Thank you! I don't think a lot of people realize that people who try to "break" DRM are actually hurting their own cause.
Perhaps the media industries would have embraced online distribution, without such inconvenient restrictions, if there weren't so many freeloaders intent on getting their product without paying for it.
Let's pretend, for the moment, that companies didn't hire illegal immigrants to work on these farms, and that Americans are doing the work instead.
It is guaranteed that the Americans would demand a higher wage than what current illegal immigrants are paid; at least minimum wage, and likely more since they would almost certainly be be unionized.
So that means that the operating cost of the farm are higher. Does that mean that the company that owns the farm has to go belly-up? No! They simply raise the price of their goods to compensate for the higher cost of producing them.
Yes, food would be more expensive for consumers. But personally, I would rather pay more for food knowing that Americans are being employed, and illegal immigration isn't being encouraged.
"In spite of the fact that in those same states, the immigrants are doing the jobs that Americans won't take."
I'm afraid I have to throw the flag on that.
Those aren't "jobs that Americans won't take". Those are "jobs that companies won't pay Americans to do".
Companies pay illegal immigrants peanuts because they are allowed to; because law enforcement doesn't go after companies that hire illegal immigrants.
If the FBI (or whomever handles these issues now) would actually crack down on companies that exploit illegal immigrants, companies would have no choice but to hire Americans and pay them a fair wage.
It's a shame that our current president's loyalty to both corporations and the Hispanic voting bloc prevent him from honestly trying to solve the problem.
"The four teenagers who built it are all undocumented Mexican immigrants who came to this country through tunnels or hidden in the backseats of cars."
These kids are exactly the kind of people we should be encouraging to come to this country; smart, clever, hard-working, creative.
Yet they are here illegally, and something needs to be done about that. If these kids are as smart as the article suggests (and I have no reason to believe otherwise), attaining citizenship shouldn't be particularly taxing.
We, your government masters, know how your life should be run, and how much money you need. Since keeping more than what you need is greedy and immoral, it is our duty to take that excessive wealth and give it back to the people you trod upon to attain it.
You are not allowed to question our decision; doing so will expose you as the greedy opportunist you are, and will show us that you are unwilling to fulfill your duty to your fellow, underprivileged man.
So shut up and pay your taxes. It's easier than going to jail.
I think you and I just put different emphasis on fiscal vs. moral issues.
"To me, that's a lot different than the town Mayor dropping by the house and taking away your x-rated DVDs because the township has decided that people should not have access to 'those' types of movies.
You rightfully oppose the suggestion that the government should parent our children. I'm right with you there!
I, on the other hand, put more emphasis on fiscal policy. Call me greedy, old-fashioned, whatever, but having that same "Mayor" dropping by my house and taking a few thousand dollars from my wallet because the township decided that that money would be much better off in the hands of somebody else is an even more egregious violation.
You are an aspiring stooge who, in the course of your career (the game) may:
- Marry a corrupt politician! - Commit various crimes that will later be covered up by political allies! - Take bribes from special interests! - Screw (literally if you want) the people you were elected to represent! - Move to a state where you will likely win election and pretend to represent them! - Buy votes with other people's money!
The game is still in development, but the beta will be available in Spring '07.
His point was that stories like this are used to drump up support for and somehow justify the illegitimate uses of P2P that many Slashdotters (including, according to the parent, the editors) endorse. Which would be fine and intellectually honest, except for when Slashdot bemoans the violation of IP rights in GPL violation cases.
Slashdot Mirror
200 years ago, American "society" deemed it moral to own another human being. Did that make it so?
OK, I'll bear with that for a bit. So why would they want to sidestep fair use?
More to the point, would you agree that the primary reason for DRM was to (try to) keep people from copying and distributing their product en masse?
Question for you:
Why do you think DRM was created in the first place?
Thank you! I don't think a lot of people realize that people who try to "break" DRM are actually hurting their own cause.
Perhaps the media industries would have embraced online distribution, without such inconvenient restrictions, if there weren't so many freeloaders intent on getting their product without paying for it.
Let's pretend, for the moment, that companies didn't hire illegal immigrants to work on these farms, and that Americans are doing the work instead.
It is guaranteed that the Americans would demand a higher wage than what current illegal immigrants are paid; at least minimum wage, and likely more since they would almost certainly be be unionized.
So that means that the operating cost of the farm are higher. Does that mean that the company that owns the farm has to go belly-up? No! They simply raise the price of their goods to compensate for the higher cost of producing them.
Yes, food would be more expensive for consumers. But personally, I would rather pay more for food knowing that Americans are being employed, and illegal immigration isn't being encouraged.
I'm afraid I have to throw the flag on that.
Those aren't "jobs that Americans won't take". Those are "jobs that companies won't pay Americans to do".
Companies pay illegal immigrants peanuts because they are allowed to; because law enforcement doesn't go after companies that hire illegal immigrants.
If the FBI (or whomever handles these issues now) would actually crack down on companies that exploit illegal immigrants, companies would have no choice but to hire Americans and pay them a fair wage.
It's a shame that our current president's loyalty to both corporations and the Hispanic voting bloc prevent him from honestly trying to solve the problem.
If they became citizens before applying for college, that would be one less obstacle to overcome.
Yes, I know that there a lot of legal hoops to jump through to attain citizenship, but it gives them the best chance to succeed.
These kids are exactly the kind of people we should be encouraging to come to this country; smart, clever, hard-working, creative.
Yet they are here illegally, and something needs to be done about that. If these kids are as smart as the article suggests (and I have no reason to believe otherwise), attaining citizenship shouldn't be particularly taxing.
We, your government masters, know how your life should be run, and how much money you need. Since keeping more than what you need is greedy and immoral, it is our duty to take that excessive wealth and give it back to the people you trod upon to attain it.
You are not allowed to question our decision; doing so will expose you as the greedy opportunist you are, and will show us that you are unwilling to fulfill your duty to your fellow, underprivileged man.
So shut up and pay your taxes. It's easier than going to jail.
Granted, I got a little offtopic with the quote.
I think you and I just put different emphasis on fiscal vs. moral issues.
"To me, that's a lot different than the town Mayor dropping by the house and taking away your x-rated DVDs because the township has decided that people should not have access to 'those' types of movies.
You rightfully oppose the suggestion that the government should parent our children. I'm right with you there!
I, on the other hand, put more emphasis on fiscal policy. Call me greedy, old-fashioned, whatever, but having that same "Mayor" dropping by my house and taking a few thousand dollars from my wallet because the township decided that that money would be much better off in the hands of somebody else is an even more egregious violation.
So does that mean that Microsoft is good today? And it made it on Slashdot??
Record low temperatures reported in Hell!
I oppose corporate welfare as much as anybody. But you don't correct one wrong with another.
The point I'm making is that the message was not changed one iota by adding the context.
The basic message stayed the same; that government should take things away from individuals for the benefit of society.
Whether she's talking to a room full of rich people, or a room full of poor people makes no difference. The message was crystal clear.
No, and I didn't vote for him in '00 or '04.
Do you really believe that role of government is to act as Robin Hood, taking from the rich and giving to the poor?
You mean taking more money from people who have earned it, and giving more of it to people who have not.
Maybe a little offtopic, but the fact remains that her beliefs on fiscal policy revolve around the redistribution of wealth via taxation.
Regardless of the "context", the fact that she even uttered that string of words should scare the hell out of anybody who values their freedom.
"Congress!"
You are an aspiring stooge who, in the course of your career (the game) may:
- Marry a corrupt politician!
- Commit various crimes that will later be covered up by political allies!
- Take bribes from special interests!
- Screw (literally if you want) the people you were elected to represent!
- Move to a state where you will likely win election and pretend to represent them!
- Buy votes with other people's money!
The game is still in development, but the beta will be available in Spring '07.
Hmmm, and all this time I was under the impression that Sen. Clinton represented the people of New York. Who knew?
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
--Senator Hillary Clinton, June 28, 2004
Do you really want her as your next president?
I heard the big news last week that Air America Radio just got their seventh listener.
Self-righteous Apple fanboys in one corner.
Foaming-at-the-mouth Linux zealots in another.
This could get ugly, folks. I'm sure the *BSD crowd would chime in too, except that a judge recently orderd the feeding tube to be removed.
...you are making the RIAA's case for them.
Oh yeah, this too.
You missed the parent's point.
His point was that stories like this are used to drump up support for and somehow justify the illegitimate uses of P2P that many Slashdotters (including, according to the parent, the editors) endorse. Which would be fine and intellectually honest, except for when Slashdot bemoans the violation of IP rights in GPL violation cases.
"Both the artists (their monetary share of the profits are nil)...
Despite the fact that there is no shortage of bands/musicians trying to land these horrible contracts... go figure!
"...and the consumers who purchase the music distributed by them."
I'm still waiting for the story to appear on Slashdot where the RIAA sued someone for buying a CD.