it's citizens and those of other countries. It's also ironic how when we do it, it's protecting our interests, but when others do it, it's terrorism. Think the Shaw of Iran, Guatemela, School of the Americas etc.)
Just some food for thought - obviously I won't get mod points for it!
Cheers!
Very good statement...It's really simple isn't it.
But we here in the USA _MUST_ consume to "right" the acts of those _EVIL_ people! Right?!
Virtually our whole culture is based on consumption. That drives things like telemarketing and SPAM. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't fight such things, but it probably means that we are not going to win such battles.
[Sigh]
Cheers!
Ha, You're right - sheesh, am I stupid or what! [Grin]
I am going to check this in the dictionary right now...
I did intend _Loose_, but as you have pointed out, I meant lose...
At least I didn't screw up too/to/two or through/though though!
Thanks [even though you are an anal retentive pinhead]! [VBG]
Cheers!
Is it just me, or do your communication skills suck? (Sorry, that's probably too harsh, but your ideas are not clearly explained or organized...)
To answer your questions...comments...
What are ARTS?
The public benefit is that at the end of the LIMITED TIME, the Arts and Sciences are now public domain.
Thus XP will eventually be public domain, so will the GIF file format etc.
Yes, I do agree that the limited time has been extended, when it should have actually been shortened if anything - but the basic problem is that the view is on the creator, not the public. If legislators viewed this as for the public, we would have better laws! This applies in many other areas, as the legislative and executive and to a lesser degress the judicial branch only responds to $$$ - directly of indirectly.
The whole idea of a copywright is so that if someone write a report or something then they can copywright it and if you use their ideas you are supposed to reference them. Copywright was made for documents like books and publications. We've since taken it to a bad place.
From the US Constitution
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
This doesn't give a right to the author and/or inventor for the inventor's benefit. It's for the public benefit. The incentive to benefit the public is an exclusive right for a _LIMITED_ time.
The framers of the constitution knew that we need to benefit the author to benefit the public, but we must not loose sight that the purpose is TO BENEFIT THE PUBLIC by "promote(ing) the Progress of Science and useful Arts"
Putting security into a system that lacks it in the first place is a hurclean task. (This has been said here by others already)
Putting together a team that really "values" security, and structures the programming and QA and testing of software, is a long and difficult task too.
Sure, I don't doubt that MS _could_ impliment these things. But they're not flashy - you don't get to "sell" anything based on this strategy for a _long_ time, and it doesn't really help you beat any competitor until you can show it works.
Thus, I predict that if MS isn't just using a marketing play and claiming that security is the next big thing - we'll have it "real soon now", it will be hard to stay the course. Thus, if I were a betting man, I woudn't bet on MS actually pulling it off successfully. Sure they might, but I'm not holding my breath, or waiting for MS to provide a secure solution, as opposed to anyone else that already is...
Uh, that would be WiSdom... {sigh}
Widom lurks above!
I like the post...too bad I don't have points to grant!
Thanks for the clairity!
No physical harm, I just sprayed ink everywhere - I didn't intend to do so...
That still doesn't absolve me of liability!
I crashed into your car on the highway, but I didn't intend to do so...does that absolve me of liability?
Didn't think so...
The rub is "regular sane coding"
To me regular sane coding is a rigourously tested and developed product. Not, "Oh we threw some code together, did a bit o'testing and released it to the public..."
A couple of typo's I noticed -
Sure, we bury that cost in the books somewhere, and act as though it's [delete "not"] a cost of supporting the business, rather than a direct cost of supporting the product.
Also
(ie. killing off viruses that should [add "not"]have been possible in the first place, fixing crashes etc...)
Don't you think that insecure software costs alot too?
Using the example, who bears the costs for the virus outbreaks on MS products? The user - that's a big cost for business too.
Sure, we bury that cost in the books somewhere, and act as though it's not a cost of supporting the business, rather than a direct cost of supporting the product.
Sure Windows might cost more if it wasn't so vulnerable, but that increase in initial purchase price would be offset by decreased costs in supporting it (ie. killing off viruses that should have been possible in the first place, fixing crashes etc...)
That doesn't mean we won't have viruses, but it would at least increase MS's concern that without doing some due dilligence in making it more difficult to create and spread virueses, the company would be liable in court for damages -
All in all, I think this is a good thing!
Fine, but the courts will decide based on a "reasonable man" test.
That's what a jury and presentation of evidence is for. If as you say...
I just bought this lawnmower, but it was light enough to move around and somehow I pushed it down the hill into my fishpond and... I want my money back, and I'm sueing you for the loss of fish!"
...the jury would be very likely to say...No the manufacturer didn't produce a defective product, thus you're not injured, and no you don't get compensation.
TaDa! The system works as designed. Sure, there are problems in the civil justice system. But should we deny everyone the right to seek justice when there are a few miscarrages in justice?
That smacks me as really fair. There are problems, and sometimes the defendant or plaintiff are wronged - thus the solution is to prevent any plaintiff from seeking redress?!
Sheesh, I would presume that you're smarter than that!
Don't I have the right to make childrens toys that explode and spray staining ink all over the place?
Sure, and you have the obligation to also stand trial in a CIVIL court to pay for damages caused by your product.
Same with software - if it doesn't do what it's supposed to do, and it causes damages, you're liable! That's not a restriction of speech at all!
Oh my - DID YOU READ THE ARTICLE?
These changes in the law just allow for civil actions.
Your free speech rights to slander me are limited - was congress and and founding fathers on crack when they alowed me to sue you for civil damages if you slandered me?
This doesn't do anything of the sort (Limits free speech). As I have already posted - it allows the tort system to help regulate faulty products. This is a check and balance in the free market system.
SHEESH!