Cover story for a little price gouging? Are you kidding me? I'm black and I can tell you there absolutely are higher costs for stores operating in the inner-city. Higher rates of theft and destruction of property. Thats not racist and its not profiteering. Its a higher cost of business passed onto the neighborhoods that causes those costs. Then you also have to factor in a higher rate of food stamp usage which can incur delayed reimbursement for the store, higher rates of fraud from stolen ATM/credit cards and higher rates of bounced checks. Staffing is also harder at inner city stores due to a less than great work/attendence ethic vs suburban stores. These are poor people problems and they increase the cost of doing business.
"Fair share"? Their fair share is whatever they're worth according to their skills, not the amount that would have them be equal in finances to every other human in the country.
You don't just give people money to be generous or to be nice or because you think everyone should have the same amount of money. Thats socialist and it doesn't work. If you give 10 people $1 Million Dollars and check back on them in 10 years you'll find some still rich, others poor and the rest somewhere in the middle. Spread the wealth? What are you, high on something? Like seriously?
The problem you have is you seem to have a problem with people benefiting from the power their wealth brings them. Well thats kinda the reason people want to be rich in the first place. Its not just about buying things or having the necessities. Some folks confuse our goal of having an eagalatarian society with having a society where everyone is the same. Thats not what it means at all. The purpose is to provide everyone with a chance at success, not garuntee that EVERYONE will be equally mediocre. Implicit in that is also allowing people to fail, miserably so in some cases.
If an expensive and time consuming college degree doesn't earn people high paying jobs then there's trouble with the system, your high standing elitist opinions of higher education notwithstanding.
Its just media man. You are making it sound like people are agreeing to lease their newborn children and give them back when they're 10 years old or something.
1. For you is there a difference between a woman who is not a virgin and a woman who is a slut and sleeps with everyone she meets? 2. Were you a virgin before you got married? 3. If the answer to question 2 is a no, do you consider yourself a sexist or a hypocrite? 4. Is marrying a virgin really such a good thing if you want a wife who is experienced in sex and will not require training?
The only reason why his Hellmouth article was anything near decent is because it covered a national tragedy that was pretty much non-technical in nature. So the Columbine killers played DOOM, big whoop. 30 years ago they would have been playing Dungeons and Dragons....the board game version.
People here on Slashdot hate JonKatz because he's a non-geek. He is practically computer illiterate yet he weighed in on highly technical subjects like he knew first thing about them. Look up his other articles. You'll see.
Microsoft has often fradulently claimed that the EU's directive to unbundle certain MS Apps from Windows is the cause of significant development delays.
2. What would the charter restrict anyway? Also how would it possibly be effective in a world where said company would have competitors? If I saw a company that had a charter I'd jump for joy because that would mean it would be very easy for everyone else to get rich at its expense by merely pursuing the business opportunities that it would explicitly forgo.
I made up the sig. Its my intellectual property, now pay up!
I won't disupte that copyright infringement probably helps the economy. Anything that makes a product or service cheaper, and piracy makes it down right free, makes the economy run smoother. Free food and free fuel would make the economy run smoother as well. Should we knock over grocery stores and gas stations now too?
"Government enforcement of contracts are morally enforcable because they are entered into willingly. The government could easily be replaced with an enforcer named Bob who we both agree to pay a sum to ensure that each of us meet with the contract. That word again for ya: willingly. Copyright is nothing such. Copyright is nothing more than paying Bob to go kick the shit out of anyone who does something we don't like. The people Bob is kicking the shit out of did not willing enter into an agreement to have the shit kicked out of them if they failed to uphold the contract. They are innocents. If you care to argue with me, argue this argument.. do not go wondering off into a story about how our current society would be worse off if we didn't have copyright. It tells us nothing."
This point doesn't need to be argued BECAUSE of our present situation, which is that of a represanative republic. The people have the ultimate power here. If they didn't want copyright to exist, it wouldn't exist. Period. Your example is analgoalous to someone not wanting to pay taxes and claiming that society is coerced into paying taxes. No. A few people don't want to pay, everyone else understands and accepts it. Same with copyright.
Your morality is misplaced anyway. There's nothing immoral about making people pay for the fruits of someone else's labor. What IS immoral however is trying to excuse and justify intellectual property theft. This is the real world, not some libertarian circle jerk fantasy.
I don't see what the debate is here. There's no question that the majority of people want to pay for police forces around the country via their taxes simply because police forces continue to exist. No one has voted their local police force out of existence.
So that leaves us with copyright enforcement. Is it not the government's job to enforce contracts? If it isn't then I'm wrong. But if it is then what is your point?
Yes, in the interest of the economy of our society someone should absolutely be able to remotely interfere in your life, because by your very actions of using/stealing their material without permission/compensation you are remotely interferring in THEIR livelihood. This country wasn't founded so we could all be hippies. I know folks who don't want to pay for things will never go away. Roaches aren't going away either. It doesn't mean society likes and or agrees with them though. Not when the full implications are laid out for all to see. The dismantling of entire industries, tens of thousands of jobs....etc.
And for what? So that someone who doesn't want to pay for a song or for software can get away with ripping people off? Information wants to be free huh?
Would that be more or less wrong then telling someone that their creation cannot be protected under law and that they must allow the entire world to profit from its free usage rendering the salability of the creation by the original author impossible?
So you think because people are no longer connected in the ways that YOU would prefer them to be that they are no longer connected at all?
Before the internet you had to make friends with those around you because thats all you had. You had no other choice. No people can be more picky and find better matches to spend their time with. That most likely is not your next door neighbor.
I personally do not have a problem with this in any shape or form.
Man you just still do not get it. Its like you are blinded by all things open source. Listen to me, OPEN SOURCE DOES NOT BENEFIT EVERYTHING!
Its not a matter of if or when black-hats will get OS X running on generic PC hardware, its been done now for over a year. Where have you been? Thats not the issue. Its possible certainly, its just not easy. The type of people who go through the trouble of getting OS X to run on a Dell are not the type of people Apple wants as customers for two reasons. 1. There's too few of them. Geeks on that level are always small in number. 2. They aren't attracted to Apple in the long run anyway. Eventually they get tired of fighting Apple's copy-protection mechanisms and go back to Linux.
So to review, you already CAN get OS X running on generic PC hardware. What exactly does Apple have to gain by open sourcing OS X (or OS XI)? How would open sourcing the OS "save themselves most of the effort?" WTF would Apple want to HELP people run the OS on non-Apple hardware? In your three posts on this issue so far you have yet to give even ONE good reason why Apple should open source their OS. Focus, hunker down mentally and give it to us simply in one paragraph. Why should Apple do this? Why why why?
Apple would do better for WHO? You or Apple? Do you open source people even think these suggestions through from the standpoint of the business making the code? Do you know anything about business? Seriously?
As for peripherials I don't know what crap your using but my Hewlett Packard 3-in-1 Printer/Copier/Scanner works by just plugging it into my Mac. No installing software or drivers or anything....It Just Works. So why does Apple need to GPL its OS again?
You are aware that Apple is a hardware company right? They make most of their profits from hardware. Insane margins like 25% on hardware sales. From Macs, not iPods. Just exactly how are they going to replicate that lost revenue if they open source the OS allowing it to be run on any cheap generic PC? Do you REALLY think they'll be able to sell enough copies of OS X to make up for that? And at what price? Right now OS X sells for $130. Apple would have to up the price to $250 or more, maybe even $400. Who's going to buy an alternative OS thats that expensive when they can just stick with Windows?
Slashdot Mirror
Cover story for a little price gouging? Are you kidding me? I'm black and I can tell you there absolutely are higher costs for stores operating in the inner-city. Higher rates of theft and destruction of property. Thats not racist and its not profiteering. Its a higher cost of business passed onto the neighborhoods that causes those costs. Then you also have to factor in a higher rate of food stamp usage which can incur delayed reimbursement for the store, higher rates of fraud from stolen ATM/credit cards and higher rates of bounced checks. Staffing is also harder at inner city stores due to a less than great work/attendence ethic vs suburban stores. These are poor people problems and they increase the cost of doing business.
"Fair share"? Their fair share is whatever they're worth according to their skills, not the amount that would have them be equal in finances to every other human in the country.
You don't just give people money to be generous or to be nice or because you think everyone should have the same amount of money. Thats socialist and it doesn't work. If you give 10 people $1 Million Dollars and check back on them in 10 years you'll find some still rich, others poor and the rest somewhere in the middle. Spread the wealth? What are you, high on something? Like seriously?
The problem you have is you seem to have a problem with people benefiting from the power their wealth brings them. Well thats kinda the reason people want to be rich in the first place. Its not just about buying things or having the necessities. Some folks confuse our goal of having an eagalatarian society with having a society where everyone is the same. Thats not what it means at all. The purpose is to provide everyone with a chance at success, not garuntee that EVERYONE will be equally mediocre. Implicit in that is also allowing people to fail, miserably so in some cases.
If an expensive and time consuming college degree doesn't earn people high paying jobs then there's trouble with the system, your high standing elitist opinions of higher education notwithstanding.
Isn't a liberal arts education just a trade school for going into the trades of literature, teaching and or politics?
How about realizing that society will always have disagrements internally among its citizens and that everyone can't be pleased?
Its just media man. You are making it sound like people are agreeing to lease their newborn children and give them back when they're 10 years old or something.
I got 4 questions for you.
1. For you is there a difference between a woman who is not a virgin and a woman who is a slut and sleeps with everyone she meets?
2. Were you a virgin before you got married?
3. If the answer to question 2 is a no, do you consider yourself a sexist or a hypocrite?
4. Is marrying a virgin really such a good thing if you want a wife who is experienced in sex and will not require training?
The only reason why his Hellmouth article was anything near decent is because it covered a national tragedy that was pretty much non-technical in nature. So the Columbine killers played DOOM, big whoop. 30 years ago they would have been playing Dungeons and Dragons....the board game version.
People here on Slashdot hate JonKatz because he's a non-geek. He is practically computer illiterate yet he weighed in on highly technical subjects like he knew first thing about them. Look up his other articles. You'll see.
Microsoft has often fradulently claimed that the EU's directive to unbundle certain MS Apps from Windows is the cause of significant development delays.
Oh you libertarians. You're so cuuuuuute!
(pinches cheek)
Aren't they really the most darling creatures?
1. Charters can be changed at any time.
2. What would the charter restrict anyway? Also how would it possibly be effective in a world where said company would have competitors? If I saw a company that had a charter I'd jump for joy because that would mean it would be very easy for everyone else to get rich at its expense by merely pursuing the business opportunities that it would explicitly forgo.
I made up the sig. Its my intellectual property, now pay up!
I won't disupte that copyright infringement probably helps the economy. Anything that makes a product or service cheaper, and piracy makes it down right free, makes the economy run smoother. Free food and free fuel would make the economy run smoother as well. Should we knock over grocery stores and gas stations now too?
"Government enforcement of contracts are morally enforcable because they are entered into willingly. The government could easily be replaced with an enforcer named Bob who we both agree to pay a sum to ensure that each of us meet with the contract. That word again for ya: willingly. Copyright is nothing such. Copyright is nothing more than paying Bob to go kick the shit out of anyone who does something we don't like. The people Bob is kicking the shit out of did not willing enter into an agreement to have the shit kicked out of them if they failed to uphold the contract. They are innocents. If you care to argue with me, argue this argument.. do not go wondering off into a story about how our current society would be worse off if we didn't have copyright. It tells us nothing."
This point doesn't need to be argued BECAUSE of our present situation, which is that of a represanative republic. The people have the ultimate power here. If they didn't want copyright to exist, it wouldn't exist. Period. Your example is analgoalous to someone not wanting to pay taxes and claiming that society is coerced into paying taxes. No. A few people don't want to pay, everyone else understands and accepts it. Same with copyright.
Your morality is misplaced anyway. There's nothing immoral about making people pay for the fruits of someone else's labor. What IS immoral however is trying to excuse and justify intellectual property theft. This is the real world, not some libertarian circle jerk fantasy.
I don't see what the debate is here. There's no question that the majority of people want to pay for police forces around the country via their taxes simply because police forces continue to exist. No one has voted their local police force out of existence.
So that leaves us with copyright enforcement. Is it not the government's job to enforce contracts? If it isn't then I'm wrong. But if it is then what is your point?
Yes, in the interest of the economy of our society someone should absolutely be able to remotely interfere in your life, because by your very actions of using/stealing their material without permission/compensation you are remotely interferring in THEIR livelihood. This country wasn't founded so we could all be hippies. I know folks who don't want to pay for things will never go away. Roaches aren't going away either. It doesn't mean society likes and or agrees with them though. Not when the full implications are laid out for all to see. The dismantling of entire industries, tens of thousands of jobs....etc.
And for what? So that someone who doesn't want to pay for a song or for software can get away with ripping people off? Information wants to be free huh?
Its only a gray area to those who don't want to pay.
Would that be more or less wrong then telling someone that their creation cannot be protected under law and that they must allow the entire world to profit from its free usage rendering the salability of the creation by the original author impossible?
So you think because people are no longer connected in the ways that YOU would prefer them to be that they are no longer connected at all?
Before the internet you had to make friends with those around you because thats all you had. You had no other choice. No people can be more picky and find better matches to spend their time with. That most likely is not your next door neighbor.
I personally do not have a problem with this in any shape or form.
In Soviet Russia......people realize that Soviet Russia jokes are just that....jokes.
Even people in Russia took the time to laugh every once in a while.
Man you just still do not get it. Its like you are blinded by all things open source. Listen to me, OPEN SOURCE DOES NOT BENEFIT EVERYTHING!
Its not a matter of if or when black-hats will get OS X running on generic PC hardware, its been done now for over a year. Where have you been? Thats not the issue. Its possible certainly, its just not easy. The type of people who go through the trouble of getting OS X to run on a Dell are not the type of people Apple wants as customers for two reasons. 1. There's too few of them. Geeks on that level are always small in number. 2. They aren't attracted to Apple in the long run anyway. Eventually they get tired of fighting Apple's copy-protection mechanisms and go back to Linux.
So to review, you already CAN get OS X running on generic PC hardware. What exactly does Apple have to gain by open sourcing OS X (or OS XI)? How would open sourcing the OS "save themselves most of the effort?" WTF would Apple want to HELP people run the OS on non-Apple hardware? In your three posts on this issue so far you have yet to give even ONE good reason why Apple should open source their OS. Focus, hunker down mentally and give it to us simply in one paragraph. Why should Apple do this? Why why why?
For the overwhelming majority of computer users that IS the total extent of computing.
Let me get this straight. You were in Europe, land of free health care, and you went to a black market doctor ANYWAY?
Are you nuts?
You are aware that Slashdot is a for-profit site aren't you? With the ad banners and all?
Apple would do better for WHO? You or Apple? Do you open source people even think these suggestions through from the standpoint of the business making the code? Do you know anything about business? Seriously?
As for peripherials I don't know what crap your using but my Hewlett Packard 3-in-1 Printer/Copier/Scanner works by just plugging it into my Mac. No installing software or drivers or anything....It Just Works. So why does Apple need to GPL its OS again?
You are aware that Apple is a hardware company right? They make most of their profits from hardware. Insane margins like 25% on hardware sales. From Macs, not iPods. Just exactly how are they going to replicate that lost revenue if they open source the OS allowing it to be run on any cheap generic PC? Do you REALLY think they'll be able to sell enough copies of OS X to make up for that? And at what price? Right now OS X sells for $130. Apple would have to up the price to $250 or more, maybe even $400. Who's going to buy an alternative OS thats that expensive when they can just stick with Windows?
Its not difficult. Folks just don't want to use "whom" because it sounds.......well........ you know...... gay.
Just because Europe has become weak does not mean the US is immoral.