I mostly agree with you, except when you buy a TV, you own that TV. You can give it away, sell it, turn it into a flower pot, whatever you want, because it's yours. With music on the other hand, you only *own* the physical media, the IP that's recorded on it is *licensed* for *your* listening only. But if that's the case, you should have a *license* to hear that IP whenever you want, indefinitely, but that's not the case. The RIAA want the best of both worlds, sell you a license (so they retain ownership), but make it so narrow, they can always milk you for more $$ whenever they want.
It brings up the following case: suppose I own a CD with Song X on it. Supposed my CD gets scratched, so I download the same Song X online (for free). Unfortunately, the song was from a "greatest hits" CD (not the one I own) and is slightly different. Now the RIAA can try and charge me with a $150k copyright infringement suit. Legally. And win.
What do I own? The right to own a copy of that song in general, or just that *exact* recording (including date and time recorded, as well as which take, etc) How am I supposed to know that information? Should all IP be encoded with identification? (sounds familiar)
Complain in one article that Verizon is overbilling customers; then defend them against releasing a customer accused of stealing music
What!?! You mean things aren't always good/evil or black/white? Welcome to the real world! Makes it hard to make snap decisions and prejudice accusations, doesn't it? Oh, the humanity!
Q: What can I do with MS that I can't do with Linux?
A: Nothing.
How about walk into any retail software store, buy any just-released commercial game and have it installed and playing that same day? Or how about playing the tens-of-thousands of already released titles?
Yeah, I guess it's a regional thing. I just always noticed the large red circle-with-bar-through-it signs about "no campaigning within X feet" and thought it was law.
Make me wonder about local elections. If the candidate comes to vote, can he not speak or shake hands with anyone while he's there? What if we wears a "vote for me" button or wanders around slowly, muttering the same?
My point is not that the Dixie Chicks or Micheal Moore did not have the freedom to say these things, nor is my point that I believe they had their freedom of speech curtailed. My point is that there are people, who upon hearing the Dixie Chicks and Micheal Moores comments, turned and said "People shouldn't be allowed to say those things" People who have voiced dissenting opinions are being actively villafied, and some people are actually suggesting that their right to express their opinions should be withheld "Because we're at war"
Again, YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS! If your hero's have the freedom to say what they want, why do you believe it's wrong for others to turn and say "People shouldn't be allowed to say those things." It's all FREE SPEECH.
Actively "villafying" someone is just as ok for "some people" to do as it is for Moore to do the same to Bush. There is no difference.
I admitted that the reasoning of the colonists were over-simplified, but the point remains, they wanted something different than what the remaining Europeans wanted. That's obvious in the way our goverments differ.
No, the US is not perfect, but to say any other country is better simply because you have a working welfare system is stupid. No, being an American does not mean you get to tell other countries they suck, but it does mean that you defend your country against insults. For the most part, where we live is a choice. If anyone thinks Ireland is *better* than the US, move there! If you are already there, shut up and be happy. You don't have to stand at the border and jeer, "Haha, I can sit on my ass and earn money from the government and you can't."
Ok, I did not say that the sole purpose of an American's life must be to try to become wealthy. I was merely stating that just because some countries have better "X" than we do, does not necessarily make that country better as a whole. I would love it if there was no concept of money at all and we lived in a Star Trek-esque utopian society whose goals were the betterment of mankind. But let's face facts, that's not going to happen anytime soon (if ever.)
Every society has to make choices. And with every choice, there is also a sacrifice. We choose to sacrifice socialized welfare for capitalism. That's our decision. Stop trying to tell us that we suck for that. If you prefer the choices made by other countries better, then become a citizen of that country. Simple. Either that, or run for office on a platform of "making us more like the Canadians." If you get elected, then that's what the people want, if not, your view is a minority. Live with it.
Strange, I live in Europe and have nothing whatsoever to fear from "freedom hating terrorists". I feel much more "free" than I would in the US. I have a public healthcare system. Social welfare benefits if and when I need them. My kids don't get shot at in school.
You also have little chance to become the next billionaire through ingenuity and determination. Congratulations! You've got a life of almost-certain mediocrity! Good for you, if that's what you want! Enjoy your superior welfare system. But remember, America was formed by Europeans who did *not* want that (gross over-simplification, but anyways..) America is the land of opportunity, your country is not. Don't try to change us and we'll not try to change you. We'll pay our price for our beliefs, by choice.
Yes, I admit, I went off on a sarcastic rant there. My apologies.
My real point is that pumping more money into "education, healthcare, welfare" is currently a Bad Idea. Not because the goals of these institutions are flawed, but their current US implementations definitely are. They need serious reform before we divert any more funds to them. Also, the US is *not* a socialist society. Let's not try to change that.
These other countries may be "better" than us in certain situations, but I bet they are a lot worse than us in others. That's the way things work. America is the land of *opportunity,* not the land of mediocricy (sp). Other countries may have less homeless, but I bet they have fewer billionaires as well. Which you prefer is a matter of choice. Personally, I'd rather have the opportunity to be hugely successful (with a risk of becoming desolate), than a somewhat guaranteed ability to have a lower-middle class existence, no matter how hard I work.
I think the US spends so much on the military because "Hey, we're good at it." It's easy to say, "Hey, stop wasting that money when there are better uses for it." There are *always* better uses for capital. It's similar to telling Google, "Hey, you invest a lot of time and $ in making a search engine. Stop it and spend your time working on a cure for cancer instead. That's a better goal." (granted, this is a major stretch in comparison, to say the least, but maybe you see my point - it's *always* a matter of compromises) Previous administration already cut military spending. Did things vastly improve? I don't believe so.
Well, that actually came out as more ranting, but oh well..
Yes, because we *all* know that the Big, Bad Government came by after the Oscars and threw Mr. Moore in a jail cell with the D. Chicks.
Wait, you mean that's *not* what happened? What was your point again?
You can't have it both ways. If Moore has the freedom to express his opinions, then the TV station ALSO has the freedom to edit it out or not. TV is not government run (at least, no yet). A station's decisions about what to air are *not* first amendment violations. You have the right to speak, not necessarily to be heard.
What should America be doing? Stop the protection of state funded terrorism from Israel. Stop the support of other dictators in third world countries. Stop the support on the oppressive monarchy in Saudi Arabia. Cut some funding for the military and place that excess money into education, healthcare and welfare. Claim responsibility for its past mistakes and look at real ways to finding solutions.
*groan* Where to start on this ultra-liberal nonsense...
I'm not sure if you live in the US or not, but if so, why not move to Norway, Sweden, etc? Live there all your life, then tell us that those are the "best" places in the world to live. Until then, you have no basis for comparison. (either do I, for that matter)
Cut the military and spend more on education, healthcare, and welfare? Of course! It's so simiple! Why don't we sell all our weapons to other countries and use that money for more welfare, too? In fact, why don't we make all weapons illegal and sell those too! The police don't need guns. That will surely lead us to the utopian, welfare-based, socialist society you invision!
Like it or not, humans are violent and prone to war. Ignoring that will not make it go away, the only way to survive is to mitigate violence the best we can. We may not be handling it perfectly, but we've survived this long and it's surely better than the alternatives.
Agreed. I've cut out a lot of time by switching to a "modern" bank that has a secure web interface as well as free bill paying abilities. Combine that with my check card (used rarely, if I need to float $ for a day or 2) and instant debit card (used often, as it instantly deducts the $ from account.)
That's a highly disturbing statistic. Do you have any origin for this number? It has a slight anal-smell to it, as if you perhaps recently pulled it from somewhere...
I hate people who sneak in misleading propaganda like this in an otherwise valid post.
For more on PPD, check any low level econ text. [amazon.com] or book on economic game theory [amazon.com]. Or check out some Mises [amazon.com]for those economically...
I'd like to check out those books, but which browser should I use to get the best prices?:-)
Money. It costs $$ to send snail mail. That money goes to the USPO, who use it to beef-up staffing and pay for the resources needed to deliver said mail. On the other hand, a spammer can send 10 or a million emails a day for the same flat rate. But ISPs don't receive any $$ for the extra resources needed to deliver said mail.
Doctorow: Well, sure, even the recording industry understands it will never get back to the way it was. I don't think it's dead. I think it is fundamentally changed and I think they're slowly coming to grips with that, although not as fast as we would like them to. But the recording industry has a story of, "We do two really important roles. One is to make music available and the other is to compensate artists." But one of the things we know is that 80 percent of all of the music ever released isn't for sale anywhere in the world. And another thing we know is that 97 percent of the artists signed to a recording contract earn less than $600 per year off of it. So Napster doesn't have a better track record at compensating artists, but it sure as shit had a better track record of making music available.
Eventually everyone will have one, but for now, many people still only have CD-ROMs. Corporations are tricksy, but I don't think even MS can shift the frequency/intensity of your CD-ROM's laser! But then again, Longhorn...
Slashdot Mirror
I mostly agree with you, except when you buy a TV, you own that TV. You can give it away, sell it, turn it into a flower pot, whatever you want, because it's yours. With music on the other hand, you only *own* the physical media, the IP that's recorded on it is *licensed* for *your* listening only. But if that's the case, you should have a *license* to hear that IP whenever you want, indefinitely, but that's not the case. The RIAA want the best of both worlds, sell you a license (so they retain ownership), but make it so narrow, they can always milk you for more $$ whenever they want.
It brings up the following case: suppose I own a CD with Song X on it. Supposed my CD gets scratched, so I download the same Song X online (for free). Unfortunately, the song was from a "greatest hits" CD (not the one I own) and is slightly different. Now the RIAA can try and charge me with a $150k copyright infringement suit. Legally. And win.
What do I own? The right to own a copy of that song in general, or just that *exact* recording (including date and time recorded, as well as which take, etc) How am I supposed to know that information? Should all IP be encoded with identification? (sounds familiar)
Quoth:
What!?! You mean things aren't always good/evil or black/white? Welcome to the real world! Makes it hard to make snap decisions and prejudice accusations, doesn't it? Oh, the humanity!
I like Linux too, but let's not go overboard.
Yeah, I guess it's a regional thing. I just always noticed the large red circle-with-bar-through-it signs about "no campaigning within X feet" and thought it was law.
Make me wonder about local elections. If the candidate comes to vote, can he not speak or shake hands with anyone while he's there? What if we wears a "vote for me" button or wanders around slowly, muttering the same?
What!?!
Campaigning within X number of feet (500?) of a polling place is illegal. What people are trying to get you to change your vote? I'm curious.
agreed. Limiting who gets to vote is treading on dangerous territory...
Favorite line:
Actively "villafying" someone is just as ok for "some people" to do as it is for Moore to do the same to Bush. There is no difference.
*sigh, again*
I admitted that the reasoning of the colonists were over-simplified, but the point remains, they wanted something different than what the remaining Europeans wanted. That's obvious in the way our goverments differ.
No, the US is not perfect, but to say any other country is better simply because you have a working welfare system is stupid. No, being an American does not mean you get to tell other countries they suck, but it does mean that you defend your country against insults. For the most part, where we live is a choice. If anyone thinks Ireland is *better* than the US, move there! If you are already there, shut up and be happy. You don't have to stand at the border and jeer, "Haha, I can sit on my ass and earn money from the government and you can't."
k?
*sigh*
Ok, I did not say that the sole purpose of an American's life must be to try to become wealthy. I was merely stating that just because some countries have better "X" than we do, does not necessarily make that country better as a whole. I would love it if there was no concept of money at all and we lived in a Star Trek-esque utopian society whose goals were the betterment of mankind. But let's face facts, that's not going to happen anytime soon (if ever.)
Every society has to make choices. And with every choice, there is also a sacrifice. We choose to sacrifice socialized welfare for capitalism. That's our decision. Stop trying to tell us that we suck for that. If you prefer the choices made by other countries better, then become a citizen of that country. Simple. Either that, or run for office on a platform of "making us more like the Canadians." If you get elected, then that's what the people want, if not, your view is a minority. Live with it.
Yes, I admit, I went off on a sarcastic rant there. My apologies.
My real point is that pumping more money into "education, healthcare, welfare" is currently a Bad Idea. Not because the goals of these institutions are flawed, but their current US implementations definitely are. They need serious reform before we divert any more funds to them. Also, the US is *not* a socialist society. Let's not try to change that.
These other countries may be "better" than us in certain situations, but I bet they are a lot worse than us in others. That's the way things work. America is the land of *opportunity,* not the land of mediocricy (sp). Other countries may have less homeless, but I bet they have fewer billionaires as well. Which you prefer is a matter of choice. Personally, I'd rather have the opportunity to be hugely successful (with a risk of becoming desolate), than a somewhat guaranteed ability to have a lower-middle class existence, no matter how hard I work.
I think the US spends so much on the military because "Hey, we're good at it." It's easy to say, "Hey, stop wasting that money when there are better uses for it." There are *always* better uses for capital. It's similar to telling Google, "Hey, you invest a lot of time and $ in making a search engine. Stop it and spend your time working on a cure for cancer instead. That's a better goal." (granted, this is a major stretch in comparison, to say the least, but maybe you see my point - it's *always* a matter of compromises) Previous administration already cut military spending. Did things vastly improve? I don't believe so.
Well, that actually came out as more ranting, but oh well..
Yes, because we *all* know that the Big, Bad Government came by after the Oscars and threw Mr. Moore in a jail cell with the D. Chicks.
Wait, you mean that's *not* what happened? What was your point again?
You can't have it both ways. If Moore has the freedom to express his opinions, then the TV station ALSO has the freedom to edit it out or not. TV is not government run (at least, no yet). A station's decisions about what to air are *not* first amendment violations. You have the right to speak, not necessarily to be heard.
*groan* Where to start on this ultra-liberal nonsense...
I'm not sure if you live in the US or not, but if so, why not move to Norway, Sweden, etc? Live there all your life, then tell us that those are the "best" places in the world to live. Until then, you have no basis for comparison. (either do I, for that matter)
Cut the military and spend more on education, healthcare, and welfare? Of course! It's so simiple! Why don't we sell all our weapons to other countries and use that money for more welfare, too? In fact, why don't we make all weapons illegal and sell those too! The police don't need guns. That will surely lead us to the utopian, welfare-based, socialist society you invision!
Like it or not, humans are violent and prone to war. Ignoring that will not make it go away, the only way to survive is to mitigate violence the best we can. We may not be handling it perfectly, but we've survived this long and it's surely better than the alternatives.
Agreed. I've cut out a lot of time by switching to a "modern" bank that has a secure web interface as well as free bill paying abilities. Combine that with my check card (used rarely, if I need to float $ for a day or 2) and instant debit card (used often, as it instantly deducts the $ from account.)
Density... TO THE MAX!
np, just trying to keep it honest..
That's a highly disturbing statistic. Do you have any origin for this number? It has a slight anal-smell to it, as if you perhaps recently pulled it from somewhere...
I hate people who sneak in misleading propaganda like this in an otherwise valid post.
Yeah, but do you lay in bed at night, worried about Nazis or Communists? Not anymore we don't. We need to make terrorism just as irrelevant.
I'd like to check out those books, but which browser should I use to get the best prices?
Quote: Money. It costs $$ to send snail mail. That money goes to the USPO, who use it to beef-up staffing and pay for the resources needed to deliver said mail. On the other hand, a spammer can send 10 or a million emails a day for the same flat rate. But ISPs don't receive any $$ for the extra resources needed to deliver said mail.
Yeah, and after that, let's fund a billion dollar campaign to educate the world about the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and DNF.
Yeah, but only if the CD is in your CD-Burner.
Eventually everyone will have one, but for now, many people still only have CD-ROMs. Corporations are tricksy, but I don't think even MS can shift the frequency/intensity of your CD-ROM's laser! But then again, Longhorn...
Plus, 'windows' is a generic name, while 'linux' is pretty specific. I'm sure several of those results for windows were for hardware stores, etc..