Piracy was also a huge help in establishing Microsoft's critical mass with Windows95/98/NT/2000. After they achieved that, they locked things up a bit tighter to better ensure people are paying.
Not saying that's what HBO has in mind, just saying it's good when it serves their purposes.
Personally, I say it means HBO should start selling downloads on subscription and/or on an individual basis at a reasonable micro price. If I could download a DRM free 1080p version of GoT episode for like $0.80, I probably would. (For that matter, I probably can..., just haven't looked. If someone knows anything, reply here.) Direct downloads are easier and less risky than torrents.
If MIT students stopped for a week or even a day, the school would immediately pay attention to what is going on. Without stidents, the school shuts down and becomes worthles. It's a message to be sent, not quitting school. The school needs to know that how it treats people is important. More care and thought into how they manage situations such s these is important.
After all, the "soul searching" they said they would do? Have they produced any findings? Any resolutions? Any statements to the public? Any changes of policy? I haven't heard any, but then again, it's not quite "news" is it? So if anyone knows of any such results I'd be glad to know about it.
Every last MIT student should stop and protest the school. It should shut down until the people who helped to create the situation are called onto the carpet. It is my understanding that MIT wanted to stop things but were unable to stop things. But they did make a rash choice of calling in the authorities. They could have handled it differently. Some people have grown completely insensitive to the prospect of ruining the lives of others with police involvement. I blame entertainment/media saturation for turning the entire population into people as in touch with the depth of reality as "The Cable Guy."
Life is longer than 30 minutes with commercial breaks. Ruining a life is a life ruined. But with our reduced attention span, our consciences have been reduced as well.
You're kind of wrong about that. He will be remembered. He will be remembered as a symbol of free information and as a symbol of government gone wrong. He is one of the many examples of what is wrong and what will continue to go wrong. As they continue their behavior, they are increasingly more guilty. They and the public have seen the harm this type of action causes. That they do not pause or apologize shows they believe what they have done and are doing is right. They are broken and need to be disassembled.
At the moment, Android is being used for consumer interests. (Yeah I know, the PC started that way too.) I suppose as business applications move from the PC to "the cloud" (which is what mainframes were, in essense) the user interface device [client] becomes less important.
I can see that but not soon... not soon enough. Everything is still so locked and tied into Microsoft Office and servers and interfaces and all that. It's ridiculous how clingy business decision makers are to Microsoft solutions. I see functions and protocol implementations. Decision makers see "Microsoft" vs "I've never heard of them before."
Standards are the death of Microsoft because at the end of the day, it's about the data. Standards compliant structured data over standards compliant protocols means everyone can play. Microsoft would no longer have an edge or a lock-in.
Trouble is, Microsoft has become a standard in office documents even if they can't implement it faithfully themselves. Microsoft has essentially lost the HTML standards battle. But there are still many other things out there to overcome before a change is viable and change is expensive. Before business will want to change, Microsoft will have to be more expensive than free + the cost of not changing. The cost of not changing is the key factor isn't it. And what's it made of? Government Requirements? Budget constraints? Being able to work with clients, suppliers and business partners? That's a huge factor. The way forward through that depends on replacing those Microsoft dependencies with "standards."
After having just watched "John Dies at the End" your verbiage comes across really interestingly.
Interesting movie. It messes with you sense and understanding of reality.
But I guess Microsoft is like any religion. When you believe in god, you will believe in anything and especially that your god is all powerful. And, like Microsoft, when you believe you are God, you can't see the world changing around you. And you won't be able to see what you can't do.
Android becoming dominant this year? What's dominant? It will take a LOT to move business IT infrastructure and data away from Wintel. Android isn't enough to do that. At the moment, it's small. And it doesn't threaten to replace the way business does business. Not yet.
Already Microsoft's attempts at using ARM isn't working out. Microsoft depends too heavily on its Wintel x86. They are simply too afraid to put too much behind a whole new architecture. Apple did it and it's working for them. Google did it... did it better, actually, because they use something "similar" to Java and so whatever processor is used in whatever device, code for Android will work. But they, like Apple, started from nothing.
Why can't or won't Microsoft do the same?
Microsoft has historically depended on hardware to catch up with the software. This has been fine with PCs until recently. There just hasn't been significant improvements in PC power. In fact, like tablets and phones, mobile PCs need to use less power to remain attractive and viable. Microsoft knows how to use more power, but has problems using less. It doesn't know how to be small.
So this is a huge failing for its embedded and its mobile devices market and certainly harms itself mobile computer market.
Micrsoft has billions to throw away. Why it doesn't focus on building something new and awesome, I have no idea. It can keep doing the Wintel thing and also make cool, light-weight, low power things too. WHY DOESN"T it? I just can't figure it out. Microsoft phones are failing. The RT tablet? Isn't that already dead in favor of their Wintel tablet line? And isn't the Wintel line also a bit of a failure in that it can't support the battery life in a way which compares to Apple and Android devices?
I just want to know why Microsoft, with it's enormous resources, can't just come out and compete with the rest of them?
Thing is, what made silicon valley what it was is a bunch of people trying all new things without the encumberance of a colon-full of patents and lawyers to spread them around. (See what I did there? It was intentional... let the image sink in.)
Want the "good old days" back? Remove the kings of the hill and let's see a new scramble to the top. It wasn't WHO got us there as much as that there was a place to go. In the race to the top, there was less effort in trying to keep everyone else down and more into trying to rise to the top.
Good idea. I will send the suggestion to that company. They can send a bunch of shoes in my size to where I live and then I will send them out to other people to see if they get them.:)
Tracking a package means it gets special treatment. Tracking packages means people can be held responsible for their actions. In those cases, the method would affect the outcome of the experiment.
But I like that you pointed out that it could be customs acting on the "suspicious" nature of the packaging. But it's only suspicious if you're into politics.
The experiment shows that most of the stuff got through just fine. Only 10 packages went missing but 9 of the 10 were the branded. That's a pretty high rate which can't easily be explained by randomness.
Still, I hope they do the experiment again. Undoubtedly, the outcome would be different. I suspect the USPS and customs services have been briefed on this already.
Two packages, sent at the exact same time, to the same destination, the only difference was the brand tape. This conducted almost 90 times. It's enough to calculate a lot of useful things.
They performed control experiments where the destination went to other parts of the world without that problem.
The problem clearly starts at the US border. Another commenter pointed out "it could be customs." They could be right. But the type of discriminaiton is still not warranted, NOT ALLOWED and is still unprofessional.
So I take it you read the experiment's data. It paints a very clear picture.
So perhaps I just don't understand what it takes to carry out a proper experiment? What was done wrong? The samples are not too small -- that's my opinion. They were not studying things with too many variables. In fact it seems they did everything to could to reduce and remove variables in this case. Two packages shipped at the same time to the same destination should arrive at the same time. It's a matter of convenience. It is actually inconvenient to separate things in the way they were.
This assumption about "there is no god" is backward. When it comes to the method, you need to start with nothing and work with the information available and perform experiments. If you want to talk about the existence of a god, then you first must understand that the burden of proof is on the theist, not the atheist. EVERYONE is born atheist. No one knows anything about any gods until they are taught. See how that works? The problem comes in when people begin to realize there's pretty flimsy evidence that magic beings exist in the ways being claimed.
And now for a bit of antagonism: Why to theists go to doctors, hospitals and take medicines? Even the last Pope had a pacemaker. Do you have such little faith?
They have identified something which is painfully obvious. The samples in this experiment are large enough to prove that the atheist branding has affect on the delivery and that it only happens like this in the US.
This detail difference is a strong indicator as to the motivations behind what is going on. In short, "unprofessional behavior." With all the troubles the USPS is having, these professionals should be more concerned about delivering value in the service they provide. Instead, the political affiliations (religion is politics, don't kid yourself) of participants entrusted with delivery are affecting how well they do their jobs.
When they are at home or in their groups, let them say and think whatever they want. Let them march and protest and hold up signs expressing themselves. But when they are out there delivering things? Now they are interfering with commerce. Sorry, hommies, but government doesn't play dat.
Race to the bottom means they are offer the least while charging the most. Putting customers through the worst possible everything without losing a significant number of them.
They could offer a lot more for free -- SMS texts is a perfect example. The protocol says it's free but since people use it, they want it to cost. I wouldn't be surprised to have an air breathing fee if you walked into one of their stores.
How in the world this is even eligible for being patented escapes me. I know. This is the same rant that has been repeated over and over again here. Patents should be for inventions or things that people have created.
If I do a whole bunch of research and learn things that other people haven't learned about the sun, can I patent the bloody thing? How is patenting genes any different?
They have been doing their competitive race to the bottom for so long, they just don't know how to change. I've been with T-Mobile for a long time myself and have been wasting money on data plans I don't really use. In another few weeks, I'm switching over to a basic service pre-paid type thing. No Data.
It's at times like these when I reconsider when I need vs. what I want. I already moved my wife over to a prepaid carrier with no ill effects and a whole lot of savings. Gonna put mine on there as well when my early termination fee goes low enough.
No more over-priced subsidized phones. This is especially true when you see T-Mobile selling the Nexus 4 unsubsidized for far more than Google was selling it. It was insulting to the public's intelligence. And when I am told "you are required to have a data plan because you have a smart phone" I have to wonder how or why. I just want telephone service and they won't just give it to me. It's nonsense.
Sprint was my first carrier. They jacked me around too much. The only way to get what you want was to tell them you are leaving their service. That was an annoying game after the first couple of times. Next was T-Mobile. And they were better than the others from what I was hearing. At the end of the day, they all suck though.
I just want my freedom back and I only want to pay for what I use.
On one hand, I'm all for saving those tax dollars. And I applaud that a private entity can put stuff up into space and then sell access to it to the government more cheaply than the government can do for itself.
On the other hand, I'm naturally suspicious of the government buying services from private entities. Among these concerns are prisons, mercenaries (soldiers) and surveillance.
Thanks to some wonderfully crafted legislation, the people are guaranteed some form of transparency thanks to the freedom of information act. This has proven to be a real pain in the ass of wheeling-dealing politicians and the people who do business with them selling our government to the highest bidders. So it seems more and more they like using private companies to do the government's dirty work. You know it's dirty when they are given "retroactive immunity" for things which we still can't confirm they did or didn't do or what, precisely, they did!
So are they REALLY just doing weather surveillance? It's hard to believe these days. And since it's a private company instead of the government, it's hard to know where the blame goes since the agreements with private companies tend to be less than transparent.
Uhm.... wow. Seems really wrong somehow. But I think I see what you're trying to say.
"The systems" are in place to support "the thing." The copyright system is in place to support creators of creative works. The patent system is in place to support the creators of inventions. But somehow, there are people who game the system to make the system itself how they make their money.
The systems themselves should be the method by which government protects works of practicing entities. But instead the systems themselves are the things because they are non-practicing entities. And yes, that's very wrong and far from the intent of the systems.
As for Muslims? Sorry, but I don't get it. What I see, too often, is nothing like this. On the whole, I see a collection of people (not even sure it's a majority of muslims) who wish to respect and practice their traditions and cultures and for others to be sensitive to them. Most of the time, I'm okay with it. My experience is, "yes, they stand out in a crowd" but they do me no harm. Talk about people who fake or exaggerate being offended so that they can leverage that into some sort of power or influence? That happens all over.
Everywhere you turn, the government is trying to control everything. Information (its secrets), the weapons, the people... the people are increasingly poor and less educated with a higher rate of 'criminals' behind bars than anywhere else in the world. Money has been well under control for a long time. Speaking of which, I hear something is going on with Europe's money beginning in Spain.
They were extremely powerful weapons designed exclusively to be anti-personnel. It's what I would define as assault weapons.
I have no problem with the definition. A good weapon is a good tool. But it is what it is. To be clear, though, when government wants to hold exclusive rights to weapons or merely "better" weapons, it is the people they aim to limit and control. They want our freedom and they will enough of us to get it. "For our own good" of course.
18th century history shows us when a government wants to control the people, they take away their rights. Among these is the right to self-defense -- the right to weapons. 20th century history shows us they wanted to take away alcohol because people cannot be trusted to behave well with it. "For our own good" it was taken away from us. But people made their own, illegally. They countered the government in rebellion. In secret they made clubs. They organized. They defended themselves with guns... "assault weapons" even. The government realized the price was too high and the people were siding with the criminals. Prohibition was repealed.
The government hasn't lost the people yet. But if history is any model, the very moment the government tries to take too much away is when things will change. Things will have to get very bad before they get better. Let's hope that other countries don't step in as the US government fails. China would be very interested in picking our bones and to desperate people who are defending themselves from our government, even China will appear to be friendly and sympathetic.
The government and these anti-gun fools need to look to the past to see our future.
And you know? While we are on the subject, let's require people go through a licensing process when they want to have children. If they are pregnant or get someone pregnant without a license, there should be penalties. And when a child is in the family, let's require the parents to train cameras in their homes to ensure the children aren't being molested and raped. It might be annoyingly inconvenient, but there are thousands of innocent children out there who could be saved from having their lives affected.
Won't someone think of the children?! I mean... not in that way though?
We can go anywhere you want with thinking like that. How far before we realize that we're already violating the "innocent until proven guilty" thing?
Are you saying we no longer have a government? Or are you saying our government cannot be corrupt? Or are you saying that only private business and public government should have guns?
It doesn't matter. Each of these are pretty stupid arguments. If only one side has guns (and you won't get rid of guns in government hands) then there's a serious problem. We have already seen what happens when a cop goes bad. And we have seen worse. People who think banning guns is an answer are living in a dream land where wishes come true.
Let's put it out there. Let's say only police have guns. The very moment that is the case is the moment a baseball bat finds its way to a cop's head and his guns go missing. If guns exist, you can't control them. And let's say only the military has guns. We've already seen cases where people in the military sold weapons. I can't imagine that stopping the moment that it is illegal to own guns.
And let's not forget the 3D printing thing. Recall alcohol and prohibition? I read the stories and the like. The next thing you know, people are making their own guns and sharing them... for lots of money.
Making a thing illegal has NEVER EVER made it go away. It just created increasingly deadly situations for people. The "war on drugs" is a lesson learned with prohibition which the government simply refuses to acknowledge and accept. The danger and murder associated with the drug trade would pale in comparison to a ban on guns.
I think you and those like you simply don't think this through. You just stop at "I have a dream!"
Slashdot Mirror
Piracy was also a huge help in establishing Microsoft's critical mass with Windows95/98/NT/2000. After they achieved that, they locked things up a bit tighter to better ensure people are paying.
Not saying that's what HBO has in mind, just saying it's good when it serves their purposes.
Personally, I say it means HBO should start selling downloads on subscription and/or on an individual basis at a reasonable micro price. If I could download a DRM free 1080p version of GoT episode for like $0.80, I probably would. (For that matter, I probably can..., just haven't looked. If someone knows anything, reply here.) Direct downloads are easier and less risky than torrents.
If MIT students stopped for a week or even a day, the school would immediately pay attention to what is going on. Without stidents, the school shuts down and becomes worthles. It's a message to be sent, not quitting school. The school needs to know that how it treats people is important. More care and thought into how they manage situations such s these is important.
After all, the "soul searching" they said they would do? Have they produced any findings? Any resolutions? Any statements to the public? Any changes of policy? I haven't heard any, but then again, it's not quite "news" is it? So if anyone knows of any such results I'd be glad to know about it.
Every last MIT student should stop and protest the school. It should shut down until the people who helped to create the situation are called onto the carpet. It is my understanding that MIT wanted to stop things but were unable to stop things. But they did make a rash choice of calling in the authorities. They could have handled it differently. Some people have grown completely insensitive to the prospect of ruining the lives of others with police involvement. I blame entertainment/media saturation for turning the entire population into people as in touch with the depth of reality as "The Cable Guy."
Life is longer than 30 minutes with commercial breaks. Ruining a life is a life ruined. But with our reduced attention span, our consciences have been reduced as well.
You're kind of wrong about that. He will be remembered. He will be remembered as a symbol of free information and as a symbol of government gone wrong. He is one of the many examples of what is wrong and what will continue to go wrong. As they continue their behavior, they are increasingly more guilty. They and the public have seen the harm this type of action causes. That they do not pause or apologize shows they believe what they have done and are doing is right. They are broken and need to be disassembled.
At the moment, Android is being used for consumer interests. (Yeah I know, the PC started that way too.) I suppose as business applications move from the PC to "the cloud" (which is what mainframes were, in essense) the user interface device [client] becomes less important.
I can see that but not soon... not soon enough. Everything is still so locked and tied into Microsoft Office and servers and interfaces and all that. It's ridiculous how clingy business decision makers are to Microsoft solutions. I see functions and protocol implementations. Decision makers see "Microsoft" vs "I've never heard of them before."
Standards are the death of Microsoft because at the end of the day, it's about the data. Standards compliant structured data over standards compliant protocols means everyone can play. Microsoft would no longer have an edge or a lock-in.
Trouble is, Microsoft has become a standard in office documents even if they can't implement it faithfully themselves. Microsoft has essentially lost the HTML standards battle. But there are still many other things out there to overcome before a change is viable and change is expensive. Before business will want to change, Microsoft will have to be more expensive than free + the cost of not changing. The cost of not changing is the key factor isn't it. And what's it made of? Government Requirements? Budget constraints? Being able to work with clients, suppliers and business partners? That's a huge factor. The way forward through that depends on replacing those Microsoft dependencies with "standards."
After having just watched "John Dies at the End" your verbiage comes across really interestingly.
Interesting movie. It messes with you sense and understanding of reality.
But I guess Microsoft is like any religion. When you believe in god, you will believe in anything and especially that your god is all powerful. And, like Microsoft, when you believe you are God, you can't see the world changing around you. And you won't be able to see what you can't do.
Android becoming dominant this year? What's dominant? It will take a LOT to move business IT infrastructure and data away from Wintel. Android isn't enough to do that. At the moment, it's small. And it doesn't threaten to replace the way business does business. Not yet.
Microsoft will not be able to pull it off.
Already Microsoft's attempts at using ARM isn't working out. Microsoft depends too heavily on its Wintel x86. They are simply too afraid to put too much behind a whole new architecture. Apple did it and it's working for them. Google did it... did it better, actually, because they use something "similar" to Java and so whatever processor is used in whatever device, code for Android will work. But they, like Apple, started from nothing.
Why can't or won't Microsoft do the same?
Microsoft has historically depended on hardware to catch up with the software. This has been fine with PCs until recently. There just hasn't been significant improvements in PC power. In fact, like tablets and phones, mobile PCs need to use less power to remain attractive and viable. Microsoft knows how to use more power, but has problems using less. It doesn't know how to be small.
So this is a huge failing for its embedded and its mobile devices market and certainly harms itself mobile computer market.
Micrsoft has billions to throw away. Why it doesn't focus on building something new and awesome, I have no idea. It can keep doing the Wintel thing and also make cool, light-weight, low power things too. WHY DOESN"T it? I just can't figure it out. Microsoft phones are failing. The RT tablet? Isn't that already dead in favor of their Wintel tablet line? And isn't the Wintel line also a bit of a failure in that it can't support the battery life in a way which compares to Apple and Android devices?
I just want to know why Microsoft, with it's enormous resources, can't just come out and compete with the rest of them?
Uh. No. I'm kind of hoping that plane crashes.
Thing is, what made silicon valley what it was is a bunch of people trying all new things without the encumberance of a colon-full of patents and lawyers to spread them around. (See what I did there? It was intentional... let the image sink in.)
Want the "good old days" back? Remove the kings of the hill and let's see a new scramble to the top. It wasn't WHO got us there as much as that there was a place to go. In the race to the top, there was less effort in trying to keep everyone else down and more into trying to rise to the top.
Good idea. I will send the suggestion to that company. They can send a bunch of shoes in my size to where I live and then I will send them out to other people to see if they get them. :)
Tracking a package means it gets special treatment. Tracking packages means people can be held responsible for their actions. In those cases, the method would affect the outcome of the experiment.
But I like that you pointed out that it could be customs acting on the "suspicious" nature of the packaging. But it's only suspicious if you're into politics.
The experiment shows that most of the stuff got through just fine. Only 10 packages went missing but 9 of the 10 were the branded. That's a pretty high rate which can't easily be explained by randomness.
Still, I hope they do the experiment again. Undoubtedly, the outcome would be different. I suspect the USPS and customs services have been briefed on this already.
Have you heard of Atheist shoes before? Not me.
The experimental process was sound.
Two packages, sent at the exact same time, to the same destination, the only difference was the brand tape. This conducted almost 90 times. It's enough to calculate a lot of useful things.
They performed control experiments where the destination went to other parts of the world without that problem.
The problem clearly starts at the US border. Another commenter pointed out "it could be customs." They could be right. But the type of discriminaiton is still not warranted, NOT ALLOWED and is still unprofessional.
So I take it you read the experiment's data. It paints a very clear picture.
So perhaps I just don't understand what it takes to carry out a proper experiment? What was done wrong? The samples are not too small -- that's my opinion. They were not studying things with too many variables. In fact it seems they did everything to could to reduce and remove variables in this case. Two packages shipped at the same time to the same destination should arrive at the same time. It's a matter of convenience. It is actually inconvenient to separate things in the way they were.
This assumption about "there is no god" is backward. When it comes to the method, you need to start with nothing and work with the information available and perform experiments. If you want to talk about the existence of a god, then you first must understand that the burden of proof is on the theist, not the atheist. EVERYONE is born atheist. No one knows anything about any gods until they are taught. See how that works? The problem comes in when people begin to realize there's pretty flimsy evidence that magic beings exist in the ways being claimed.
And now for a bit of antagonism: Why to theists go to doctors, hospitals and take medicines? Even the last Pope had a pacemaker. Do you have such little faith?
Their experiment is not correllation/causation.
They have identified something which is painfully obvious. The samples in this experiment are large enough to prove that the atheist branding has affect on the delivery and that it only happens like this in the US.
This detail difference is a strong indicator as to the motivations behind what is going on. In short, "unprofessional behavior." With all the troubles the USPS is having, these professionals should be more concerned about delivering value in the service they provide. Instead, the political affiliations (religion is politics, don't kid yourself) of participants entrusted with delivery are affecting how well they do their jobs.
When they are at home or in their groups, let them say and think whatever they want. Let them march and protest and hold up signs expressing themselves. But when they are out there delivering things? Now they are interfering with commerce. Sorry, hommies, but government doesn't play dat.
No apologies here. If someone is stupid enough to install a program they receive in email and they weren't expecting one? C'mon!
I'd still rather be able to choose what I want to install than to have the maker and/or seller of the device make those decisions for me.
Race to the bottom means they are offer the least while charging the most. Putting customers through the worst possible everything without losing a significant number of them.
They could offer a lot more for free -- SMS texts is a perfect example. The protocol says it's free but since people use it, they want it to cost. I wouldn't be surprised to have an air breathing fee if you walked into one of their stores.
How in the world this is even eligible for being patented escapes me. I know. This is the same rant that has been repeated over and over again here. Patents should be for inventions or things that people have created.
If I do a whole bunch of research and learn things that other people haven't learned about the sun, can I patent the bloody thing? How is patenting genes any different?
They have been doing their competitive race to the bottom for so long, they just don't know how to change. I've been with T-Mobile for a long time myself and have been wasting money on data plans I don't really use. In another few weeks, I'm switching over to a basic service pre-paid type thing. No Data.
It's at times like these when I reconsider when I need vs. what I want. I already moved my wife over to a prepaid carrier with no ill effects and a whole lot of savings. Gonna put mine on there as well when my early termination fee goes low enough.
No more over-priced subsidized phones. This is especially true when you see T-Mobile selling the Nexus 4 unsubsidized for far more than Google was selling it. It was insulting to the public's intelligence. And when I am told "you are required to have a data plan because you have a smart phone" I have to wonder how or why. I just want telephone service and they won't just give it to me. It's nonsense.
Sprint was my first carrier. They jacked me around too much. The only way to get what you want was to tell them you are leaving their service. That was an annoying game after the first couple of times. Next was T-Mobile. And they were better than the others from what I was hearing. At the end of the day, they all suck though.
I just want my freedom back and I only want to pay for what I use.
On one hand, I'm all for saving those tax dollars. And I applaud that a private entity can put stuff up into space and then sell access to it to the government more cheaply than the government can do for itself.
On the other hand, I'm naturally suspicious of the government buying services from private entities. Among these concerns are prisons, mercenaries (soldiers) and surveillance.
Thanks to some wonderfully crafted legislation, the people are guaranteed some form of transparency thanks to the freedom of information act. This has proven to be a real pain in the ass of wheeling-dealing politicians and the people who do business with them selling our government to the highest bidders. So it seems more and more they like using private companies to do the government's dirty work. You know it's dirty when they are given "retroactive immunity" for things which we still can't confirm they did or didn't do or what, precisely, they did!
So are they REALLY just doing weather surveillance? It's hard to believe these days. And since it's a private company instead of the government, it's hard to know where the blame goes since the agreements with private companies tend to be less than transparent.
Uhm.... wow. Seems really wrong somehow. But I think I see what you're trying to say.
"The systems" are in place to support "the thing." The copyright system is in place to support creators of creative works. The patent system is in place to support the creators of inventions. But somehow, there are people who game the system to make the system itself how they make their money.
The systems themselves should be the method by which government protects works of practicing entities. But instead the systems themselves are the things because they are non-practicing entities. And yes, that's very wrong and far from the intent of the systems.
As for Muslims? Sorry, but I don't get it. What I see, too often, is nothing like this. On the whole, I see a collection of people (not even sure it's a majority of muslims) who wish to respect and practice their traditions and cultures and for others to be sensitive to them. Most of the time, I'm okay with it. My experience is, "yes, they stand out in a crowd" but they do me no harm. Talk about people who fake or exaggerate being offended so that they can leverage that into some sort of power or influence? That happens all over.
Have a nice day! :) -- Picture of Mohammad smiling
Everywhere you turn, the government is trying to control everything. Information (its secrets), the weapons, the people... the people are increasingly poor and less educated with a higher rate of 'criminals' behind bars than anywhere else in the world. Money has been well under control for a long time. Speaking of which, I hear something is going on with Europe's money beginning in Spain.
We live in interesting times.
They were extremely powerful weapons designed exclusively to be anti-personnel. It's what I would define as assault weapons.
I have no problem with the definition. A good weapon is a good tool. But it is what it is. To be clear, though, when government wants to hold exclusive rights to weapons or merely "better" weapons, it is the people they aim to limit and control. They want our freedom and they will enough of us to get it. "For our own good" of course.
18th century history shows us when a government wants to control the people, they take away their rights. Among these is the right to self-defense -- the right to weapons. 20th century history shows us they wanted to take away alcohol because people cannot be trusted to behave well with it. "For our own good" it was taken away from us. But people made their own, illegally. They countered the government in rebellion. In secret they made clubs. They organized. They defended themselves with guns... "assault weapons" even. The government realized the price was too high and the people were siding with the criminals. Prohibition was repealed.
The government hasn't lost the people yet. But if history is any model, the very moment the government tries to take too much away is when things will change. Things will have to get very bad before they get better. Let's hope that other countries don't step in as the US government fails. China would be very interested in picking our bones and to desperate people who are defending themselves from our government, even China will appear to be friendly and sympathetic.
The government and these anti-gun fools need to look to the past to see our future.
And you know? While we are on the subject, let's require people go through a licensing process when they want to have children. If they are pregnant or get someone pregnant without a license, there should be penalties. And when a child is in the family, let's require the parents to train cameras in their homes to ensure the children aren't being molested and raped. It might be annoyingly inconvenient, but there are thousands of innocent children out there who could be saved from having their lives affected.
Won't someone think of the children?! I mean... not in that way though?
We can go anywhere you want with thinking like that. How far before we realize that we're already violating the "innocent until proven guilty" thing?
Are you saying we no longer have a government? Or are you saying our government cannot be corrupt? Or are you saying that only private business and public government should have guns?
It doesn't matter. Each of these are pretty stupid arguments. If only one side has guns (and you won't get rid of guns in government hands) then there's a serious problem. We have already seen what happens when a cop goes bad. And we have seen worse. People who think banning guns is an answer are living in a dream land where wishes come true.
Let's put it out there. Let's say only police have guns. The very moment that is the case is the moment a baseball bat finds its way to a cop's head and his guns go missing. If guns exist, you can't control them. And let's say only the military has guns. We've already seen cases where people in the military sold weapons. I can't imagine that stopping the moment that it is illegal to own guns.
And let's not forget the 3D printing thing. Recall alcohol and prohibition? I read the stories and the like. The next thing you know, people are making their own guns and sharing them... for lots of money.
Making a thing illegal has NEVER EVER made it go away. It just created increasingly deadly situations for people. The "war on drugs" is a lesson learned with prohibition which the government simply refuses to acknowledge and accept. The danger and murder associated with the drug trade would pale in comparison to a ban on guns.
I think you and those like you simply don't think this through. You just stop at "I have a dream!"
I seriously doubt enough gold could be located on the planet to change the value of gold significantly.
Part of gold's value is perception anyway... kind of like diamonds, or the US dollar.