I don't see how this is at all insightful. Since when do companies who benefit from the enforcement of the law need to be owned by citizens?
The necessary good is 'enforcing the IP laws' which are an extension of 'enforcing the right to private property' which is a lot like 'keeping people from stealing your shit'.
How does a police officer benefit me by investigating a home invasion on the other side of town? After all, I don't live on that side of town! and I pay the taxes for that cop! Just because this branch of the law enforcement agency is protecting corporations doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. Corporations pay taxes just like and in conjunction with individuals who work for those companies paying taxes. People who work for media companies pay lots of tax.
They conduct a business and have a reasonable expectation that they can conduct it without being stolen from. If a certain business, say, a drugstore, has had increased theft of , say, oxycontin, then it wouldn't be unreasonable for a special criminal investigative / task force to be set up to deal with, analyze, and prevent these specific crimes.
Does joe-non-pharmacy owner benefit? not directly. does that make it wrong to protect his property? hardly.
"This is not bad at all. In fact, it forces a lot of people into a fair discussion with argument and counterargument, whereas there were only soapboxes and shouting before."
This would be all fine and dandy, except that it doesn't matter if you think its bad or good. all that matters is what the company thinks.
Forcing someone to write or support an idea in their publication that they don't agree with is a form of facism. The beauty of personal ownership is to editorialize, to say what you want to say, and to not say the ideas you don't agree with. Forcing companies to publish ideas that they don't want to publish seems like a gross abuse of individual liberties. It doesn't matter that its cheap. You're forcing them to spend money to print information contrary to what they believe.
If you want to speak an idea, you pay for it. Don't force those who may not agree with you to use their time, their money, their life to support your idea.
You have a right to free speech. You don't have a right to free microphones.
is that most people who buy computers at wal-mart are clueless, and 90% of the time, so are the salespeople. I think people won't even know they are getting something different, then be incredibly pissed when their spider solitare doesn't run on it.
Sure, just don't expect to keep as much of your paycheck. And don't forget the VAT. most geeks that read slashdot like myself love purchasing electronics. See how much you can purchase with a 17% overhead, not to mention other local taxes.
Gray Davis, or whomever is really behind this, will get off. The little guy who accepted the contribution might take a fall. Inevitably, there will be a smoke/mirrors show, until the media has determined its no longer viable as a story, then Davis will get re-elected, etc.
Hell, anyone remember Chandra Levy? You can get away with murder (no pun intended) in this country as long as you keep quiet when the Sh*t hits the fan, lay low, then quietly pretend it didn't happen.
The most disturbing part of this is the lego illustrations on instructions of slavery. The slave lego people are all black, and some are sporting afros.
I don't remember afros in the bible, but i could be wrong.
he believes in what supporters call a global open society that could ensure a greater degree of freedom than individual states can or will.
Do you mean 'freedom' as in individual rights, or more freedom meaning 'free things'?
Too often, people equate economic prosperity with individual liberties. i.e. that to be free is to have stuff, and since there are those that don't have stuff, they are not free. I think people push towards globalism for a greater redistribution of wealth. I don't agree with it, I'm perfectly happy with individual nations, since I can move if I don't like one. I'm happy with this specific nation (the US) because it seems to be one of the few states that I can keep my freedom to make money (and keep it.)
Mandrake's finacial success doesn't suprise me. People are willing to pay for the membership in the club because Mandrake linux is perhaps one of the best distributions. Easy to use, reliable, but by no means just for a novice user. I tried redhat at first, because thats what I heard was one of the best. But I found Mandrake to be friendlier to me, a windows user. It hasn't crashed in two months, and runs my apache server just fine. Also shares my home network connection, so I don't have to pay at&t the extra cash for extra IPs.
And I actually paid for my copy, bought it at staples. worth every penny.
If its not also a cell-phone, then screw it. Thats the one thing its missing. If i could flip it open and put it against my ear and talk to my friends, or use its built in cellphone-ness to access the internet remotely, now there's something to me worth $600. True convergence means only one device, i'm tired of my motorola startac.
I'm thinking, if microsoft really didn't want VNC to be used, why not do some programming voodoo to make it crash or something?
I think the end user license is kind of silly in forbidding software a user can run. I think its more that microsoft won't support XP configurations running VNC, not that they want to ban people from using it. Or maybe they do, in favor of their built in remote admin stuff.
I can think of an analogy of someone buying a car, and reading the owners manual which says "please only use 'GM/Ford/your car company's name here' oil filters when changing oil, or this company's spark plugs when doing a tune up"... it's a suggestion, and if you blow your engine by using a crappy oil filter or something , I don't think the warrantee would cover it. Same here, Microsoft probably just doesn't want to support software , so they tell you not to run certain software.
Although I think its kind of silly, VNC is incredibly useful, even over slow dial up connections.
I applaud your post. But don't limit yourself to nuclear paranoia just for spaceships. There's still a lot of squalking about the facility in Nevada to store terrestrial nuclear waste. There's just too much politically associated with bad things like three mile island, etc. People demand we cut consumption of fuel, but don't want to take a relatively cheap / efficent / clean fuel like nuclear power.
Nuclear power could solve lots and lots of energy problems, and really bring down total cost of electricity. Plenty of nations have nuclear power as their primary source of electricity (france, for instance). If electricity prices really dropped, and battery technology got better, we could finally have lots of electric cars. Lots of electric cars means we could break the grasp of OPEC and all those other nations which control U.S. interests in oil. All I see in nuclear power is profit for everyone.
And, because i know it's coming, a rocket, laden with radioactive material, that explodes and scatters nuclear waste, would probably increase cancer rates about as much as the huge plumes of smoke that we dump into our atmosphere by burning all those chemicals to get into space using conventional fuels.
Holy god! someone finally used the 'real' definition of monopoly! Talk about an abusive monopoly -- this should be the definition in Websters.
This is a monopoly because the government is sanctioning it... no monopoly can exist without the use of force, and the only legal user of force is the government. Normally, the government only uses force in retaliation to protect its citizens who have had force used against them, but here we see otherwise. Monopolies can only exist through the use of force, like here. Here, consumers are forced to fund a company (RIAA/MPAA), they can't chose otherwise. Here, no one can start their own company that makes CD-Rs that are not taxable. This is what a monopoly really is, a company backed by the physical compulsion of a government.
Actually, people are buying HDTV for DVD players now. Progressive scanning DVD players, that is. 480p is technically a DTV standard and you can only watch 480p on a DTV or HDTV. Most people who buy HDTV (and I sell a lot of HDTV) buy a progressive scanning DVD players. (you can get one for like $170 now)
Also, the 16x9 formats usually have an enhanced mode for widescreen DVDs. So there's a lot of reason to have an HDTV now and use existing DVD technology. 480p is still pretty sharp compared to the crap we watch over cable.
Of course the ability to screen is related to the financial status. Doctors don't work for free, because working for free is slavery... and doctors wouldn't put in the time / effort it takes for a smile. And the equipment and such is very expensive... so are the facilities. The idea that doctors shouldn't discriminate against people who can pay versus people who can't is ridiculous. so is the notion that doctors should work regardless of whether the patient can pay... thats selective slavery. I realize you didn't directly say it, but I think that's what your hinting at.
My first concern is that you fail to see that *everything* is divided into class. Right now, those with better finacial status eat better tasting, more expensive foods, wear designer clothes to set them apart, send their kids to private well funded schools, and give them every advantage they can. Screening them for disease only means these rich people will live longer , too. Basically, people will draw inferences from those who've been screened and later gm'ed, but what inferences are these? that their parents had money and decided to screen? not much... i mean, traditional racial discrimination is way worse than any GM discrimination... aren't americans still bullheadedly thinking irish people are all drunks and asians are all math whizzes?
Its not a matter of class, its a matter of intelligence... Babies cost money. Probably more than they did 50 years ago. The truth is, any adult who's had a physical and has half a brain knows what traits they may pass on to their kids. So the issue is will the adult wait patiently, save the money needed for the test, and go without some things in order to insure a healthy baby? If so, these adults will probably raise a kid that will do real well, assuming they pass on the common sense and patience to their kids. Actually, most people who plan well and save and go without unnecessary things end up having a decent amount of money in the end anyways.
Screening is less a financial issue than a lot of people think... it will probably become very cheap if the government doesn't regulate it to all hell. Very cheap still may mean $10,000 , but if you don't have at least that much saved, what are you doing having kids? I mean, people who'd want to screen are obviously planning their pregnancies... shouldn't they plan financially and cover the costs, too?
now i know the article says circuit, not chip, and its like about 10+ years before we could see this, but a lot of slashdotters are wondering what we'd use this processing power for, if it did become available on a processor.
The best answer i can think of it is aerospace. I think once CPUs can do a decent amount of work in ultrasmall time slices, the idea of moving at.25C+ in some sort of space vehicle. Sure, propulsion systems are way lagging behind... but the processing power is almost there... realitistcally, you can't move at speeds even close to light because you're moving so fast you can't take the time to look to see if a little piece of debris is in the way....
Sure there's some good stuff coming out, but compare either to the 60's and 70's
hold on, i think the seventies was the cheesy movie era... Car Wash, Shaft... and wasn't the sixties the era of 'attack of the '... And I think the seventies was the decade of the major pornography movement in the US. Shitty movies know no specific era.
You know, if those who believed microsoft should be punished were consistent, i wouldn't give a shit. But if you think that microsoft strongarming PC manufacturers is some sort of evil, you should open your eyes.
To carry Sony's XBR model television, Sony requires retailers to carry all of Sony's product line. Even if they just want to sell high end TVs, like flatscreens, tough shit. Sony, being the manufacturer of a product, can sell it how they want and to whom.
Sears Roebuck often threatens contractors and manufacturers if their prices aren't majorly reduced for Sears. Sears wants the largest margin they can get, and as one of the largest electronic dealerships in the US, they can strongarm too.
There are about a million other examples of this, but it all comes down to a common denominator: Those who sell a product or make a product have the right to dictate on what terms they'll manufacture or sell it. Those who do not produce or sell it have no say... its the principle of private property and a reflection of the freedom of individuals, who associate with others to form companies, who exercise decisions based on what they want.
Whining about BeOS not having a chance because of exposure is bullshit. Exposure is not and should not be free. Advertising, product placement, money, its all required to earn a place in the market. Microsoft's OS fought a lot of other OSes out there when PCs were becoming popular in the early nineties. (OS/2, etc.) Are we to take away that market share they earned through being smart businessmen because BeOS is a day late and a dollar short? I don't think so.
The problem is, every time people decry corporations, or commercialization, they fail to provide any alternative.
You have two options... the way i see it, a corporation is a group of individuals, correct? Therefore, just because people band together with a common cause doesn't make them less worthy of the same rights as, say, an individual merits. So either we eliminate the rights of all individuals, regardless of whether they exist in a group or not, or we declare that all individuals retain their rights regardless of individuals excercise those rights while involved in a company or corporate interest.
The courts in the United States simply affirmed that one does not lose or gain rights when he acts with other individuals in a corporation.
I kind of like it when the courts affirm those rights.
come on, can't *anyone* think of good ideas for this? mobile videoconferencing with a pocket sized phone? on demand broadband almost anywhere? while talking on your cellphone, and giving / getting directions, you could also quickly pull up mapquest on your phone, and have images of landmarks sent over... Honestly, I'm a bad brainstormer... but someone else should be able to come up with something better.
Its one thing if you want to give your software away to the world. it's a noble pursuit. But lots of people don't. Adobe's products are *huge* software endevours, consuming years of peoples lives to develop. They have every right to sell it to whom they please.
Adobe should be applauded. I wouldn't sell my software in a market just to have it stolen and illegally reproduced. Who wants to work hard just to see the work stolen? This is a much more elegant solution that suing people or pressing criminal charges against millions of citizens that pirate software.
is that i'm sure the kazaa client is available for download from Morpheus, or one of the hundreds of other file sharing programs. Effectively, once one copy exists, software gains a sort of immortality... which the courts can't effectively dismantle.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see how this is at all insightful. Since when do companies who benefit from the enforcement of the law need to be owned by citizens?
The necessary good is 'enforcing the IP laws' which are an extension of 'enforcing the right to private property' which is a lot like 'keeping people from stealing your shit'.
How does a police officer benefit me by investigating a home invasion on the other side of town? After all, I don't live on that side of town! and I pay the taxes for that cop! Just because this branch of the law enforcement agency is protecting corporations doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. Corporations pay taxes just like and in conjunction with individuals who work for those companies paying taxes. People who work for media companies pay lots of tax.
They conduct a business and have a reasonable expectation that they can conduct it without being stolen from. If a certain business, say, a drugstore, has had increased theft of , say, oxycontin, then it wouldn't be unreasonable for a special criminal investigative / task force to be set up to deal with, analyze, and prevent these specific crimes.
Does joe-non-pharmacy owner benefit? not directly. does that make it wrong to protect his property? hardly.
the reason you might not make enough money: for a self-employed journalist, you can't write for shit.
Look at all the misspellings...
And that post had the coherence of a seven year old ritalin addicted child's speech patterns.
the last time I heard those words, I was reading an ayn rand work.
I'm glad to see someone recognized this, and identified it. thank you
Probably the same thing that happens when people have the power to create real viruses. not much.
Fearmongering with open-ended questions does nothing to further an intellectual arguement.
"This is not bad at all. In fact, it forces a lot of people into a fair discussion with argument and counterargument, whereas there were only soapboxes and shouting before."
This would be all fine and dandy, except that it doesn't matter if you think its bad or good. all that matters is what the company thinks.
Forcing someone to write or support an idea in their publication that they don't agree with is a form of facism. The beauty of personal ownership is to editorialize, to say what you want to say, and to not say the ideas you don't agree with. Forcing companies to publish ideas that they don't want to publish seems like a gross abuse of individual liberties. It doesn't matter that its cheap. You're forcing them to spend money to print information contrary to what they believe.
If you want to speak an idea, you pay for it. Don't force those who may not agree with you to use their time, their money, their life to support your idea.
You have a right to free speech. You don't have a right to free microphones.
Well, since most slashdotters don't believe in intellectual property, they should obviously side with microsoft.
is that most people who buy computers at wal-mart are clueless, and 90% of the time, so are the salespeople. I think people won't even know they are getting something different, then be incredibly pissed when their spider solitare doesn't run on it.
Sure, just don't expect to keep as much of your paycheck. And don't forget the VAT. most geeks that read slashdot like myself love purchasing electronics. See how much you can purchase with a 17% overhead, not to mention other local taxes.
Gray Davis, or whomever is really behind this, will get off. The little guy who accepted the contribution might take a fall. Inevitably, there will be a smoke/mirrors show, until the media has determined its no longer viable as a story, then Davis will get re-elected, etc.
Hell, anyone remember Chandra Levy? You can get away with murder (no pun intended) in this country as long as you keep quiet when the Sh*t hits the fan, lay low, then quietly pretend it didn't happen.
The most disturbing part of this is the lego illustrations on instructions of slavery. The slave lego people are all black, and some are sporting afros.
I don't remember afros in the bible, but i could be wrong.
he believes in what supporters call a global open society that could ensure a greater degree of freedom than individual states can or will.
Do you mean 'freedom' as in individual rights, or more freedom meaning 'free things'?
Too often, people equate economic prosperity with individual liberties. i.e. that to be free is to have stuff, and since there are those that don't have stuff, they are not free. I think people push towards globalism for a greater redistribution of wealth. I don't agree with it, I'm perfectly happy with individual nations, since I can move if I don't like one. I'm happy with this specific nation (the US) because it seems to be one of the few states that I can keep my freedom to make money (and keep it.)
Mandrake's finacial success doesn't suprise me. People are willing to pay for the membership in the club because Mandrake linux is perhaps one of the best distributions. Easy to use, reliable, but by no means just for a novice user.
I tried redhat at first, because thats what I heard was one of the best. But I found Mandrake to be friendlier to me, a windows user. It hasn't crashed in two months, and runs my apache server just fine. Also shares my home network connection, so I don't have to pay at&t the extra cash for extra IPs.
And I actually paid for my copy, bought it at staples. worth every penny.
If its not also a cell-phone, then screw it. Thats the one thing its missing. If i could flip it open and put it against my ear and talk to my friends, or use its built in cellphone-ness to access the internet remotely, now there's something to me worth $600. True convergence means only one device, i'm tired of my motorola startac.
I'm toying with an analogy in my head here.
... it's a suggestion, and if you blow your engine by using a crappy oil filter or something , I don't think the warrantee would cover it. Same here, Microsoft probably just doesn't want to support software , so they tell you not to run certain software.
I'm thinking, if microsoft really didn't want VNC to be used, why not do some programming voodoo to make it crash or something?
I think the end user license is kind of silly in forbidding software a user can run. I think its more that microsoft won't support XP configurations running VNC, not that they want to ban people from using it. Or maybe they do, in favor of their built in remote admin stuff.
I can think of an analogy of someone buying a car, and reading the owners manual which says "please only use 'GM/Ford/your car company's name here' oil filters when changing oil, or this company's spark plugs when doing a tune up"
Although I think its kind of silly, VNC is incredibly useful, even over slow dial up connections.
I applaud your post. But don't limit yourself to nuclear paranoia just for spaceships. There's still a lot of squalking about the facility in Nevada to store terrestrial nuclear waste. There's just too much politically associated with bad things like three mile island, etc. People demand we cut consumption of fuel, but don't want to take a relatively cheap / efficent / clean fuel like nuclear power.
Nuclear power could solve lots and lots of energy problems, and really bring down total cost of electricity. Plenty of nations have nuclear power as their primary source of electricity (france, for instance). If electricity prices really dropped, and battery technology got better, we could finally have lots of electric cars. Lots of electric cars means we could break the grasp of OPEC and all those other nations which control U.S. interests in oil. All I see in nuclear power is profit for everyone.
And, because i know it's coming, a rocket, laden with radioactive material, that explodes and scatters nuclear waste, would probably increase cancer rates about as much as the huge plumes of smoke that we dump into our atmosphere by burning all those chemicals to get into space using conventional fuels.
Holy god! someone finally used the 'real' definition of monopoly!
Talk about an abusive monopoly -- this should be the definition in Websters.
This is a monopoly because the government is sanctioning it... no monopoly can exist without the use of force, and the only legal user of force is the government. Normally, the government only uses force in retaliation to protect its citizens who have had force used against them, but here we see otherwise. Monopolies can only exist through the use of force, like here. Here, consumers are forced to fund a company (RIAA/MPAA), they can't chose otherwise. Here, no one can start their own company that makes CD-Rs that are not taxable. This is what a monopoly really is, a company backed by the physical compulsion of a government.
Actually, people are buying HDTV for DVD players now. Progressive scanning DVD players, that is. 480p is technically a DTV standard and you can only watch 480p on a DTV or HDTV. Most people who buy HDTV (and I sell a lot of HDTV) buy a progressive scanning DVD players. (you can get one for like $170 now)
Also, the 16x9 formats usually have an enhanced mode for widescreen DVDs. So there's a lot of reason to have an HDTV now and use existing DVD technology. 480p is still pretty sharp compared to the crap we watch over cable.
Of course the ability to screen is related to the financial status. Doctors don't work for free, because working for free is slavery... and doctors wouldn't put in the time / effort it takes for a smile. And the equipment and such is very expensive... so are the facilities. The idea that doctors shouldn't discriminate against people who can pay versus people who can't is ridiculous. so is the notion that doctors should work regardless of whether the patient can pay... thats selective slavery. I realize you didn't directly say it, but I think that's what your hinting at.
My first concern is that you fail to see that *everything* is divided into class. Right now, those with better finacial status eat better tasting, more expensive foods, wear designer clothes to set them apart, send their kids to private well funded schools, and give them every advantage they can. Screening them for disease only means these rich people will live longer , too. Basically, people will draw inferences from those who've been screened and later gm'ed, but what inferences are these? that their parents had money and decided to screen? not much... i mean, traditional racial discrimination is way worse than any GM discrimination... aren't americans still bullheadedly thinking irish people are all drunks and asians are all math whizzes?
Its not a matter of class, its a matter of intelligence... Babies cost money. Probably more than they did 50 years ago. The truth is, any adult who's had a physical and has half a brain knows what traits they may pass on to their kids. So the issue is will the adult wait patiently, save the money needed for the test, and go without some things in order to insure a healthy baby? If so, these adults will probably raise a kid that will do real well, assuming they pass on the common sense and patience to their kids. Actually, most people who plan well and save and go without unnecessary things end up having a decent amount of money in the end anyways.
Screening is less a financial issue than a lot of people think... it will probably become very cheap if the government doesn't regulate it to all hell. Very cheap still may mean $10,000 , but if you don't have at least that much saved, what are you doing having kids? I mean, people who'd want to screen are obviously planning their pregnancies... shouldn't they plan financially and cover the costs, too?
now i know the article says circuit, not chip, and its like about 10+ years before we could see this, but a lot of slashdotters are wondering what we'd use this processing power for, if it did become available on a processor.
.25C+ in some sort of space vehicle. Sure, propulsion systems are way lagging behind... but the processing power is almost there... realitistcally, you can't move at speeds even close to light because you're moving so fast you can't take the time to look to see if a little piece of debris is in the way....
The best answer i can think of it is aerospace. I think once CPUs can do a decent amount of work in ultrasmall time slices, the idea of moving at
Sure there's some good stuff coming out, but compare either to the 60's and 70's
... And I think the seventies was the decade of the major pornography movement in the US. Shitty movies know no specific era.
hold on, i think the seventies was the cheesy movie era... Car Wash, Shaft... and wasn't the sixties the era of 'attack of the '
You know, if those who believed microsoft should be punished were consistent, i wouldn't give a shit. But if you think that microsoft strongarming PC manufacturers is some sort of evil, you should open your eyes.
To carry Sony's XBR model television, Sony requires retailers to carry all of Sony's product line. Even if they just want to sell high end TVs, like flatscreens, tough shit. Sony, being the manufacturer of a product, can sell it how they want and to whom.
Sears Roebuck often threatens contractors and manufacturers if their prices aren't majorly reduced for Sears. Sears wants the largest margin they can get, and as one of the largest electronic dealerships in the US, they can strongarm too.
There are about a million other examples of this, but it all comes down to a common denominator: Those who sell a product or make a product have the right to dictate on what terms they'll manufacture or sell it. Those who do not produce or sell it have no say... its the principle of private property and a reflection of the freedom of individuals, who associate with others to form companies, who exercise decisions based on what they want.
Whining about BeOS not having a chance because of exposure is bullshit. Exposure is not and should not be free. Advertising, product placement, money, its all required to earn a place in the market. Microsoft's OS fought a lot of other OSes out there when PCs were becoming popular in the early nineties. (OS/2, etc.) Are we to take away that market share they earned through being smart businessmen because BeOS is a day late and a dollar short? I don't think so.
The problem is, every time people decry corporations, or commercialization, they fail to provide any alternative.
You have two options... the way i see it, a corporation is a group of individuals, correct? Therefore, just because people band together with a common cause doesn't make them less worthy of the same rights as, say, an individual merits. So either we eliminate the rights of all individuals, regardless of whether they exist in a group or not, or we declare that all individuals retain their rights regardless of individuals excercise those rights while involved in a company or corporate interest.
The courts in the United States simply affirmed that one does not lose or gain rights when he acts with other individuals in a corporation.
I kind of like it when the courts affirm those rights.
any more than 640 k?
come on, can't *anyone* think of good ideas for this? mobile videoconferencing with a pocket sized phone? on demand broadband almost anywhere? while talking on your cellphone, and giving / getting directions, you could also quickly pull up mapquest on your phone, and have images of landmarks sent over... Honestly, I'm a bad brainstormer... but someone else should be able to come up with something better.
Its one thing if you want to give your software away to the world. it's a noble pursuit. But lots of people don't. Adobe's products are *huge* software endevours, consuming years of peoples lives to develop. They have every right to sell it to whom they please.
Adobe should be applauded. I wouldn't sell my software in a market just to have it stolen and illegally reproduced. Who wants to work hard just to see the work stolen? This is a much more elegant solution that suing people or pressing criminal charges against millions of citizens that pirate software.
is that i'm sure the kazaa client is available for download from Morpheus, or one of the hundreds of other file sharing programs. Effectively, once one copy exists, software gains a sort of immortality... which the courts can't effectively dismantle.