Would a couple of Brittany Spaniels work instead? They're all I've got, and I've always wanted to go take over a country and then I can make it a total capitalist republic.
Bah...it's not worth it. This is Slashdot. The concepts of "personal responsibility" and "private property" are totally nonexistent. The vast majority of posters here are collectivist socialists who refuse to accept the fact that just because someone is more intelligent, diligent, and successful than they are doesn't mean that they automatically give up their rights and make themselves slaves to the incompetent masses.
After seeing your topic I made a decision not to read your post; however, I have an idea of what point you're trying to make and I will respond to that. As long as the other party is forewarned that a certain action will constitute agreeing to the agreement and all of its terms (as you did with your topic) then he is rightfully bound by the terms set forth.
So Bill Gates can arrest me if I don't send my children to his schools? So Larry Ellison can deny me a driver's license if I refuse to be drafted at any moment to support his cause? So Ted Turner can hang cameras in my bedroom whenever he pleases?
If you want a brand-name computer, you've got to buy it under the terms offered to you. If you don't want to buy a computer with Windows pre-installed, then you have options--including the one you stated above, or the option to not use a computer period. It's your own decision. You just have to decide what's more important to you.
You're free to choose not to purchase an Explorer, or to stop driving it at any time.
M$, however, has already been ruled a monopoly.
I could go on forever about that. Regardless of what the courts say, Microsoft is not a monopoly, and even if it were--so what? Why should ability be punished?
You're ignoring the fact that you're free to choose not to use any Microsoft products at all if you want. If you do, you've got to do it under the terms they offer--it's only just.
All antitrust law is about is protecting people from the consequences of their own decisions--something they should not be protected from.
The creator of a product has the moral right to offer his product under whatever terms he wishes. If a potential consumer of that product decides that he does not like those terms, he is free to choose not to use the product in question.
Actually, that's moot because I drive a Dodge Ram:)
But, to answer your point, that's pretty much what I'd do. I am responsible for what I do. It is my responsibility to educate myself about whatever I do before I do it so I can make an informed decision about it. If I choose not to educate myself about the possible consequences, well, too bad for me.
What do ypu expect from Californians? As I said in another post, California is the state that has "effectively done away with the concept of individual responsibility."
1) Fair use means just that--you have the right to reproduce copyrighted works in a "fair" manner as prescribed by law. That doesn't mean that the publishers have to facilitate such reproduction--just that if you are able to reproduce the work, you have the right to do so for certain "fair" uses as prescribed law.
2) Even if these CDs do damage or destroy hardware--so what? It's your own fault for using them in there. No one forced you to buy them, and no one forced you to put them in your computer's CD-ROM drive. But then again, what do you expect from California, the state that has effectively done away with the concept of "individual responsibility".
Because mass-producing and mass-marketing an album costs quite a bit of money. If the artist were to hire the record company, the artist would have to pay those costs out-of-pocket up front, which generally isn't feasible. But when the record company hires the artist, then those initial costs can be paid out of the record company's budget, and then the revenues can be distributed among the record company and artist per the terms of the agreement (which, many people forget, was VOLUNTARILY signed by the record company).
Actually, that's another thing that pisses me off about this. Everyone complains about how the artists only get a very small percentage of the profits from sales of their works, but what they forget is that the artists AGREED to that percentage--and if they agreed to it voluntarily, they must be happy with it, and it's no one else's business.
What you forget, though, is that the vast majority of Internet users (myself included) are still using POTS for their connection, and frankly, that's not likely to change anytime soon. Downloading mp3's (or any other audio format) at any decent sound quality whatsoever takes a LONG time for those people, and often ties up the telephone line for more important uses. Once you get past that, you also have the problem that computers aren't terribly portable. Standalone MP3 players are prohibitively expensive, and you (generally) can't hook them up to your car or home stereo system without considerable modifications.
Without the record companies, you wouldn't have ever heard of any of the artists you listen to today. The costs involved in producing and massively distributing an album are so high that no startup band could ever hope to afford them. Your local garage band may be able to produce a record or two in their garage, and then distribute it to a couple of local stores, but without the financial backing of a major record company, they have precisely a snowball's chance in Hell of distributing nationwide.
We would all be speaking german by now if you nutbags had been in control during WWII, Amen the isolationits where shutup before things went even futher down the tube.
Germany never invaded the US; if it had, the response would have been umpteen times larger than when Japan did.
We would all be speaking german by now if you nutbags had been in control during WWII,
So? That doesn't make sticking our nose where it doesn't belong right. What is right must always be done, regardless of the results.
Amen the isolationits where shutup before things went even futher down the tube.
And the goal of a republic is to ensure that government is properly limited in its powers and scope.
Slashdot Mirror
Once someone, anyone, even 5 guys and a hound dog
Would a couple of Brittany Spaniels work instead? They're all I've got, and I've always wanted to go take over a country and then I can make it a total capitalist republic.
I beg you, tell me what rights are being violated in the supermarket incident you described.
Bah...it's not worth it. This is Slashdot. The concepts of "personal responsibility" and "private property" are totally nonexistent. The vast majority of posters here are collectivist socialists who refuse to accept the fact that just because someone is more intelligent, diligent, and successful than they are doesn't mean that they automatically give up their rights and make themselves slaves to the incompetent masses.
After seeing your topic I made a decision not to read your post; however, I have an idea of what point you're trying to make and I will respond to that. As long as the other party is forewarned that a certain action will constitute agreeing to the agreement and all of its terms (as you did with your topic) then he is rightfully bound by the terms set forth.
Really?
So Bill Gates can arrest me if I don't send my children to his schools?
So Larry Ellison can deny me a driver's license if I refuse to be drafted at any moment to support his cause?
So Ted Turner can hang cameras in my bedroom whenever he pleases?
Wow...I never knew that.
If you agree to a set of terms (even one that lets one party unilaterally change the terms), well, you agreed to it.
If you want a brand-name computer, you've got to buy it under the terms offered to you. If you don't want to buy a computer with Windows pre-installed, then you have options--including the one you stated above, or the option to not use a computer period. It's your own decision. You just have to decide what's more important to you.
But they're free to choose not to buy it to begin with.
Microsoft screwed up their product, and has thereby incurred an obligation to fix it.
Says who? Definitely not moral law.
You're free to choose not to purchase an Explorer, or to stop driving it at any time.
M$, however, has already been ruled a monopoly.
I could go on forever about that. Regardless of what the courts say, Microsoft is not a monopoly, and even if it were--so what? Why should ability be punished?
You're ignoring the fact that you're free to choose not to use any Microsoft products at all if you want. If you do, you've got to do it under the terms they offer--it's only just.
All antitrust law is about is protecting people from the consequences of their own decisions--something they should not be protected from.
The creator of a product has the moral right to offer his product under whatever terms he wishes. If a potential consumer of that product decides that he does not like those terms, he is free to choose not to use the product in question.
You're forgetting that this is /.. The concepts of "reason" and "individual responsibility" are totally foreign to them.
"Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Leave them alone."--Ayn Rand
Actually, that's moot because I drive a Dodge Ram :)
But, to answer your point, that's pretty much what I'd do. I am responsible for what I do. It is my responsibility to educate myself about whatever I do before I do it so I can make an informed decision about it. If I choose not to educate myself about the possible consequences, well, too bad for me.
It doesn't matter...the fact remains that no one is forcing you to buy OR use it.
And go ahead and respond to my point about fair use if you want. I'm not trolling--a troll doesn't come back and respond to replies to his posts.
What do ypu expect from Californians? As I said in another post, California is the state that has "effectively done away with the concept of individual responsibility."
1) Fair use means just that--you have the right to reproduce copyrighted works in a "fair" manner as prescribed by law. That doesn't mean that the publishers have to facilitate such reproduction--just that if you are able to reproduce the work, you have the right to do so for certain "fair" uses as prescribed law.
2) Even if these CDs do damage or destroy hardware--so what? It's your own fault for using them in there. No one forced you to buy them, and no one forced you to put them in your computer's CD-ROM drive. But then again, what do you expect from California, the state that has effectively done away with the concept of "individual responsibility".
Then why do you care what others choose to waste their money on?
But again, why is it any of your business what these bands agree to?
Because mass-producing and mass-marketing an album costs quite a bit of money. If the artist were to hire the record company, the artist would have to pay those costs out-of-pocket up front, which generally isn't feasible. But when the record company hires the artist, then those initial costs can be paid out of the record company's budget, and then the revenues can be distributed among the record company and artist per the terms of the agreement (which, many people forget, was VOLUNTARILY signed by the record company).
Actually, that's another thing that pisses me off about this. Everyone complains about how the artists only get a very small percentage of the profits from sales of their works, but what they forget is that the artists AGREED to that percentage--and if they agreed to it voluntarily, they must be happy with it, and it's no one else's business.
What you forget, though, is that the vast majority of Internet users (myself included) are still using POTS for their connection, and frankly, that's not likely to change anytime soon. Downloading mp3's (or any other audio format) at any decent sound quality whatsoever takes a LONG time for those people, and often ties up the telephone line for more important uses. Once you get past that, you also have the problem that computers aren't terribly portable. Standalone MP3 players are prohibitively expensive, and you (generally) can't hook them up to your car or home stereo system without considerable modifications.
Without the record companies, you wouldn't have ever heard of any of the artists you listen to today. The costs involved in producing and massively distributing an album are so high that no startup band could ever hope to afford them. Your local garage band may be able to produce a record or two in their garage, and then distribute it to a couple of local stores, but without the financial backing of a major record company, they have precisely a snowball's chance in Hell of distributing nationwide.
First Post!
We would all be speaking german by now if you nutbags had been in control during WWII, Amen the isolationits where shutup before things went even futher down the tube.
Germany never invaded the US; if it had, the response would have been umpteen times larger than when Japan did.
We would all be speaking german by now if you nutbags had been in control during WWII,
So? That doesn't make sticking our nose where it doesn't belong right. What is right must always be done, regardless of the results.
Amen the isolationits where shutup before things went even futher down the tube.
And the goal of a republic is to ensure that government is properly limited in its powers and scope.
1) We have no place fighting wars that do not result from a direct attack on the US
2) In a free society, freedom-loving individuals would be more than willing to defend their liberty
3) Any nation the size of ours that can't find enough volunteers to defend itself among its populace probably doesn't deserve to exist anyway