Cut the rhetorical nonsense. What is wrong with applying the same rate to everyone? How is that not the fairest way to make sure everyone pays their share?
While you're at it, why not just have everyone's wages sent directly to the government to be redistributed equally? That's fair in your book, apparently.
Clinton did so only by further increasing the disproportionate tax burden of "the wealthy".
And by "the wealthy", Clinton meant households bringing in more than $60k.
Re:Internal conflict is what I worry about...
on
In the Year 2020
·
· Score: 1
Would you care to elaborate on how American politics are affecting YOU? I don't want to sound condescending, but how much do you really understand about American politics?
Re:Internal conflict is what I worry about...
on
In the Year 2020
·
· Score: 1
The problem these days is everyone thinks they have something important to say.
<offtopic rant>
Now I'm not saying that we should all be apathetic. But these protestors had their chance to speak their minds at the polls this past November, and they lost. What do they think they will accomplish by protesting the inauguration?
They'll say they just "want to be heard". Guess what? Most people don't give a shit about what they have to say. It's sad that they're so gratified by inconveniencing others.
</offtopic rant>
+5: Anti-Bush Tirade
on
In the Year 2020
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
OK, trollish subject aside (and yes I believe that's why it was modded up), what makes you believe that anyone else would be any more fiscally responsible?
I'll agree that Bush isn't doing us any favors, but you don't replace one big spender with another and expect things to be any different.
Case in point: Bush is trying to overhaul Social Security and rescue it from the inevitable financial ruin that Bill Clinton predicted in 1998. What are Democrats saying in response? That there is no financial crisis in Social Security, that the problem can be fixed by simply raising taxes.
Let me reiterate: Bush isn't doing this country's finances any favors. But neither would Democrats. The whole lot of them need to be given a lesson on how to spend other peoples' money (hint: sparingly).
Well, they're being attracted by something. I'd venture that it's the promise of fame and fortune. Whether or not they actually get it... well that's another story.
"I believe many artists make art to add beauty to the world, and that they desire an audience, not money."
If that were the case, they wouldn't be bending over for the RIAA hoping to land a big contract.
Sure there are plenty of independent musicians to which your statement applies, but nobody with a contract from an RIAA member is entitled to make that claim.
I agree that some consolidation would do a world of good, for many OSS projects. I think a lot of people who are re-inventing the wheel just want to create a wheel with their name on it.
In other words, ego is perpetuating the problem of redundant projects.
Com'on folks. If copying a song you haven't paid for isn't stealing, then neither is using someone else's name in an e-mail.
Does Mr. Fitch no longer have an identity as a result of John Doe's action? Where is Mr. Doe physically storing Mr. Fitch's identity? Without finding that stolen identity in Mr. Doe's posession, I don't think Mr. Fitch has much of a case.
So your idea of patent reform is to impose even more financial barriers on innovators? Wasn't the purpose of patents to allow us little guys to profit from a good idea without having to risk our future on it?
So, Ms. Lohan, what would you do if you had a GREAT idea for a REVOLUTIONARY gaadget, but didn't have the resources to create a prototype?
Your sentiment, while popular, only makes it EASIER for corporations to dominate the patent arena, since they have the capital to actually create these things.
...don't give a shit about case mods and flourescent lights and blinky RAM, just like how real car enthusiasts don't adorn piece-of-shit imports with stickers and tacky wings. It's all about what's under the hood, not how pretty it looks on the outside.
People who waste money on this nonsense should be ridiculed by us proud, genuine nerds.
"If you are a responsible researcher, and you find some security holes, you better publish them, right? Right? RIGHT?"
No, the responsible thing to do would to notify the software maker of the problem, not post it publicly so that people could exploit it. I think his intentions were made very clear by who he chose to inform.
The WTO has nothing to do with "free trade". It has to do with international rules of FAIR trade. I would imagine rampant selling of counterfeit goods at a fraction of the genuine-article's cost is a BIG no-no in the WTO.
Some "battle-hardened" sysadmin (who apparently doesn't to do regular backups... hmm...) salvages a few systems with Knoppix, and it's front-page news?
Setting aside your own personal feelings on the matter, what impact does rampant software piracy in China have on their status as a WTO member? I would think that some level of adherance to copyright/IP laws are a factor in maintaining good standing.
I'm sorry but my dictionary's definition of "free speech" does not include "downloading copyrighted music without paying for it".
"Perhaps you simply want to cloud the issue and steer the debate to one about race."
I'm sorry friend, but it was you who brought race into this with your reference to white-only water fountains. Your comparison of wanting free (as in beer) music to the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's is insulting at best.
You aren't talking about people who are publicly fighting a law they perceive as unjust. You're talking about people who hide behind anonymity and break the law for their own gain.
Then any such PC would have to be marked as a "Windows Only" PC or some similar label that clearly states that Windows XYZ is the only OS that will run on it. I'm perfectly OK with that.
Slashdot Mirror
Cut the rhetorical nonsense. What is wrong with applying the same rate to everyone? How is that not the fairest way to make sure everyone pays their share?
While you're at it, why not just have everyone's wages sent directly to the government to be redistributed equally? That's fair in your book, apparently.
Clinton did so only by further increasing the disproportionate tax burden of "the wealthy".
And by "the wealthy", Clinton meant households bringing in more than $60k.
Would you care to elaborate on how American politics are affecting YOU? I don't want to sound condescending, but how much do you really understand about American politics?
The problem these days is everyone thinks they have something important to say.
<offtopic rant>
Now I'm not saying that we should all be apathetic. But these protestors had their chance to speak their minds at the polls this past November, and they lost. What do they think they will accomplish by protesting the inauguration?
They'll say they just "want to be heard". Guess what? Most people don't give a shit about what they have to say. It's sad that they're so gratified by inconveniencing others.
</offtopic rant>
OK, trollish subject aside (and yes I believe that's why it was modded up), what makes you believe that anyone else would be any more fiscally responsible?
I'll agree that Bush isn't doing us any favors, but you don't replace one big spender with another and expect things to be any different.
Case in point: Bush is trying to overhaul Social Security and rescue it from the inevitable financial ruin that Bill Clinton predicted in 1998. What are Democrats saying in response? That there is no financial crisis in Social Security, that the problem can be fixed by simply raising taxes.
Let me reiterate: Bush isn't doing this country's finances any favors. But neither would Democrats. The whole lot of them need to be given a lesson on how to spend other peoples' money (hint: sparingly).
Well, they're being attracted by something. I'd venture that it's the promise of fame and fortune. Whether or not they actually get it... well that's another story.
Of course the code is open... unless you consider man pages acceptable documentation.
And last I knew, those O'Reilly books aren't free either.
What an awful comparison. When was the last time you read about a nun or a monk landing a multi-million dollar contracts from their parish/monastery?
If that were the case, they wouldn't be bending over for the RIAA hoping to land a big contract.
Sure there are plenty of independent musicians to which your statement applies, but nobody with a contract from an RIAA member is entitled to make that claim.
I agree that some consolidation would do a world of good, for many OSS projects. I think a lot of people who are re-inventing the wheel just want to create a wheel with their name on it.
In other words, ego is perpetuating the problem of redundant projects.
Since when was the purpose of Linux to gain market share?
I was under the impression that Linux is just a free/open alternative to commercial operating systems. Nothing more, nothing less.
Com'on folks. If copying a song you haven't paid for isn't stealing, then neither is using someone else's name in an e-mail.
Does Mr. Fitch no longer have an identity as a result of John Doe's action? Where is Mr. Doe physically storing Mr. Fitch's identity? Without finding that stolen identity in Mr. Doe's posession, I don't think Mr. Fitch has much of a case.
Information wants to be free too.
I don't get it.
My rights: I'm told that the call may be monitored. I can hang up if I object. No 'rights' are being violated.
Online: You mean "on the phone", right?
Seriously, where's the BIG BROTHER story here? Slow news day?
So your idea of patent reform is to impose even more financial barriers on innovators? Wasn't the purpose of patents to allow us little guys to profit from a good idea without having to risk our future on it?
So, Ms. Lohan, what would you do if you had a GREAT idea for a REVOLUTIONARY gaadget, but didn't have the resources to create a prototype?
Your sentiment, while popular, only makes it EASIER for corporations to dominate the patent arena, since they have the capital to actually create these things.
...don't give a shit about case mods and flourescent lights and blinky RAM, just like how real car enthusiasts don't adorn piece-of-shit imports with stickers and tacky wings. It's all about what's under the hood, not how pretty it looks on the outside.
People who waste money on this nonsense should be ridiculed by us proud, genuine nerds.
One has to appreciate the irony of the Register, barely a tabloid rag at best, refering to anyone as "paparazzi".
No, the responsible thing to do would to notify the software maker of the problem, not post it publicly so that people could exploit it. I think his intentions were made very clear by who he chose to inform.
The WTO has nothing to do with "free trade". It has to do with international rules of FAIR trade. I would imagine rampant selling of counterfeit goods at a fraction of the genuine-article's cost is a BIG no-no in the WTO.
OK let me see if I have this straight.
Some "battle-hardened" sysadmin (who apparently doesn't to do regular backups... hmm...) salvages a few systems with Knoppix, and it's front-page news?
Must be a real slow news day.
Setting aside your own personal feelings on the matter, what impact does rampant software piracy in China have on their status as a WTO member? I would think that some level of adherance to copyright/IP laws are a factor in maintaining good standing.
Anyone more informed than I have any thoughts?
I'm sorry but my dictionary's definition of "free speech" does not include "downloading copyrighted music without paying for it".
"Perhaps you simply want to cloud the issue and steer the debate to one about race."
I'm sorry friend, but it was you who brought race into this with your reference to white-only water fountains. Your comparison of wanting free (as in beer) music to the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's is insulting at best.
You aren't talking about people who are publicly fighting a law they perceive as unjust. You're talking about people who hide behind anonymity and break the law for their own gain.
Then any such PC would have to be marked as a "Windows Only" PC or some similar label that clearly states that Windows XYZ is the only OS that will run on it. I'm perfectly OK with that.
What about a WINE (Transgaming or X variety will do) that works?
And by works I mean REALLY WORKS.
So what's wrong with iTunes? You don't pay $18 for a single song you want, you pay $.99