They will NOT go under because people don't understand that it is a bad business model.
I'm sorry, but this is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read. The failure of a bad business model does not depend on the potential customer base REALIZING that it is "bad"--it simply is bad.
And it must not be a terribly bad business model, because it generally seems to be working. The people who get upset at not getting something for nothing are a very small (and very irrational) subset of the general population. Everyone else simply doesn't care. It's your problem, not theirs.
The worst part is that the guy's court case wasn't dismissed immediately--or perhaps even that he decided to try to bring it to court at all.
A company's employment policies are the business of no one but the company itself (including its owners and employees). Government has precisely ZERO place involving itself. If a company wants to fire you, that should be the end of it. It's their property, and they're the ones paying the bills and signing the paychecks; therefore, the decision properly rests solely with THEM--not the courts, not Congress, not any other government entity.
Actually yeah, you do. The problem is that, thanks in part due to the mere existence of such intrusive socialist agencies as the FTC, the US is now no longer anything approaching a free society.
If I create a work through the efforts of my mind, I have every right to control its distribution. I'm free not to distribute it at all, or I'm free to distribute it under extremely restrictive terms, or I'm free to BSD it. Whatever I choose, it is my choice and mine alone.
Now, since no one is holding a gun to your head, you are free to choose whether or not you want to access my creation (assuming I choose to distribute it at all). Since you are free to choose whether or not to accept what I offer, you are morally obligated to abide by whatever terms I demand if you do in fact accept what I offer. Should you violate that agreement, you have not simply breached a contract--you have essentially denied me of my right to my own mind. And that is very deserving of jail, if not torture and death.
Look, socialist thug, "more government" is NEVER the answer.
Believe it or not, you are free to choose your ISP--or even whether you purchase Internet service at all. Since the ISP is the one providing the service, they have every right to provide it AS THEY WISH. You have every right to reject it if you do not like it. If no ISP is to you're liking, you're free to start your own or do without altogether. If those options are impractical, then you simply have to decide what is most important you.
That's life, bud. Decisions and trade-offs. You don't get to use the force of government to compel someone to provide something exactly to your liking. The word for that is "slavery", and it's bad, mmkay?
Buy a pair of wrist weights and wear them whenever you can.
Seriously.
I play baritone in a competitive drum & bugle corps, and the first thing I did when our winter rehearsals started was to purchase a pair of wrist weights (a G baritone bugle weighs about 7 pounds, and we are expected to hold them in front of our faces for up to two hours or more at a time, repeated throughout the day). I wear them whenever I practice, whenever I just hold the horn up, and anytime else where it's not blatantly inappropriate. After about a month, not only was the horn easier to hold up, but--surprise surprise--my hands were generally a hell of a lot steadier than before.
With steady hands, you don't need a steadying device for the camera--and the stronger arms are an added plus.
Rights exist independent of government fiat. Just because something is illegal does not mean one does not have the right to do it--in fact, a law that prohibits an exercise of one's rights is illegitimate and one is not obligated to obey it.
Didn't the EU just assess a 1/2 billion dollar fine over this very behavior?
Doesn't mean they should have. Microsoft has every right to build its products as it wishes.
I can't understand how this doesn't enrage anyone who believes in capitalism. I don't understand how it can. A core tenet of capitalism is that each individual is free to engage in whatever mutual agreements he wishes--this is simply an exercise of that freedom. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Simple as that.
What's to stop Microsoft from integrating an Amazon.com, paypal and Ebay feature into their software and MSN stuff as well? Amazon, Paypal, and Ebay refusing to agree. Beyond that, nothing. This is a perfect example of a mutual agreement between two parties--this is a concern between Microsoft and whatever company they are partnering with. If you don't like it, don't buy the software.
How many markets will they be able to dominate through their desktop OS monopoly? Who cares? As long as the monopoly is not obtained or maintained via fraud or physical force, Microsoft has every right to enjoy it as long as it can. The monopoly will cease to exist when people cease purchasing Microsoft products--which they are free to do at any time.
Without proper anti-trust enforcement, innovation and investment opportunities will dwindle. I don't think that's true, but I also don't care if it is. Nothing justifies violating individual rights--including the right to build and sell one's products as he sees fit.
Seriously though, isn't anyone else just amazed by Microsoft's gall? I'm proud of them. They're ignoring unjust, illegitimate rulings and instead exercising their property rights to design what they produce how they see fit.
Why SHOULDN'T Microsoft get to attach whatever terms they like to their products? They are, after all, MICROSOFT'S products. If these companies don't like the terms, they're free not to sign the contract.
The Palestinians are the ones promoting violence against innocent civilians. Israel is only acting in its self defense.
The Palestinians, by being violent, have shown that they are irrational. The only way to deal with irrational people is in terms that they can understand. The Palestinians only understand violence; therefore, Israel's only option is violence.
#4: Saw the/. story, neither of the linked articles would load, and hit "Reply" without looking at any of the other posts because there's no reason to.
Which does not mean that clause has any validity in court - I could put a clause in a contract requiring you to wear a rubber duck on your head when you sleep. However, should you challenge it in court, it would most likely be held to be unenforcable.
I don't see why...after all, you agreed to it voluntarily. No one was holding a gun to your head.
Slashdot Mirror
Precisely.
Badnarik has principles, and he's damn proud to live by them.
w00t!
They will NOT go under because people don't understand that it is a bad business model.
I'm sorry, but this is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read. The failure of a bad business model does not depend on the potential customer base REALIZING that it is "bad"--it simply is bad.
And it must not be a terribly bad business model, because it generally seems to be working. The people who get upset at not getting something for nothing are a very small (and very irrational) subset of the general population. Everyone else simply doesn't care. It's your problem, not theirs.
They were actively damaging property. The people in the article were not.
The worst part is that the guy's court case wasn't dismissed immediately--or perhaps even that he decided to try to bring it to court at all.
A company's employment policies are the business of no one but the company itself (including its owners and employees). Government has precisely ZERO place involving itself. If a company wants to fire you, that should be the end of it. It's their property, and they're the ones paying the bills and signing the paychecks; therefore, the decision properly rests solely with THEM--not the courts, not Congress, not any other government entity.
Actually yeah, you do. The problem is that, thanks in part due to the mere existence of such intrusive socialist agencies as the FTC, the US is now no longer anything approaching a free society.
If I create a work through the efforts of my mind, I have every right to control its distribution. I'm free not to distribute it at all, or I'm free to distribute it under extremely restrictive terms, or I'm free to BSD it. Whatever I choose, it is my choice and mine alone.
Now, since no one is holding a gun to your head, you are free to choose whether or not you want to access my creation (assuming I choose to distribute it at all). Since you are free to choose whether or not to accept what I offer, you are morally obligated to abide by whatever terms I demand if you do in fact accept what I offer. Should you violate that agreement, you have not simply breached a contract--you have essentially denied me of my right to my own mind. And that is very deserving of jail, if not torture and death.
Right.
Look, socialist thug, "more government" is NEVER the answer.
Believe it or not, you are free to choose your ISP--or even whether you purchase Internet service at all. Since the ISP is the one providing the service, they have every right to provide it AS THEY WISH. You have every right to reject it if you do not like it. If no ISP is to you're liking, you're free to start your own or do without altogether. If those options are impractical, then you simply have to decide what is most important you.
That's life, bud. Decisions and trade-offs. You don't get to use the force of government to compel someone to provide something exactly to your liking. The word for that is "slavery", and it's bad, mmkay?
until we start reforming media ownership laws...
This is an incorrect idea. Government has no place regulating who may own what or how much of it he may own.
Government has no place interfering in what is a private agreement between employer and employee.
Buy a pair of wrist weights and wear them whenever you can.
Seriously.
I play baritone in a competitive drum & bugle corps, and the first thing I did when our winter rehearsals started was to purchase a pair of wrist weights (a G baritone bugle weighs about 7 pounds, and we are expected to hold them in front of our faces for up to two hours or more at a time, repeated throughout the day). I wear them whenever I practice, whenever I just hold the horn up, and anytime else where it's not blatantly inappropriate. After about a month, not only was the horn easier to hold up, but--surprise surprise--my hands were generally a hell of a lot steadier than before.
With steady hands, you don't need a steadying device for the camera--and the stronger arms are an added plus.
Rights exist independent of government fiat. Just because something is illegal does not mean one does not have the right to do it--in fact, a law that prohibits an exercise of one's rights is illegitimate and one is not obligated to obey it.
Didn't the EU just assess a 1/2 billion dollar fine over this very behavior?
Doesn't mean they should have. Microsoft has every right to build its products as it wishes.
I can't understand how this doesn't enrage anyone who believes in capitalism.
I don't understand how it can. A core tenet of capitalism is that each individual is free to engage in whatever mutual agreements he wishes--this is simply an exercise of that freedom. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Simple as that.
What's to stop Microsoft from integrating an Amazon.com, paypal and Ebay feature into their software and MSN stuff as well?
Amazon, Paypal, and Ebay refusing to agree. Beyond that, nothing. This is a perfect example of a mutual agreement between two parties--this is a concern between Microsoft and whatever company they are partnering with. If you don't like it, don't buy the software.
How many markets will they be able to dominate through their desktop OS monopoly?
Who cares? As long as the monopoly is not obtained or maintained via fraud or physical force, Microsoft has every right to enjoy it as long as it can. The monopoly will cease to exist when people cease purchasing Microsoft products--which they are free to do at any time.
Without proper anti-trust enforcement, innovation and investment opportunities will dwindle.
I don't think that's true, but I also don't care if it is. Nothing justifies violating individual rights--including the right to build and sell one's products as he sees fit.
Seriously though, isn't anyone else just amazed by Microsoft's gall?
I'm proud of them. They're ignoring unjust, illegitimate rulings and instead exercising their property rights to design what they produce how they see fit.
Something I noticed:
pu.edu actually belongs to Pickering University.
(trust someone who actually goes to Purdue to know what his school's domain is NOT).
Yeah...sucky.
Yee-haw! I probably got it and you probably didn't!
Why, exactly, is it OK to fine a company for doing one or more of the following?
I could go on...but do I really need to?
http://games.swirve.com/utopia
:)
I've found utopia online
Why SHOULDN'T Microsoft get to attach whatever terms they like to their products? They are, after all, MICROSOFT'S products. If these companies don't like the terms, they're free not to sign the contract.
Ehh.
The Israelis deserve peace.
The Palestinians don't.
The Palestinians are the ones promoting violence against innocent civilians. Israel is only acting in its self defense.
The Palestinians, by being violent, have shown that they are irrational. The only way to deal with irrational people is in terms that they can understand. The Palestinians only understand violence; therefore, Israel's only option is violence.
#4: Saw the /. story, neither of the linked articles would load, and hit "Reply" without looking at any of the other posts because there's no reason to.
Microsoft has every right to build its products however it wishes and impose whatever terms it likes on their distribution.
It's their property; they have every right to install video monitors throughout the building if they wish. If you don't like it, don't go.
Jenna Jameson as Eccentrica Gallumbits!
Which does not mean that clause has any validity in court - I could put a clause in a contract requiring you to wear a rubber duck on your head when you sleep. However, should you challenge it in court, it would most likely be held to be unenforcable. I don't see why...after all, you agreed to it voluntarily. No one was holding a gun to your head.