Do you have any idea how arrogant you are? You are basically claiming that you know better than everyone else. Maybe we should just elect you dictator for life and you can run the world for the betterment of all of us "stupid and brainwashed" people.
Your argument boils down to "I'm right and your wrong because I believe I am better than everyone else."
A) A bear trap doesn't hack off one's feet. B) Who says you can not do to an intruder what a bear trap would do, which is subdue and hold by the leg(s), possibly breaking said leg(s) in the process?
Again, you did not answer the question, rather your argument begs the question.
Their behavior is not monopolistic nor is it anti-competitive because there are plenty of other smart phones available. In order for their behavior to be monopolistic and/or anti-competitive, there would have to be only one smart phone, the iPhone and AT&T and Apple would have to collude to prevent other companies from acquiring a smart phone of their own.
You really need to buy a dictionary, or something.
No, you are not a lawyer and you should not be saying what one's lawyers would be telling one.
I doubt this would qualify as a contract of adhesion. The terms are fully explained and the majority of people who obtain an iPhone find the terms to be reasonable and non-oppressive. So, while the it is effectively a "take it or leave it contract", it is not oppressive or abusive.
You did not say "someone looking in my window". You said "a burglar when he steps on the broken glass after breaking into my house Vs me planting bear traps next to each of my windows" which implies both are inside your home.
Please keep your arguments straight and not try to change things after the fact.
You do understand that if they try to use your theory they will fail miserably, right? The reason is that what you have described is not "restraint of trade". It is an exclusive distribution deal. AT&T and Apple have the same kind of exclusive arrangement as a band and a record label.
The exclusive distribution deal between Apple and AT&T does not restrain the trade of other carriers or the customers. It does not prevent customers from buying and/or using phones with other carries. What it does do is limit the availability of iPhones to the customers of AT&T. One does not need to have an iPhone. There are other smart phones, many of which are exclusive to a specific carrier (G1 and T-mobile, Droid and Verizon, etc.).
Customer desire does not an anti-trust case make.
Just look at the soft drink industry for an example.
If you live in a place where the latter is legally actionable, you live in a land of idiots. The burglar is responsible for his injuries in either case. In both cases, had he not been breaking the law and violating the homeowners rights, he would never have been injured.
Do you have any idea how much of fool you just made of yourself? I wasn't joking. Go look up what fascism is, because it is not what you seem to think it is.
Scientology is a criminal organization with a history of stalking and harassment, as well allegations of burglary, intimidation, kidnapping, bribery, attacks on the U.S. government (specifically the FBI), and murder both direct and through neglect.
Scientology's own documents show they believe in terrorizing and murdering anyone who opposed them.
It should be perfectly legal to use Scientology's own "auditing process R2-45" on every single member.
Yeah, I know. But, I am living the results of not replacing a hack with a well-designed implementation.
I created a script to do a job for a single client. It was a hack to fill a hole. The script was supposed to be replaced by an engineered solution. But, the hack worked so well, that the engineered solution was put on hold. Then, the PHBs started adding more clients to use this solution. It became a support nightmare as the hack was good for one customer, but not for four customers whose input is not reliable.
Now, the engineered solution needs to developed ASAP, but the resources are not available. I have had to create a second hack to replace the first to make the whole thing manageable and moderately reliable until the other solution is finished sometime in the middle of next year. In the meantime, they will expand the customer from four to fourteen.
ODF is GZip(XML) (not inherently binary), yet already sees some of the problems with a format no-one writes directly, so it looks different in the 3-4 editors (Symphony, OOo, KOffice, MS).
This is not a problem with the ODF having a binary component. It is a problem with the standard not being implemented properly and possibly the standard not being specific enough as to how to handle parts.
standards should stay text(-able) & optimized for the slowest piece: the programmer.
Use the right tool for the right job. If there is no reason for a standard to be "text(-able)" then it should not be "text(-able)".
An improved automatic layout (one of the things that made HTML great, then stagnated when people treat the web as print)
You make my point for me. People are not using the right tool for the right job.
Departure from location to "app" per site with assumptions designed for interactivity
As HTTP is connectionless, it is not designed for true interactivity.
Everyone see HTTP/HTML/XML as this wonder tool that can be used for anything and everything. But, it is not appropriate for many of the tasks it is being used for. One would not use a Swiss army knife to cut a 2x4 in half even if the knife has a saw. The appropriate tool is a cross-cut saw. One should not use a volt meter to try to measure current, even if one can rig it to do so. The fact that one can use a tool for some job doesn't mean one should use that tool for that job.
Taxation may not be a punishment, but having to pay a higher tax rate is a punishment. It works out to "Be successful and we will take even more of your money."
This statement:
This only holds true if income tax is in effect.
shows you are either ignorant or just stupid.
Rich benefit a lot indirectly by having a peaceful and stable society to live in and be productive.
So, in your mind government programs are actually bribes to keep the peace. Interesting idea. Wouldn't it be cheaper and more effective to simply switch over to an oligarchy or maybe just revert to feudalism and allow the rich to rule with an iron fist, killing those who oppose them? Keep those serfs in line with force rather than bribes.
Maybe you should try looking up the definition of some of the words you use, words like "fair". Here is a hint: "fair" does not mean "good for people who didn't succeed and may not have tried".
The only problem with your conjecture is that the public want their government-provided goodies which cost money. Money that the government gets through taxation.
BTW, before that "tea party" you mention ever happens, it is much more likely that the U.S. government will not be able to continue to sell its debt, resulting in hyper-inflation of the dollar and a collapse of the U.S. economy and probably of the U.S. government.
If you do not understand how and why hyperinflation will occur, you need to go read a book on economics.
because if the public demands something, I should be forced to pay for it even though it doesn't benefit me.
You forget you live in a representative democratic republic. You are a citizen and a part of the public. The government, made up of the public, makes rules for the public as the public desires. That you are one small part of the public and have contradictory desires to most of the public is irrelevant. On the whole, the public, to whom the government officials answer, want those things even if you do not and the public, including you, pay for those things through taxes, even if you do not directly benefit.
I do not necessarily disagree with you, but this is how the real world works. You are part of society, of the public, the world, the nation, state, county, city, town, etc. and you will play by the rules of society or you will suffer the consequences.
If it makes you feel any better, you can think of it as your taxes are going to only those services you use.
Sales tax is unfair because it's a regressive tax. It's base on how much you buy, not how much you make, and the poor are taxed more percentage wise than a rich person.
So, it is better to punish people for being successful rather than punish people for spending foolishly? How about the fact that people who make more, spend more? How about the fact that people who make more pay more in other taxes to the point they pay more taxes over all? How about the fact that people who are poor spend a greater portion of their income on items that are not taxed? How about the fact that people who are poor benefit vastly more from the services provided by taxes?
You say income tax is the fair way to go, but income tax rates often increase as one's income increases. Would you support a flat rate tax, say a straight 25% off the top, where everyone who earns any income must pay a certain percentage as tax, without any deductions or credits?
You think it is wrong to be charged the same amount for an item regards of one's income? Tell me, do you work for free or for a reduced rate if your employer's profit goes down? Please explain why a shirt should cost less for someone who makes less money when that is not tied to the cost of production and sale of the shirt? Why should the tax rate be different as only a flat rate tax is fair?
Do you like all the wonderful things your government provides you and the rest of the citizens? You know things like police and fire departments, roads, medicaid, schools, school lunch programs, etc? Where do you think the money comes from that pay for all those wonderful services everyone demands?
If you don't like that the government takes a portion of your paycheck to pay for the services the public demands, I suggest you take it up with your fellow citizens.
Copyright used to be the right to copy something for sale.
Um, no. Copyright is and was the right to control the copying of works to which one has the copyright. That is why it is called copyright.
In the case of pretty much all commercial software, one does not buy the copyright or even a limited right to copy the software, but rather one buys a limited license to use the software and a copy of the software. The license is what puts the limitations on the things like backups, time and format shifting, and what hardware one can run software.
And, before you get up in arms about how licensing works, remember that the GPL works under the same rules. Take out the teeth of license restrictions and you also do the same to the GPL.
Look, you stupid fuck, "snitching" is not a dickhead move. You want to know what a dickhead move is? Doing something someone can and should "snitch" on. It is committing crimes, petty or not, because you believe you are somehow better than everyone else so the rules shouldn't apply to you. People who say "dont' snitch" are saying "don't let people know I am an asshole who should not be trusted" and people who fall for that are dickheads.
How about a protocol stack designed for near real-time application performance instead of a protocol designed for transferring text, specifically marked up text with links? How about a protocol that uses packed binary data instead of ASCII text or UniCode, after all the data being sent and received by the application will never have to be written or read by a human as an HTML document might?
One does not need "5 separate programs, each installed differently across different platforms, each inevitably having their own learning curve". How about one program written to use an appropriate protocol that is compiled to run on each of those different platforms? You know, kind of like TCP.
By the way, please list all of those "5 incompatible platforms"?
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have any idea how arrogant you are? You are basically claiming that you know better than everyone else. Maybe we should just elect you dictator for life and you can run the world for the betterment of all of us "stupid and brainwashed" people.
Your argument boils down to "I'm right and your wrong because I believe I am better than everyone else."
A) A bear trap doesn't hack off one's feet.
B) Who says you can not do to an intruder what a bear trap would do, which is subdue and hold by the leg(s), possibly breaking said leg(s) in the process?
Again, you did not answer the question, rather your argument begs the question.
Their behavior is not monopolistic nor is it anti-competitive because there are plenty of other smart phones available. In order for their behavior to be monopolistic and/or anti-competitive, there would have to be only one smart phone, the iPhone and AT&T and Apple would have to collude to prevent other companies from acquiring a smart phone of their own.
You really need to buy a dictionary, or something.
No, you are not a lawyer and you should not be saying what one's lawyers would be telling one.
I doubt this would qualify as a contract of adhesion. The terms are fully explained and the majority of people who obtain an iPhone find the terms to be reasonable and non-oppressive. So, while the it is effectively a "take it or leave it contract", it is not oppressive or abusive.
That is all very well and good, except you didn't answer the question:
Both AT&T and Apple benefit from their exclusive distribution deal. How would they benefit from what you suggest?
Those are all benefits to you, not they, who would be AT&T and Apple.
The question is:
Perhaps you should read the comments before commenting.
You did not say "someone looking in my window". You said "a burglar when he steps on the broken glass after breaking into my house Vs me planting bear traps next to each of my windows" which implies both are inside your home.
Please keep your arguments straight and not try to change things after the fact.
You do understand that if they try to use your theory they will fail miserably, right? The reason is that what you have described is not "restraint of trade". It is an exclusive distribution deal. AT&T and Apple have the same kind of exclusive arrangement as a band and a record label.
The exclusive distribution deal between Apple and AT&T does not restrain the trade of other carriers or the customers. It does not prevent customers from buying and/or using phones with other carries. What it does do is limit the availability of iPhones to the customers of AT&T. One does not need to have an iPhone. There are other smart phones, many of which are exclusive to a specific carrier (G1 and T-mobile, Droid and Verizon, etc.).
Customer desire does not an anti-trust case make.
Just look at the soft drink industry for an example.
Why should they, besides the fact that you want them to do so?
Your statement boils down to "They should do this because that is what I want them to do because it benefits me and not them."
If you live in a place where the latter is legally actionable, you live in a land of idiots. The burglar is responsible for his injuries in either case. In both cases, had he not been breaking the law and violating the homeowners rights, he would never have been injured.
Do you have any idea how much of fool you just made of yourself? I wasn't joking. Go look up what fascism is, because it is not what you seem to think it is.
Scientology is a criminal organization with a history of stalking and harassment, as well allegations of burglary, intimidation, kidnapping, bribery, attacks on the U.S. government (specifically the FBI), and murder both direct and through neglect.
Scientology's own documents show they believe in terrorizing and murdering anyone who opposed them.
It should be perfectly legal to use Scientology's own "auditing process R2-45" on every single member.
Yeah, I know. But, I am living the results of not replacing a hack with a well-designed implementation.
I created a script to do a job for a single client. It was a hack to fill a hole. The script was supposed to be replaced by an engineered solution. But, the hack worked so well, that the engineered solution was put on hold. Then, the PHBs started adding more clients to use this solution. It became a support nightmare as the hack was good for one customer, but not for four customers whose input is not reliable.
Now, the engineered solution needs to developed ASAP, but the resources are not available. I have had to create a second hack to replace the first to make the whole thing manageable and moderately reliable until the other solution is finished sometime in the middle of next year. In the meantime, they will expand the customer from four to fourteen.
This is not a problem with the ODF having a binary component. It is a problem with the standard not being implemented properly and possibly the standard not being specific enough as to how to handle parts.
Use the right tool for the right job. If there is no reason for a standard to be "text(-able)" then it should not be "text(-able)".
You make my point for me. People are not using the right tool for the right job.
As HTTP is connectionless, it is not designed for true interactivity.
Everyone see HTTP/HTML/XML as this wonder tool that can be used for anything and everything. But, it is not appropriate for many of the tasks it is being used for. One would not use a Swiss army knife to cut a 2x4 in half even if the knife has a saw. The appropriate tool is a cross-cut saw. One should not use a volt meter to try to measure current, even if one can rig it to do so. The fact that one can use a tool for some job doesn't mean one should use that tool for that job.
Taxation may not be a punishment, but having to pay a higher tax rate is a punishment. It works out to "Be successful and we will take even more of your money."
This statement:
shows you are either ignorant or just stupid.
So, in your mind government programs are actually bribes to keep the peace. Interesting idea. Wouldn't it be cheaper and more effective to simply switch over to an oligarchy or maybe just revert to feudalism and allow the rich to rule with an iron fist, killing those who oppose them? Keep those serfs in line with force rather than bribes.
Maybe you should try looking up the definition of some of the words you use, words like "fair". Here is a hint: "fair" does not mean "good for people who didn't succeed and may not have tried".
No, it is not facist. You should probably look up that word.
The only problem with your conjecture is that the public want their government-provided goodies which cost money. Money that the government gets through taxation.
BTW, before that "tea party" you mention ever happens, it is much more likely that the U.S. government will not be able to continue to sell its debt, resulting in hyper-inflation of the dollar and a collapse of the U.S. economy and probably of the U.S. government.
If you do not understand how and why hyperinflation will occur, you need to go read a book on economics.
You forget you live in a representative democratic republic. You are a citizen and a part of the public. The government, made up of the public, makes rules for the public as the public desires. That you are one small part of the public and have contradictory desires to most of the public is irrelevant. On the whole, the public, to whom the government officials answer, want those things even if you do not and the public, including you, pay for those things through taxes, even if you do not directly benefit.
I do not necessarily disagree with you, but this is how the real world works. You are part of society, of the public, the world, the nation, state, county, city, town, etc. and you will play by the rules of society or you will suffer the consequences.
If it makes you feel any better, you can think of it as your taxes are going to only those services you use.
So, it is better to punish people for being successful rather than punish people for spending foolishly?
How about the fact that people who make more, spend more?
How about the fact that people who make more pay more in other taxes to the point they pay more taxes over all?
How about the fact that people who are poor spend a greater portion of their income on items that are not taxed?
How about the fact that people who are poor benefit vastly more from the services provided by taxes?
You say income tax is the fair way to go, but income tax rates often increase as one's income increases. Would you support a flat rate tax, say a straight 25% off the top, where everyone who earns any income must pay a certain percentage as tax, without any deductions or credits?
You think it is wrong to be charged the same amount for an item regards of one's income? Tell me, do you work for free or for a reduced rate if your employer's profit goes down? Please explain why a shirt should cost less for someone who makes less money when that is not tied to the cost of production and sale of the shirt? Why should the tax rate be different as only a flat rate tax is fair?
Do you like all the wonderful things your government provides you and the rest of the citizens? You know things like police and fire departments, roads, medicaid, schools, school lunch programs, etc? Where do you think the money comes from that pay for all those wonderful services everyone demands?
If you don't like that the government takes a portion of your paycheck to pay for the services the public demands, I suggest you take it up with your fellow citizens.
No, because the book does not come with a license saying you can't do that. OS X comes with a license saying you can't do that.
Um, no. Copyright is and was the right to control the copying of works to which one has the copyright. That is why it is called copyright.
In the case of pretty much all commercial software, one does not buy the copyright or even a limited right to copy the software, but rather one buys a limited license to use the software and a copy of the software. The license is what puts the limitations on the things like backups, time and format shifting, and what hardware one can run software.
And, before you get up in arms about how licensing works, remember that the GPL works under the same rules. Take out the teeth of license restrictions and you also do the same to the GPL.
Look, you stupid fuck, "snitching" is not a dickhead move. You want to know what a dickhead move is? Doing something someone can and should "snitch" on. It is committing crimes, petty or not, because you believe you are somehow better than everyone else so the rules shouldn't apply to you. People who say "dont' snitch" are saying "don't let people know I am an asshole who should not be trusted" and people who fall for that are dickheads.
Now, shut the fuck up, dickhead.
A good portion of his argument is the broken window fallacy and you have just defended it.
How about a protocol stack designed for near real-time application performance instead of a protocol designed for transferring text, specifically marked up text with links? How about a protocol that uses packed binary data instead of ASCII text or UniCode, after all the data being sent and received by the application will never have to be written or read by a human as an HTML document might?
One does not need "5 separate programs, each installed differently across different platforms, each inevitably having their own learning curve". How about one program written to use an appropriate protocol that is compiled to run on each of those different platforms? You know, kind of like TCP.
By the way, please list all of those "5 incompatible platforms"?