the only country to use small pox or nukes against civilians is the US.
Erm.
The British were quite good at this, using infected blankets on Native North Americans, half a millenium ago. I'm sure other civilisations in history have done the same.
Not that I'd ever speak up for the war mongering US, but let's keep the facts straight.
Why is everyone pushing this film?
on
Solaris: Another View
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I don't think LOTR had as many posts about it. What is the big deal with this film?
As any time I see something over advertised and the salesman yelling "Please, please, just take a look, oh PLEASE take a look, I BEG YOU", I run the other way, and FAST.
Subliminal advertising? OSDN invested in the film? Someone knows someone, and is trying to "help" spread the word? Whatever the case, it is too much hype for me.
It's turned me off. Sort of like when you see the same commercial 10 times in an hour TV show. It is usually the last time I buy that product (if I ever did).
Re:oh boy! OpenProjects.net, the spam network!
on
DotGNU Meet-a-thon
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I've been upset with this too. I wouldn't put it as above, although there are some valid.. statements, heh;)
First the boss makes a stink about ORBZ an then they get slashdotted. Glad I don't work there.
From what I read in the article, and the moronic behaviour these people have exhibited, I would doubt that they even watch their server logs. Or monitor bandwidth. Or even have a sysadmin. Heh.
Without paying the extra tax, this is true. The point which you missed is that they are paying this tax essentially for the right to "pirate" as much as they want.
No, this tax is there to help fund the Canadian music industry. It will not change current copyright law.
Interesting. So, since most music is sold only on CD or tape, MP3 trading is obviously illegal in those cases. Also giving away copies of cds is, and copying cds and giving them away is.
This makes sense though. I mean, you can easily buy a cd and everyone in the family can easily make a copy of it, and not break the law. A few friends can make copies, but it does eliminate the trickle down effect (someone making a copy of a copy of a copy... effectively allowing one cd to make thousands of copies).
I think you get the law backwards. For something to be illegal, the law has to explicitely forbid it, not the other way around. The point is moot anyway, since copyright law restricts what you can do with copies you make of a work, not what you can do with something you legally bought.
Actually, it's you who have it backwords. Copyright law forbits copying any work, except where it EXCLUDES you. So, you can't copy anything except for the exceptions. The above is an exception (copying for personal use).
Where is the exception allowing you to lend copyright works that are assigned to you, for the purpose of copying?
You left out subsection(2). If you look carefully, it's not legal to make a copy for the purpose of distributing, whether or not for trade (in other words, distributing for free isn't legal either). So, you own a CD. You are allowed to make a copy, BUT NOT TO DISTRIBUTE IT.
Furthermore, I do not see any text stating you are allowed to lend your CD to others for the purpose of copying. In fact, if you record music for the purpose of distributing, you've broken the law. S
So, you copy a cd, and lend it to a friend so they can copy it. Boom, you've broken the law because you've made a copy for the purpose of distributing that copy to others for copying.
This is all probably in there so that you can buy a cd, make copies of the cd for personal use (such as to play in the car, you cd player, etc), and lend the original to friends to make copies. That is, as long as they make the copy to keep for themselves. Anything else is a copy for the purpose of distributing.
80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of
(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording, (b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or (c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.
Limitation
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):
(a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental; (b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade; (c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or (d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public.
Well, first, since it's entirely legal to trade songs (a guy I know at London Drugs said a police officer was in one day, wanted a CD burner to burn his MP3s; salesmen pretended he didn't hear, but the officer said there was nothing against it), this is really only paying for something you can already do. Go, pirate, have fun. It's legal. Even if it weren't, you're paying for it anyway, so you may as well. I know I do.
No, it is not entirely legal to trade songs. Just because a police office was breaking copyright law doesn't mean that it's legal.
Although don't call it pirating (which is a dumb term anyway), since it's not illegal. In Canada, we're allowed to borrow CDs and make copies of them for personal use. That's what the tax^H^H^Hlevy is supposed to offset; unfortunately, if you buy CD-Rs to burn the latest FreeBSD, you're still supporting Celine Dion's retirement fund.
No, you are NOT allowed to do that. You are allowed to make BACKUPS of your OWN cds in case the originals are destroyed. The backups are NOT supposed to be used at the same time as the originals. If you sell the original, you are supposed to destroy the backups.
I suggest you look at copyright law (it's on the web these days, like anything else). It's an interesting read.
Hey, it could be worse. I mean.. The current release of Mozilla is one of the most stable things I've used, although it leaves some things to desire.
bahahahahahahahahahahah
I'm sorry, but stable.. NOT!
Netscape 4.77 is more stable than mozilla, and THAT IS PATHETIC! Furthermore, as for what mozilla lacks, it's pathetically slow! Try using it if you have 300 bookmarks.
Whatever the cause or reason behind the 300 bookmarks, it shows the horrible, pathetic, clunky code they must be using.
Again, you have made no case for the benefit of using force against your neighbors, other than that projects that you approve of get funded more than you are willing to pay for them yourself. That's theft.
Yes, I have. You' ve just ignored it. Please respond to my comments, and cease with the constant spouting of campain rhetoric. I've outlined the benefits and hardships of my system. The number people I feel it helps, and the people I feel it hurts. You are free to dispute this figures, but I will back them up with statics if need be.
I have also outlined the people I feel your governmental system would hurt, and the people it benefits. Failure for you to respond to my specific comments in some form, indicates that you have no intention of discussing this issue, but of merely repeating what you have stated in the past.
You must also realise that I am a socialist. I have always been one, and I live in a socialist country. I view failure to care for your fellow man as a crime, and those that fail to pay for the framework of society to be guilty. I believe that allowing harm to happen to your fellow man when you have the resources to help is a form of violence in its own right.
However, as I indicated in 3 previous posts, I am willing to have a look at your system, if you can at least outline a specific way that the total pain and suffering of its citizens is less than my system. Simply stating that some citizens may suffer under my system does not carry weight, as I am unaware of any political system that does not cause some form of harm (including anarcy) upon its people. In order to convince me of anything, you will have to show me that your system somehow entails less overall pain and suffering than mine.
That is, if you feel that forced taxation causes harm and imprisionment to one out of 100000 citizens, please describe how this is worse than what I deem to be 1 out of 1000 poor and underfed that would suffer under anarchy.
I'm impressed by how deeply you feel your community benefits from this system. I'm not going to deny that your system of coercion provides some functionality, I merely wish you to justify your use of force and theft against others. Your alternative to "move if you don't like it" does not work, for the same reason that you would reject "move if you don't like it" if a thief broke into your home and stole your wealth.
You really have a strange view of the world. First off, I am not stealing from others, those that do not pay their taxes are stealing from me. I live in a communial system, where everyone contributes dependant on their income, and the result is evenly shared with all in the community. This means that the poor and aged and infirm have enough food to eat, shelter over their heads, and are ensured an equal say in community events. Those that have money, that do not contribute to the pot, are people that take and do not give. THEY ARE THE THIEFS! They steal from me, my neighbour, and so on. They take what is not theirs.
This system has been agreed upon for quite a few generations. A majority of the people want this system. Under other systems, something more like anarchy that you are describing, there would be others that are unhappy. Most likely, the unhappy ones would be the poor, the infirm, and the elderly without relatives. In my system, the unhappy ones are the lazy, and the thieves.
Of course, since you are happy with your "tax", and everyone around you is happy with it, and everyone in the community agrees with what the money is spent on, I still do not understand why it is a tax. Why compulse people to pay what they are happy to pay?
Its quite simple. There are those out there that would steal from the community. People who don't pay taxes, are theives. They would live in the community, use its services, and not pay in return. Where I live, we have a system where all pay into the pot, and everyone has excellent health care, educational opportunities and what not. If someone wanted, they could set up a system where everything is fee based, and not taxed based, but most don't want this.
As a human being, and a citizen of my country, you have obligations to those around you, even if you don't like it. Tough;) The important aspect of this argument is that no one is forced to live under the system we employ, and that people can even lobby his fellow man to change it!
Of course, you seem to think that people having to move to set up a community different than this is a bad thing. Its not. 99.99% of people here (at least) are happy with the system. 99.999% of the people here have no problem paying their taxes on time, thereby making their payments to the community. If someone doesn't the way we live, it is obviously better for the 1 in 100000 to move elsewhere, to a community that has a system more to their liking.
What you MUST understand, is that there has to be SOME way to run the administration of communial costs. You've stated your way, and I've stated mine, and your only argument to back yours up is that in extremely rare cases, people who do not accept my system experience hardships.
However, I put this to you. How can your system be acceptable, if it allows hundreds out of a hundred thousand to suffer without medical care, food and shelter, compared to the one in one hundred thousand in my system, that may experience hardships if they do not contribute to their community. Myself, my fellow man, my community has gotten together and stated that the poor will not suffer, that they will have the same education as the rich. They will have access to health care and whatever else we decide together. We have decided that one person inconvienced out of a 100 000 is better than hundreds out of 100 000 starving or lacking the opportunities education provides.
Give us something better to go on, or don't bother wasting the air around you;) This doesn't mean some blather and rhetoric about force used against one neighbour, but specific ways a system can be put together and ensure that the country is still run.
Until you can provide for ways to run the country, even under a donation system, few will listen to you.
Blymie,
Over and over again you say how your "community" depends on coersion to operate. Yet you also state you're happy about that. Since you're happy, there is no reason for coersion. The only reason for coersion is that someone is not happy with the situation and would not cooperate without being forced.
I did not state my community depends on force to work at any point in time. Please point out where I stated so. You, however are making said claim, so let's keep the who's who here straight, ok? On to your "force" issue.
As to your force issue, it is all a matter of perspective. If someone said to you that your community was forcing people to refrain from committing murder, you would not find this astonishing. The difference that applies here is that you feel that "force" to prevent a murder is acceptable, but not "force" to ensure that someone carries their end of the bargin. You do not live in my community without doing your bit, and this is essentially what you are arguing.
You are arguing for the right to decide to opt out. You want to effectively STEAL from your neighbours. You want to take benefit of all the services that others are paying for, but refuse to pay for them whenever you so desire.
You have many freedoms in my country, but you would prefer more. People are not often jailed here for failure to pay taxes, if they are poor and unable to, however they are for cheating on them.
Keep in mind that a community is a group of like minded people. If someone doesn't like the idea of property tax, there are quite a few areas in my country that don't have property tax. You are welcome to settle there, and live as you please. However, if you plan to join the community I live in, you will abide by the laws and rules of our community. If you don't like those laws, don't move to my community. If you grew up here, and decide you don't like them, you are free to move. If the majority of citizens decide to revoke property tax, and move to a donation system to keep the roads clear in the winter, and the municiple services running, they are free to.
The long and short of it is, pull your weight or you are a thief. You steal my time, my neighbour's time (in the form of the taxes we pay). We are living in a community that agrees to share costs. Failure to do so is theft from all. As stated above, there are places you can go to get away from it all.
This is not a safe or stable community you live in. Anyone is able to be made a criminal by no action of their own, only the "vote" of their neighbors, or representitives they never wanted in the first place.
Odd. You are the first, yes, the first person I know that doesn't want representives managing the affairs of their country. Everyone I know wants someone to manage educational institutions, to ensure that the roads are clear and kept repaired, to keep the community running.
Your biggest complaint seems to be with the fact that if someone doesn't follow the rules, hardship could befall them. Furthermore, you state that this is through the democratic wishes of their neighbours.
I find it astonishing when people from over 100 countries in the world strive to come to my country, you feel that it has to be a horrible place to live. Perhaps my political system has flaws, but until you present a better system, or perhaps ways to improve the current system, picking on flaws is a moot point.
I find it impossible to believe that you can find a political system that will please all. All you can hope for is to ensure that the smallest percentage of the citizens as possible are put out by the conditions imposed upon them. The beauty of demorcacy is that in a pure form it can allow the citizens the modify the civil code you live by, and hopefully continue to diminish the plight of the unhappy to as little a percentage as possible.
No matter what, from anarchy to facism, people are put out. You need to choose where in the spectrum you want to live.
Since your community is based on initiating force against the people who live there, and you seem to believe this is a "good" thing, can you describe to me what argument it was that convinced you that initiating force against others was the right thing to do?
Odd. If someone came to your home, moved in, and stayed there, what would you do. Would you just ask them to leave? Would you say to them "Please leave", and if they didn't, well.. too bad, I don't use force?
What about if the same person ate all your food, and caused you to starve? What if the person used your resources? When would it be ok for said person to be forcefully removed from your house? When would it be ok for said person to be locked up if they kept coming back? Why do you feel its acceptable that you have a home, that you can keep people out of?
A community is the same thing. You live there, and it is not your own. Its a community. If you don't pay your share, you are a thief. You are stealing from me, and everyone else, and you'll be forcefully removed if you do so.
I'm also interested in why you want thieves to rob you. If you don't, then how do you reconsile defending your self while robbing others?
You have it backwords. I don't rob, but those that don't pay tax are robbing from me. They are a thief.
I can suggest some reading on the subject: Democracy, the God that Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, for one.
Bob-
Interesting. What community do you live in that doesn't collect property tax? I'd be interesting in finding out where this is. After all, this is what you are saying.
My community isn't run by force. You see, where I live, people are mature enough and have the intelligence to realise that there are services that are shared by every single citizen living in the community. Certainly by those that pay property tax (and therefore own property). I know you may find this astonishing, but its true! If people don't like this, they can certainly move elsewhere.. perhaps into the woods and live with wild animals.
Furthermore, you seem to elude to the fact that you are "donating" to certain projects because you are richer in time, or need to do so because the project is important to you. You are also indicating that you use some facilities that donate to the poor, such as your example with the hospital.
Where I live, property ownership obviously indicates you are richer than those that don't own property. It indicates that you have a finacial standing in the community that is better than those that don't. Where I live, increased intelligence, increased wealth, all of these things indicate a gift that you must share with your fellow man. After all, where I live, I owe my education to those around me. I owe my hospital care to the same. I owe who I am, and the opportunities that presented themselves to me, to those around me. Since I owe my education, health and welfare to the community around me, I owe that community, in the form of taxes, to pay for the next generation, and their health and schooling. I owe to pay for the aged, for those that _paid_ for my schooling.
I am free to leave my country, and move to another if I so wish. I am free to try to change the way things work in my community. However, people _like_ the way things run here. Its called democracy. People have collectively decided that they _like_ this system.
It seems to me, that you can't imagine a democracy where people collectively decide to share costs on important community items. You seem to hint that if I live in a community that is so, I must be a prisoner.
I seriously hope that you get out, and travel the world a bit more. It is not so in most of it.
I'm completely serious. The basis of property and income taxes is that the land or your labor isn't yours, you're just renting it from the government.
Nononono. Heh. You have it all wrong. The tax on your property isn't because you are renting it in reality, its that you need to pay to keep your community running.
The same goes with income tax, except its your nation that you are paying to upkeep. Surely you understand this. If not, rethink it. How else do you think the roads get build, the public hospitals run, the schools staffed, and so on?
Loki is _not_ dead because they entered a market that couldn't support them. Scott has mentioned several times that he had no intention of showing a profit for a few more years, at least. Loki's intention was to become the defacto standard for porting games to linux, and to capitalize on that ability in a year or two more down the road, when Linux sales _really_ started to generate revenue. At that point in time, they would have developed all the tools necessary to port games to Linux (like an installer, SDL, and so on), and have shown that they have the skill to do it quickly and professionally when they were handed the ball.
The problem for Loki came when all the venture capital dried up. It shouldn't for them, their plan was always sound, and based on profit in a year or two more. Their problems started when the market crashed, and with how quickly all the VC dried up.
Some very short sighted people pulled their money out of Loki, and they... well, they suck;) Don't invest in a five year plan, and then pull out 1/2 way through just because the market crashes.
Loki, a victim of circumstances, and a lack of investment fortitude. The sad part is that if Loki could have lasted until the summer, I'm sure that VC would have returned.:/
The ATARI joysticks are the same ones used for the C64, and most competitors of the day. Compatible ones were used by Amigas as well, and you can order said joysticks online.
I know you were just trying to do your best, but this is one of those cases where you have to literally put your foot down. This interview reflects poorly on Slashdot, and it reflects poorly on Bruce. No one wins here. No one will ever win when interviews are done this way, everyone will loose. Especially the audience, which is the only reason/. exists.
Keep this in mind. It doesn't matter who calls to do an interview in this sort of half baked way, the answer is "I'm sorry, we can't do that, it wouldn't do us or you justice".
In other words, the answer is "no", even if it means the interview is _never_ done, let alone a month away.
I have a feeling that BT has a stake in Prodigy, or some influence over them. Your case can usually be strengthened if others have already caved in to your demands, and I can't see any other reason why the first company picked on would be them.
Why else choose a company thousands of kms away, and in another country? They _must_ know that Prodigy will cave on this, thereby strengthing their position with the next company they approach.
Our games go through a continual QA process throughout their entire development cycle. Games destined for consoles such as PS2 and GameCube are
very heavily QA'd since these games cannot be updated with post-release patches.
-
In other words, "Since we can count on bug reports from users after they have paid good $$$ for the game, we can cut back on QA costs".
Alternatively : "We can let users buy our game, be unable to play it, and wait 3 months to release a patch to fix known problems, because we can do post release patches".
Slashdot Mirror
Very weird.
Gargolyes are protectors, Darth Vader certainly is not. Why would someone sculpt such an artifact of evil?
There were also a lot of bombs dropped on houses, Victorian or not...
the only country to use small pox or nukes against civilians is the US.
Erm.
The British were quite good at this, using infected blankets on Native North Americans, half a millenium ago. I'm sure other civilisations in history have done the same.
Not that I'd ever speak up for the war mongering US, but let's keep the facts straight.
I don't think LOTR had as many posts about it. What is the big deal with this film?
As any time I see something over advertised and the salesman yelling "Please, please, just take a look, oh PLEASE take a look, I BEG YOU", I run the other way, and FAST.
Subliminal advertising? OSDN invested in the film? Someone knows someone, and is trying to "help" spread the word? Whatever the case, it is too much hype for me.
It's turned me off. Sort of like when you see the same commercial 10 times in an hour TV show. It is usually the last time I buy that product (if I ever did).
I've been upset with this too. I wouldn't put it as above, although there are some valid.. statements, heh ;)
Try this url too for a petition against this silliness.
First the boss makes a stink about ORBZ an then they get slashdotted. Glad I don't work there.
From what I read in the article, and the moronic behaviour these people have exhibited, I would doubt that they even watch their server logs. Or monitor bandwidth. Or even have a sysadmin. Heh.
Without paying the extra tax, this is true.
The point which you missed is that they are paying this tax essentially for the right to "pirate" as much as they want.
No, this tax is there to help fund the Canadian music industry. It will not change current copyright law.
Interesting. So, since most music is sold only on CD or tape, MP3 trading is obviously illegal in those cases. Also giving away copies of cds is, and copying cds and giving them away is.
This makes sense though. I mean, you can easily buy a cd and everyone in the family can easily make a copy of it, and not break the law. A few friends can make copies, but it does eliminate the trickle down effect (someone making a copy of a copy of a copy... effectively allowing one cd to make thousands of copies).
Cool.
I think you get the law backwards. For something to be illegal, the law has to explicitely forbid it, not the other way around. The point is moot anyway, since copyright law restricts what you can do with copies you make of a work, not what you can do with something you legally bought.
Actually, it's you who have it backwords. Copyright law forbits copying any work, except where it EXCLUDES you. So, you can't copy anything except for the exceptions. The above is an exception (copying for personal use).
Where is the exception allowing you to lend copyright works that are assigned to you, for the purpose of copying?
You left out subsection(2). If you look carefully, it's not legal to make a copy for the purpose of distributing, whether or not for trade (in other words, distributing for free isn't legal either). So, you own a CD. You are allowed to make a copy, BUT NOT TO DISTRIBUTE IT.
Furthermore, I do not see any text stating you are allowed to lend your CD to others for the purpose of copying. In fact, if you record music for the purpose of distributing, you've broken the law. S
So, you copy a cd, and lend it to a friend so they can copy it. Boom, you've broken the law because you've made a copy for the purpose of distributing that copy to others for copying.
This is all probably in there so that you can buy a cd, make copies of the cd for personal use (such as to play in the car, you cd player, etc), and lend the original to friends to make copies. That is, as long as they make the copy to keep for themselves. Anything else is a copy for the purpose of distributing.
80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of
(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,
(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or
(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.
Limitation
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):
(a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental;
(b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;
(c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or
(d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public.
1997, c. 24, s. 50.
Well, first, since it's entirely legal to trade songs (a guy I know at London Drugs said a police officer was in one day, wanted a CD burner to burn his MP3s; salesmen pretended he didn't hear, but the officer said there was nothing against it), this is really only paying for something you can already do. Go, pirate, have fun. It's legal. Even if it weren't, you're paying for it anyway, so you may as well. I know I do.
No, it is not entirely legal to trade songs. Just because a police office was breaking copyright law doesn't mean that it's legal.
Although don't call it pirating (which is a dumb term anyway), since it's not illegal. In Canada, we're allowed to borrow CDs and make copies of them for personal use. That's what the tax^H^H^Hlevy is supposed to offset; unfortunately, if you buy CD-Rs to burn the latest FreeBSD, you're still supporting Celine Dion's retirement fund.
No, you are NOT allowed to do that. You are allowed to make BACKUPS of your OWN cds in case the originals are destroyed. The backups are NOT supposed to be used at the same time as the originals. If you sell the original, you are supposed to destroy the backups.
I suggest you look at copyright law (it's on the web these days, like anything else). It's an interesting read.
Hey, it could be worse. I mean.. The current release of Mozilla is one of the most stable things I've used, although it leaves some things to desire.
bahahahahahahahahahahah
I'm sorry, but stable.. NOT!
Netscape 4.77 is more stable than mozilla, and THAT IS PATHETIC! Furthermore, as for what mozilla lacks, it's pathetically slow! Try using it if you have 300 bookmarks.
Whatever the cause or reason behind the 300 bookmarks, it shows the horrible, pathetic, clunky code they must be using.
Oh yeah, this is really useful :PPP
;P
Even art, if to be appreciated, has to be observed. If you can call this art.
How lame
Again, you have made no case for the benefit of using force against your neighbors, other than that projects that you approve of get funded more than you are willing to pay for them yourself. That's theft.
Yes, I have. You' ve just ignored it. Please respond to my comments, and cease with the constant spouting of campain rhetoric. I've outlined the benefits and hardships of my system. The number people I feel it helps, and the people I feel it hurts. You are free to dispute this figures, but I will back them up with statics if need be.
I have also outlined the people I feel your governmental system would hurt, and the people it benefits. Failure for you to respond to my specific comments in some form, indicates that you have no intention of discussing this issue, but of merely repeating what you have stated in the past.
You must also realise that I am a socialist. I have always been one, and I live in a socialist country. I view failure to care for your fellow man as a crime, and those that fail to pay for the framework of society to be guilty. I believe that allowing harm to happen to your fellow man when you have the resources to help is a form of violence in its own right.
However, as I indicated in 3 previous posts, I am willing to have a look at your system, if you can at least outline a specific way that the total pain and suffering of its citizens is less than my system. Simply stating that some citizens may suffer under my system does not carry weight, as I am unaware of any political system that does not cause some form of harm (including anarcy) upon its people. In order to convince me of anything, you will have to show me that your system somehow entails less overall pain and suffering than mine.
That is, if you feel that forced taxation causes harm and imprisionment to one out of 100000 citizens, please describe how this is worse than what I deem to be 1 out of 1000 poor and underfed that would suffer under anarchy.
I'm impressed by how deeply you feel your community benefits from this system. I'm not going to deny that your system of coercion provides some functionality, I merely wish you to justify your use of force and theft against others. Your alternative to "move if you don't like it" does not work, for the same reason that you would reject "move if you don't like it" if a thief broke into your home and stole your wealth.
;) The important aspect of this argument is that no one is forced to live under the system we employ, and that people can even lobby his fellow man to change it!
;) This doesn't mean some blather and rhetoric about force used against one neighbour, but specific ways a system can be put together and ensure that the country is still run.
You really have a strange view of the world. First off, I am not stealing from others, those that do not pay their taxes are stealing from me. I live in a communial system, where everyone contributes dependant on their income, and the result is evenly shared with all in the community. This means that the poor and aged and infirm have enough food to eat, shelter over their heads, and are ensured an equal say in community events. Those that have money, that do not contribute to the pot, are people that take and do not give. THEY ARE THE THIEFS! They steal from me, my neighbour, and so on. They take what is not theirs.
This system has been agreed upon for quite a few generations. A majority of the people want this system. Under other systems, something more like anarchy that you are describing, there would be others that are unhappy. Most likely, the unhappy ones would be the poor, the infirm, and the elderly without relatives. In my system, the unhappy ones are the lazy, and the thieves.
Of course, since you are happy with your "tax", and everyone around you is happy with it, and everyone in the community agrees with what the money is spent on, I still do not understand why it is a tax. Why compulse people to pay what they are happy to pay?
Its quite simple. There are those out there that would steal from the community. People who don't pay taxes, are theives. They would live in the community, use its services, and not pay in return. Where I live, we have a system where all pay into the pot, and everyone has excellent health care, educational opportunities and what not. If someone wanted, they could set up a system where everything is fee based, and not taxed based, but most don't want this.
As a human being, and a citizen of my country, you have obligations to those around you, even if you don't like it. Tough
Of course, you seem to think that people having to move to set up a community different than this is a bad thing. Its not. 99.99% of people here (at least) are happy with the system. 99.999% of the people here have no problem paying their taxes on time, thereby making their payments to the community. If someone doesn't the way we live, it is obviously better for the 1 in 100000 to move elsewhere, to a community that has a system more to their liking.
What you MUST understand, is that there has to be SOME way to run the administration of communial costs. You've stated your way, and I've stated mine, and your only argument to back yours up is that in extremely rare cases, people who do not accept my system experience hardships.
However, I put this to you. How can your system be acceptable, if it allows hundreds out of a hundred thousand to suffer without medical care, food and shelter, compared to the one in one hundred thousand in my system, that may experience hardships if they do not contribute to their community. Myself, my fellow man, my community has gotten together and stated that the poor will not suffer, that they will have the same education as the rich. They will have access to health care and whatever else we decide together. We have decided that one person inconvienced out of a 100 000 is better than hundreds out of 100 000 starving or lacking the opportunities education provides.
Give us something better to go on, or don't bother wasting the air around you
Until you can provide for ways to run the country, even under a donation system, few will listen to you.
Blymie, Over and over again you say how your "community" depends on coersion to operate. Yet you also state you're happy about that. Since you're happy, there is no reason for coersion. The only reason for coersion is that someone is not happy with the situation and would not cooperate without being forced.
I did not state my community depends on force to work at any point in time. Please point out where I stated so. You, however are making said claim, so let's keep the who's who here straight, ok? On to your "force" issue.
As to your force issue, it is all a matter of perspective. If someone said to you that your community was forcing people to refrain from committing murder, you would not find this astonishing. The difference that applies here is that you feel that "force" to prevent a murder is acceptable, but not "force" to ensure that someone carries their end of the bargin. You do not live in my community without doing your bit, and this is essentially what you are arguing.
You are arguing for the right to decide to opt out. You want to effectively STEAL from your neighbours. You want to take benefit of all the services that others are paying for, but refuse to pay for them whenever you so desire.
You have many freedoms in my country, but you would prefer more. People are not often jailed here for failure to pay taxes, if they are poor and unable to, however they are for cheating on them.
Keep in mind that a community is a group of like minded people. If someone doesn't like the idea of property tax, there are quite a few areas in my country that don't have property tax. You are welcome to settle there, and live as you please. However, if you plan to join the community I live in, you will abide by the laws and rules of our community. If you don't like those laws, don't move to my community. If you grew up here, and decide you don't like them, you are free to move. If the majority of citizens decide to revoke property tax, and move to a donation system to keep the roads clear in the winter, and the municiple services running, they are free to.
The long and short of it is, pull your weight or you are a thief. You steal my time, my neighbour's time (in the form of the taxes we pay). We are living in a community that agrees to share costs. Failure to do so is theft from all. As stated above, there are places you can go to get away from it all.
This is not a safe or stable community you live in. Anyone is able to be made a criminal by no action of their own, only the "vote" of their neighbors, or representitives they never wanted in the first place.
Odd. You are the first, yes, the first person I know that doesn't want representives managing the affairs of their country. Everyone I know wants someone to manage educational institutions, to ensure that the roads are clear and kept repaired, to keep the community running.
Your biggest complaint seems to be with the fact that if someone doesn't follow the rules, hardship could befall them. Furthermore, you state that this is through the democratic wishes of their neighbours.
I find it astonishing when people from over 100 countries in the world strive to come to my country, you feel that it has to be a horrible place to live. Perhaps my political system has flaws, but until you present a better system, or perhaps ways to improve the current system, picking on flaws is a moot point.
I find it impossible to believe that you can find a political system that will please all. All you can hope for is to ensure that the smallest percentage of the citizens as possible are put out by the conditions imposed upon them. The beauty of demorcacy is that in a pure form it can allow the citizens the modify the civil code you live by, and hopefully continue to diminish the plight of the unhappy to as little a percentage as possible.
No matter what, from anarchy to facism, people are put out. You need to choose where in the spectrum you want to live.
Since your community is based on initiating force against the people who live there, and you seem to believe this is a "good" thing, can you describe to me what argument it was that convinced you that initiating force against others was the right thing to do?
Odd. If someone came to your home, moved in, and stayed there, what would you do. Would you just ask them to leave? Would you say to them "Please leave", and if they didn't, well.. too bad, I don't use force?
What about if the same person ate all your food, and caused you to starve? What if the person used your resources? When would it be ok for said person to be forcefully removed from your house? When would it be ok for said person to be locked up if they kept coming back? Why do you feel its acceptable that you have a home, that you can keep people out of?
A community is the same thing. You live there, and it is not your own. Its a community. If you don't pay your share, you are a thief. You are stealing from me, and everyone else, and you'll be forcefully removed if you do so.
I'm also interested in why you want thieves to rob you. If you don't, then how do you reconsile defending your self while robbing others? You have it backwords. I don't rob, but those that don't pay tax are robbing from me. They are a thief.
I can suggest some reading on the subject: Democracy, the God that Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, for one. Bob-
Interesting. What community do you live in that doesn't collect property tax? I'd be interesting in finding out where this is. After all, this is what you are saying.
My community isn't run by force. You see, where I live, people are mature enough and have the intelligence to realise that there are services that are shared by every single citizen living in the community. Certainly by those that pay property tax (and therefore own property). I know you may find this astonishing, but its true! If people don't like this, they can certainly move elsewhere.. perhaps into the woods and live with wild animals.
Furthermore, you seem to elude to the fact that you are "donating" to certain projects because you are richer in time, or need to do so because the project is important to you. You are also indicating that you use some facilities that donate to the poor, such as your example with the hospital.
Where I live, property ownership obviously indicates you are richer than those that don't own property. It indicates that you have a finacial standing in the community that is better than those that don't. Where I live, increased intelligence, increased wealth, all of these things indicate a gift that you must share with your fellow man. After all, where I live, I owe my education to those around me. I owe my hospital care to the same. I owe who I am, and the opportunities that presented themselves to me, to those around me. Since I owe my education, health and welfare to the community around me, I owe that community, in the form of taxes, to pay for the next generation, and their health and schooling. I owe to pay for the aged, for those that _paid_ for my schooling.
I am free to leave my country, and move to another if I so wish. I am free to try to change the way things work in my community. However, people _like_ the way things run here. Its called democracy. People have collectively decided that they _like_ this system.
It seems to me, that you can't imagine a democracy where people collectively decide to share costs on important community items. You seem to hint that if I live in a community that is so, I must be a prisoner.
I seriously hope that you get out, and travel the world a bit more. It is not so in most of it.
I'm completely serious. The basis of property and income taxes is that the land or your labor isn't yours, you're just renting it from the government.
Nononono. Heh. You have it all wrong. The tax on your property isn't because you are renting it in reality, its that you need to pay to keep your community running.
The same goes with income tax, except its your nation that you are paying to upkeep. Surely you understand this. If not, rethink it. How else do you think the roads get build, the public hospitals run, the schools staffed, and so on?
Loki is _not_ dead because they entered a market that couldn't support them. Scott has mentioned several times that he had no intention of showing a profit for a few more years, at least. Loki's intention was to become the defacto standard for porting games to linux, and to capitalize on that ability in a year or two more down the road, when Linux sales _really_ started to generate revenue. At that point in time, they would have developed all the tools necessary to port games to Linux (like an installer, SDL, and so on), and have shown that they have the skill to do it quickly and professionally when they were handed the ball.
... well, they suck ;) Don't invest in a five year plan, and then pull out 1/2 way through just because the market crashes.
:/
The problem for Loki came when all the venture capital dried up. It shouldn't for them, their plan was always sound, and based on profit in a year or two more. Their problems started when the market crashed, and with how quickly all the VC dried up.
Some very short sighted people pulled their money out of Loki, and they
Loki, a victim of circumstances, and a lack of investment fortitude. The sad part is that if Loki could have lasted until the summer, I'm sure that VC would have returned.
The ATARI joysticks are the same ones used for the C64, and most competitors of the day. Compatible ones were used by Amigas as well, and you can order said joysticks online.
Chris,
/. exists.
I know you were just trying to do your best, but this is one of those cases where you have to literally put your foot down. This interview reflects poorly on Slashdot, and it reflects poorly on Bruce. No one wins here. No one will ever win when interviews are done this way, everyone will loose. Especially the audience, which is the only reason
Keep this in mind. It doesn't matter who calls to do an interview in this sort of half baked way, the answer is "I'm sorry, we can't do that, it wouldn't do us or you justice".
In other words, the answer is "no", even if it means the interview is _never_ done, let alone a month away.
I have a feeling that BT has a stake in Prodigy, or some influence over them. Your case can usually be strengthened if others have already caved in to your demands, and I can't see any other reason why the first company picked on would be them.
Why else choose a company thousands of kms away, and in another country? They _must_ know that Prodigy will cave on this, thereby strengthing their position with the next company they approach.
I won't comment on the rest of your post, but this much had to be said about your statement that "Hitler killed 300,000,000 people in interment camps"
Three hundred MILLION people? You're claiming that Hitler killed 1/8th of the Earth's entire population during WWII in death camps?
Kind of hard to believe. Let's not play revisionist history here...
Our games go through a continual QA process throughout their entire development cycle. Games destined for consoles such as PS2 and GameCube are
very heavily QA'd since these games cannot be updated with post-release patches.
-
In other words, "Since we can count on bug reports from users after they have paid good $$$ for the game, we can cut back on QA costs".
Alternatively : "We can let users buy our game, be unable to play it, and wait 3 months to release a patch to fix known problems, because we can do post release patches".