In you analogy, the victim dies pretty quickly and the feeding stops completely. Thus, the analogy is bullshit, like everything else you've posted. Remember to logout.
The people in a position to pose the question are local bureaucrats. They have long-running "relationship" with the cable monopolies and would never do, what you wish them too. Earlier laws and regulations have kept them in power to do that, while ya'll rioted for nationalizing Internet service-providers.
Good to see Trump Administration addressing this problem too.
copyright infringement has been illegal for over a century, but music "piracy" has only recently decreased
The aggressive legal pursuit of the pirates only appeared recently as well. I think, we can count that era from the Napster drama (when Slashdot advocated "shutting down" the musicians, rather than those, who pirated their works).
Clearly, the law is [not] a contributing factor.
It is not "clear" at all, indeed, I think the opposite is "clear". As I said, I have evidence among my own friends. However anecdotal it is, at this point we can only debate the size of the contribution, but not the fact of it.
You must either come from a very populous clan, or be an incredibly social person. Because I can't claim to know, from where more than 12 people get their digital entertainment, and what factors affect their choices. I do know for sure, that 3 of those 12 people are concerned about possible run-ins with the copyright-owners (or their representatives)...
"It is now easier to stream music than to pirate it"
I'm sure, some of the drop really is due to legitimate alternatives appearing. Yet, those alternatives still cost some money, so the criminal and civil prosecutions of the illegal downloaders and download-facilitators must've helped too.
How much of the observed drop is due to those, law-based measures?
And, if these measures' really did prove a significant deterrent, thus contributing to what we now seem to agree is a good thing, maybe, Slashdot ought to collectively apologize to the MPAA, RIAA and the like organizations collectively denounced here as "MAFIAA" for years?
Because they are private companies, serving willing customers? And, at any rate, the law may not be too helpful to privacy — indeed, detrimental to it.
The "Russians" needed fending off for decades. The stoked America's racial strife, and sponsored the "peace" movement. Yes, the butchers of Budapest and Prague, the destroyers of Afghanistan were arguing for "peace" and the American Left where lapping it all up! Quite possibly, these efforts cost us victory in Vietnam — the war was no less justified than the earlier Korean one, but met much higher internal opposition...
Only back then the same NYTimes — and all the rest of the Left-thinking Americans — mocked any attempts at the fending off as "Red scare" and denounced it as "evil McCarthyism". And now the same people are trying to convince us, the President is illegitimate, because his son once met with a Russian lawyer.
So long as no one is forced to use this browser to get access to anything they must access, there is nothing to see here.
The danger lurked in this browser eventually becoming mandatory for certain sites — the government-run ones. And even then, only when the access did not need authentication before.
Only a few hours before expressing his liking of Nazi ideas, Omnichad wondered, how can Democrats be possibly associated with anything Fascist. His ignorance and my educating him can not possibly be "both right".
Which is why everyone should just understand Association fallacy
Nope, the fallacy you speak of is not applicable to our little chat. I'm not claiming, Democrats are Fascists, because members of both groups have 32 teeth, nor based on any other similarly irrelevant common trait.
The points I listed really are, what makes Democrats Democrats — the idea, that the benevolent power of the State ought to be used to coerce, compell, and outright force the insolent and cantankerous Individuals into doing The Right Thing, is essential to any Democrat of today, Omnichad himself included. It is this Collectivism, that makes them — and a sizable chunk of Republicans — Fascist...
Not evil Fascists necessarily like Hitler, just the bad-for-freedoms-and-economy Fascists like Franco. Better than Communists, but only by so much...
That's just not true. But even if it were true — and you are offering no citations — it does not help you. Because now you have to define "right wing"... Meh...
That is not fascism, those are the tenets of the Nazi party
Whether they are from actual Fascism or not, you are spot-on regarding them being tenets of the Nazi party. And of the Democrats...
And both have very populist and actually good ideas.
Voila, ladies and gentlemen! The same Democrat, who started the day firmly rejecting Nazism as the greatest evil, ends the day admitting, he likes the Nazi ideas... I'll leave it at that...
I don't suppose it means anything to you that fascism is a far-right wing terminology
Fascism is, most certainly, not a terminology. Perhaps, you meant "ideology"? Still wrong...
How this sounds like the Democrats I have no idea.
You got it all wrong. Fascism and Socialism/Communism are both Collectivist ideologies, mostly identical and differing only in a few insignificant details. Both consider the cantankerous Individual to be inferior to the Glorious Collective. To wit:
We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens.
It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good. We demand therefore:
The abolition of incomes unearned by work.
In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the ruthless confiscation of all war profits.
We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations
We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises
We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.
We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class
We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest
The State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education
We demand the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.
The State must ensure that the nation's health standards are raised
To put the whole of this programme into effect, we demand the creation of a strong central state power
Now, almost all of the above points are part of the traditional Democratic platform. All of the above are part of the platform of the Socialist-wing of the Democratic party — its dear darlings, from Sanders to Ocasio-Cortez.
If you haven't guessed, where the actual list came from, look here.
Society *can* be better off, but so long as it prepares its social capital
Collectivist nonsense. Leave it progressives to stall progress...
That shit did take a human toll.
You aren't citing anything... Who suffered? How much did they suffer? And why should we care?
For example, suppose, a wonderful pill is invented, that eliminates all diseases. It is fairly simple to manufacture and needs to be taken once in childhood.
Would you seriously argue against its speedy adoption on account of the doctors, nurses, and other hospital staff — losing their income and suffering as a result?..
But we do not get to define society as simply just *we*.
Fortunately, you don't get to stall progress either...
Senator Mark Warner published 20 proposals on how to regulate big tech platforms
Sure, leave it to Democrats to further entrench the Fascism. How about a No, eh? Leave them — along with their stockholders — to pursue happiness the way they please, uhm? Can we do that?..
It was not like that — you'd need, maybe, 1/100 as many salespeople, as there were milkmen. A milkmen had to visit each house, every morning, to deliver the milk. A salesman would visit one once per year...
But there is a ceiling.
There is not — not any more than there is a ceiling to the exponent itself. It just keeps climbing...
Name a profession that goes beyond automation engineer.
Artists and poets? Actors? Geisha and hetairai? Teachers and nurses? At any rate, your and my inability to imagine something, does not mean it would not come up. As you say, it has been said before and any argument claiming exclusivity of our times in any respect is deeply suspicious, if not an outright fallacy...
You're going to see variations on that headline over and over from here on out.
We've been seeing it since before most of today's newspapers first printed. How many coachmen lost their jobs to a steam locomotive? How many computers lost their jobs to, ahem, computers? How many milkmen had to look for another vocation with the invention of pasteurization process and of refrigerators?
And speaking of "headlines" — you do know, that putting together the printing matrices was a manual process too, don't you? The expression "freedom of the press" and "stop the presses" is still around, even though there neither the actual presses any more — and some publications stopped wasting paper completely?
Civilization evolves, lamenting the disappearances of some professions is stupid...
As it should be. No one becomes a bank-teller, because they like it. Like hundreds of other jobs, it needs to be done, pleasant or not... We are all better off as these jobs are replaced by machinery.
Individuals cannot be trusted to do the right thing for the greater good
Found an Authoritarian... So I can not be trusted, and therefore it is Ok to compel me. All for the Greater Good[TM] — because common interest before self-interest, correct?
there is a government body that knows what is good and harmful. It's called the FDA
Yes, and only a few years ago the FDA were telling us, we should not eat fat and cholesterol. And now the same organizations tell us it was all wrong. "Healthy habits" my tail — Western world is horribly obese because we trusted the government, that "fat is bad".
helping people have safe eating habits
That's what parents are for. Parents might know better, than their children. The government does not know better than we do, it does not consist of omniscient selfless and benevolent wizards. Government officials have the same passions, flaws, and vices as the rest of us. Working for NASA does not make anyone more credible than working for Exxon-Mobil.
You can choose to trust someone else at your own peril, but your Authoritarian insistence, that I trust him (and submit to him!) too makes it my peril as well. No way
We as a civilization should be promoting things that improve our society and discourage things that harm it
This implies, that someone — some governmental body — knows, what is good and what is harmful for the rest of us. Contrary to what you may have been led — and even leading others — to believe, there is no such body.
For one example, allow me to remind you of the horrendously ill-fated and ill-conceived "War on Fat" — a completely misguided endeavor, likely responsible for millions of obesity cases in the US alone.
Individuals may make whatever choices they prefer and trust whoever they choose to trust, but the authority of the government must never again be allowed to suggest us, what to eat.
Spoofing from one number to another controlled by the same legal entity is reasonable
Such spoofing is already illegal — certainly against ToS, but impossible to enforce.
Just as spoofing of e-mail headers is.
And, frankly, I can't see, how it can be made properly illegal without violating the First Amendment... Except in a few special cases, it is not illegal to lie.
pursue a plant-based burger that truly tastes like meat
Good for them! Now they just need to shame us into buying that — the way we are shamed for not preferring electric cars, and refusing to date "transsexuals".
And, of course, getting government's help — such as a subsidy or a mandate for governmental institutions (like schools) to offer this fake "meat" — would go a long way too...
Some of the people handling the incoming calls are so awful, even rudimentary AI may be an improvement.
I wonder, if Google's AI will get the hint, when I swear at it, though — and transfer me to a real human. If, that is, I would ever want, considering the first part...
"The vast majority of laptops on the market (94% in 2011) are manufactured by a small handful of Taiwan-based Original Design Manufacturers (ODM)."
Except, that's irrelevant. What's relevant is the front-companies, who gauge consumer interest and produce the specifications for the actual manufacturers.
And there still remain a number of other makers, who are ready to exploit a niche, if they sense one.
The niche users are essentially stuck with whatever the big Taiwan-based ODM's decide to manufacture.
Even if that were true, those Taiwanese companies aren't one and compete with each other. So, no, it is still premature to nationalize laptop-manufacturing and have Congress debate, which models ought to be built.
Slashdot Mirror
Because, whether or not the FCC exceeded the authority given to it by Congress, is up to the Court to decide.
Independently, Congress may choose to give it additional authority or strip some. But this will only affect validity of future FCC actions.
Now here is your real problem...
In you analogy, the victim dies pretty quickly and the feeding stops completely. Thus, the analogy is bullshit, like everything else you've posted. Remember to logout.
The people in a position to pose the question are local bureaucrats. They have long-running "relationship" with the cable monopolies and would never do, what you wish them too. Earlier laws and regulations have kept them in power to do that, while ya'll rioted for nationalizing Internet service-providers.
Good to see Trump Administration addressing this problem too.
The aggressive legal pursuit of the pirates only appeared recently as well. I think, we can count that era from the Napster drama (when Slashdot advocated "shutting down" the musicians, rather than those, who pirated their works).
It is not "clear" at all, indeed, I think the opposite is "clear". As I said, I have evidence among my own friends. However anecdotal it is, at this point we can only debate the size of the contribution, but not the fact of it.
You must either come from a very populous clan, or be an incredibly social person. Because I can't claim to know, from where more than 12 people get their digital entertainment, and what factors affect their choices. I do know for sure, that 3 of those 12 people are concerned about possible run-ins with the copyright-owners (or their representatives)...
I'm sure, some of the drop really is due to legitimate alternatives appearing. Yet, those alternatives still cost some money, so the criminal and civil prosecutions of the illegal downloaders and download-facilitators must've helped too.
How much of the observed drop is due to those, law-based measures?
And, if these measures' really did prove a significant deterrent, thus contributing to what we now seem to agree is a good thing, maybe, Slashdot ought to collectively apologize to the MPAA, RIAA and the like organizations collectively denounced here as "MAFIAA" for years?
Because they are private companies, serving willing customers? And, at any rate, the law may not be too helpful to privacy — indeed, detrimental to it.
The "Russians" needed fending off for decades. The stoked America's racial strife, and sponsored the "peace" movement. Yes, the butchers of Budapest and Prague, the destroyers of Afghanistan were arguing for "peace" and the American Left where lapping it all up! Quite possibly, these efforts cost us victory in Vietnam — the war was no less justified than the earlier Korean one, but met much higher internal opposition...
Only back then the same NYTimes — and all the rest of the Left-thinking Americans — mocked any attempts at the fending off as "Red scare" and denounced it as "evil McCarthyism". And now the same people are trying to convince us, the President is illegitimate, because his son once met with a Russian lawyer.
So long as no one is forced to use this browser to get access to anything they must access, there is nothing to see here.
The danger lurked in this browser eventually becoming mandatory for certain sites — the government-run ones. And even then, only when the access did not need authentication before.
Or subpoenaed by law-enforcement. Which will help police even when the suspect is not the firm's customer, but merely a relative of one.
Of course, this prospect should not bother law-abiding members of a well-governed society...
Only a few hours before expressing his liking of Nazi ideas, Omnichad wondered, how can Democrats be possibly associated with anything Fascist. His ignorance and my educating him can not possibly be "both right".
Nope, the fallacy you speak of is not applicable to our little chat. I'm not claiming, Democrats are Fascists, because members of both groups have 32 teeth, nor based on any other similarly irrelevant common trait.
The points I listed really are, what makes Democrats Democrats — the idea, that the benevolent power of the State ought to be used to coerce, compell, and outright force the insolent and cantankerous Individuals into doing The Right Thing, is essential to any Democrat of today, Omnichad himself included. It is this Collectivism, that makes them — and a sizable chunk of Republicans — Fascist...
Not evil Fascists necessarily like Hitler, just the bad-for-freedoms-and-economy Fascists like Franco. Better than Communists, but only by so much...
That's just not true. But even if it were true — and you are offering no citations — it does not help you. Because now you have to define "right wing"... Meh...
Appeal to Authority.
Whether they are from actual Fascism or not, you are spot-on regarding them being tenets of the Nazi party. And of the Democrats...
Voila, ladies and gentlemen! The same Democrat, who started the day firmly rejecting Nazism as the greatest evil, ends the day admitting, he likes the Nazi ideas... I'll leave it at that...
Fascism is, most certainly, not a terminology. Perhaps, you meant "ideology"? Still wrong...
You got it all wrong. Fascism and Socialism/Communism are both Collectivist ideologies, mostly identical and differing only in a few insignificant details. Both consider the cantankerous Individual to be inferior to the Glorious Collective. To wit:
Now, almost all of the above points are part of the traditional Democratic platform. All of the above are part of the platform of the Socialist-wing of the Democratic party — its dear darlings, from Sanders to Ocasio-Cortez.
If you haven't guessed, where the actual list came from, look here.
The individuals.
Collectivist nonsense. Leave it progressives to stall progress...
You aren't citing anything... Who suffered? How much did they suffer? And why should we care?
For example, suppose, a wonderful pill is invented, that eliminates all diseases. It is fairly simple to manufacture and needs to be taken once in childhood.
Would you seriously argue against its speedy adoption on account of the doctors, nurses, and other hospital staff — losing their income and suffering as a result?..
Fortunately, you don't get to stall progress either...
Sure, leave it to Democrats to further entrench the Fascism. How about a No, eh? Leave them — along with their stockholders — to pursue happiness the way they please, uhm? Can we do that?..
It was not like that — you'd need, maybe, 1/100 as many salespeople, as there were milkmen. A milkmen had to visit each house, every morning, to deliver the milk. A salesman would visit one once per year...
There is not — not any more than there is a ceiling to the exponent itself. It just keeps climbing...
Artists and poets? Actors? Geisha and hetairai? Teachers and nurses? At any rate, your and my inability to imagine something, does not mean it would not come up. As you say, it has been said before and any argument claiming exclusivity of our times in any respect is deeply suspicious, if not an outright fallacy...
We've been seeing it since before most of today's newspapers first printed. How many coachmen lost their jobs to a steam locomotive? How many computers lost their jobs to, ahem, computers? How many milkmen had to look for another vocation with the invention of pasteurization process and of refrigerators?
And speaking of "headlines" — you do know, that putting together the printing matrices was a manual process too, don't you? The expression "freedom of the press" and "stop the presses" is still around, even though there neither the actual presses any more — and some publications stopped wasting paper completely?
Civilization evolves, lamenting the disappearances of some professions is stupid...
As it should be. No one becomes a bank-teller, because they like it. Like hundreds of other jobs, it needs to be done, pleasant or not... We are all better off as these jobs are replaced by machinery.
Found an Authoritarian... So I can not be trusted, and therefore it is Ok to compel me. All for the Greater Good[TM] — because common interest before self-interest, correct?
Yes, and only a few years ago the FDA were telling us, we should not eat fat and cholesterol. And now the same organizations tell us it was all wrong. "Healthy habits" my tail — Western world is horribly obese because we trusted the government, that "fat is bad".
That's what parents are for. Parents might know better, than their children. The government does not know better than we do, it does not consist of omniscient selfless and benevolent wizards. Government officials have the same passions, flaws, and vices as the rest of us. Working for NASA does not make anyone more credible than working for Exxon-Mobil.
You can choose to trust someone else at your own peril, but your Authoritarian insistence, that I trust him (and submit to him!) too makes it my peril as well. No way
This implies, that someone — some governmental body — knows, what is good and what is harmful for the rest of us. Contrary to what you may have been led — and even leading others — to believe, there is no such body.
For one example, allow me to remind you of the horrendously ill-fated and ill-conceived "War on Fat" — a completely misguided endeavor, likely responsible for millions of obesity cases in the US alone.
Individuals may make whatever choices they prefer and trust whoever they choose to trust, but the authority of the government must never again be allowed to suggest us, what to eat.
Such spoofing is already illegal — certainly against ToS, but impossible to enforce.
Just as spoofing of e-mail headers is.
And, frankly, I can't see, how it can be made properly illegal without violating the First Amendment... Except in a few special cases, it is not illegal to lie.
Good for them! Now they just need to shame us into buying that — the way we are shamed for not preferring electric cars, and refusing to date "transsexuals".
And, of course, getting government's help — such as a subsidy or a mandate for governmental institutions (like schools) to offer this fake "meat" — would go a long way too...
Some of the people handling the incoming calls are so awful, even rudimentary AI may be an improvement.
I wonder, if Google's AI will get the hint, when I swear at it, though — and transfer me to a real human. If, that is, I would ever want, considering the first part...
Except, that's irrelevant. What's relevant is the front-companies, who gauge consumer interest and produce the specifications for the actual manufacturers.
And there still remain a number of other makers, who are ready to exploit a niche, if they sense one.
Even if that were true, those Taiwanese companies aren't one and compete with each other. So, no, it is still premature to nationalize laptop-manufacturing and have Congress debate, which models ought to be built.