I don't think I'm reaching too far when I say the moral objections you have against paying for music is the exception, rather than the rule. Most people that age don't see beyond "I like getting shit for free."
And of course, a lot of people will claim some sort of moral protest to justify thier actions if confronted, but I'll give YOU the benefit of the doubt.
"Do you know what the national debt means? It means you bought an amount of 7 000 billions of goods to other countries without paying them"
Your own explanation demonstrates perfectly that you are the one who doesn't know what the national debt is.
Simply stated, the national debt is what taxpayers owe the treasury for purchases made by the government. When the amount of money spent by the government exceeds the amount of tax money collected, you have a budget deficit. The national debt is the total amount, plus interest, owed to the treasury.
It has nothing to do with international trade. I believe what you are refering to is called a "trade deficit".
"If you release software under the GPL and somebody you fundamentally disagree with (like SCO) starts to use it within the confines of the GPL, can you pull their right to use it?"
I may not have fully understood the article, but I don't think this is about SCO's right to USE NMap. It's about their right to redistribute it.
Currently SCO is charging money for software that was lisenced to SCO under the GPL, which forbids them from doing exactly that.
I don't think USENIX cares whether or not SCO uses their software. However, SCO is now forbidden to distribute it.
How many non-Slashdot-reading college students give a shit about DRM? A few maybe, but consider the following reasons why a cash-strapped college student isn't paying for music:
1. They're not paying because of a moral objection to the RIAA's business practices.
2. They're not paying because they don't trust DRM.
3. They're not paying because they don't have to pay.
Think back to your college days; chances are you weren't independently wealthy. Considering that, which scenario do YOU think is the most likely?
I was going to make this same point... Linux isn't the be-all-and-end-all of operating systems. For a lot of people, Windows simply does the job better/faster. Is it really that hard to accept the idea that people still using Windows aren't being "pressured" in some way by Microsoft? Maybe they just like Windows better! Deal with it!
I think it's the idea that Hollywood deals (mostly) in fiction, whereas to many, the violent crucifixion of Christ was very real.
Not here to debate the historical accuracy (or even whether or not it actually occured) of the event, just an idea on why people are getting so emotional over it.
"Part of being a world leader is showing leadership."
Leadership yes, as in not bending over whenever someone jealous of you wants a piece of your ass.
Perhaps we would take the U.N. seriously as an impartial world body if 2/3 of their member nations weren't oppressive dictatorships that hate the United States.
"Tell me about it, the other day I just slapped the Win2k kernel into my win98 box and it just sailed right through, no problems at all..."
Cute, but show me a "Mandrake Upgrade Edition" or "Slackware Upgrade Edition" and maybe you'd have a case.
Granted, the Windows upgrade packages weren't exactly perfect either, but it gives users a much less complicated upgrade path than formatting/reinstalling the entire OS or manually recompiling/integrating a new kernel.
Stories like this do nothing to help build a convincing argument to Windows users that Linux is in fact the better OS. If even seasoned Linux users have problems upgrading their kernel, think of how frustrating it would be for someone less technically-inclined.
This is one of many issues that Linux has to work out before it can become a true mainstream OS.
Of course, the U.N. isn't a governing body that makes enforcable laws superceding those of its member sovereign nations. It's more of a toothless tiger whose declarations hold as much water as a sieve.
A. The court agrees with Infinium Labs, ruling that the article is in fact libelous. HardOCP is punished and this case is not a First Amendment issue.
B. The court agrees with HardOCP, ruling that the article is not libelous. Infinium Labs' case is thrown out, and this case is not a First Amendment issue.
"...it appears that a particular company is using its monetary power to usurp the courts for the purpose of shutting up someone who, again at the very least, appears to be bringing up some rather embarrassing points about the history of a particular corporate executive associated with that company."
They aren't usurping the courts in the least. If HardOCP committed libel, and Infinium sues them for it, they are using the court system in precisely the way it was intended.
"It is certainly important that the public in general and investors in particular be aware of this history, for it directly affects the viability of that company."
Unless of course that information as presented in the article isn't true. If that is the case, Infinium has every right to sue.
"Assume HardOCP is writing constitutionally protected speech...then another individual / company / lawyers may not use the courtroom to squelch them."
Infinium Labs would go to court to prove that HardOCP's article was libelous, and therefor not protected speech. One of two outcomes would occur:
A. The court agrees with Infinium Labs, ruling that the article is not, in fact, protected speech. HardOCP is punished and this case is not a First Amendment issue.
B. The court agrees with HardOCP, ruling that the article is protected speech. Infinium Labs' case is thrown out, and this case is not a First Amendment issue.
So either way, this is not a First Amendment issue. Try again.
Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalen also made a difference.
Not to draw a comparison between this particular innovator and the latter-mentioned madmen, but I just wanted to point out that making a difference isn't always a good thing.
"My question is this. Where is the public outcry against the imbecile who abused the system and thus got it shut down?"
Because people like that are hailed here as heroes for daring to stand up to The Man! It's how they justify other illegal activities such as downloading music via P2P.
"As long as people feel they get an appropriate share of the material growth they are happy."
And who gets to decide what is an "appropriate share"? Taxpayers? Nope! That decision is in the hands of a government beaurcrat whose only job, it seems, is to pander to enough special interest groups to secure their next term in office.
"So I don't think much of the ambition is removed from the individual as there is no signs that the progress of society halts in these countries."
Then how come the majority of scientific and medical breakthroughs these days come out of the United States?
I reject the notion that the system should in fact "spend vast amounts of money" to cover these expenses.
Liberals treat these "expenses" as a variable in the tax/spend equation that can only increase.
Constantly raising taxes isn't the only way to balance a budget.
Unfortunately nobody in power so much as acknowledges the idea of cutting expenses. And our president is as bad as the rest of them, and is worse in one regard. He cuts taxes without doing the other side of the equation; cutting expenses.
"How much they rob you will vary locally, and is generally decided by consensus.
If you disagree so much you can't bear it, you're free to go and live in the US."
I do live in the U.S. And here how much we are robbed is not decided by the consensus.
Oh you can argue that it is sine we put our elected officials who rob us in office, but do you honestly think that if every proposed tax hike was put to a referendum, our taxes would be even close to what they are?
"The basic idea is to ensure that the whole of society is better off than if everyone were concerned only for themselves."
How is the whole of society better off in an existance where no matter how much or how little one contributes to society, they will always get the same return? That sort of philosophy, when bred with human nature, results in a decreased motivation to work harder than your peers. Ambition is therefore removed from the individual, and the progress of society halts in its tracks.
Slashdot Mirror
And of course, a lot of people will claim some sort of moral protest to justify thier actions if confronted, but I'll give YOU the benefit of the doubt.
Your own explanation demonstrates perfectly that you are the one who doesn't know what the national debt is.
Simply stated, the national debt is what taxpayers owe the treasury for purchases made by the government. When the amount of money spent by the government exceeds the amount of tax money collected, you have a budget deficit. The national debt is the total amount, plus interest, owed to the treasury.
It has nothing to do with international trade. I believe what you are refering to is called a "trade deficit".
Neither of which is the RIAA's concern nor fault. And it's not as if that justifies breaking the law either.
I may not have fully understood the article, but I don't think this is about SCO's right to USE NMap. It's about their right to redistribute it.
Currently SCO is charging money for software that was lisenced to SCO under the GPL, which forbids them from doing exactly that.
I don't think USENIX cares whether or not SCO uses their software. However, SCO is now forbidden to distribute it.
1. They're not paying because of a moral objection to the RIAA's business practices.
2. They're not paying because they don't trust DRM.
3. They're not paying because they don't have to pay.
Think back to your college days; chances are you weren't independently wealthy. Considering that, which scenario do YOU think is the most likely?
I was going to make this same point... Linux isn't the be-all-and-end-all of operating systems. For a lot of people, Windows simply does the job better/faster. Is it really that hard to accept the idea that people still using Windows aren't being "pressured" in some way by Microsoft? Maybe they just like Windows better! Deal with it!
Not here to debate the historical accuracy (or even whether or not it actually occured) of the event, just an idea on why people are getting so emotional over it.
And yes, this is getting offtopic.
Leadership yes, as in not bending over whenever someone jealous of you wants a piece of your ass.
Perhaps we would take the U.N. seriously as an impartial world body if 2/3 of their member nations weren't oppressive dictatorships that hate the United States.
Cute, but show me a "Mandrake Upgrade Edition" or "Slackware Upgrade Edition" and maybe you'd have a case.
Granted, the Windows upgrade packages weren't exactly perfect either, but it gives users a much less complicated upgrade path than formatting/reinstalling the entire OS or manually recompiling/integrating a new kernel.
This is one of many issues that Linux has to work out before it can become a true mainstream OS.
Of course, the U.N. isn't a governing body that makes enforcable laws superceding those of its member sovereign nations. It's more of a toothless tiger whose declarations hold as much water as a sieve.
A. The court agrees with Infinium Labs, ruling that the article is in fact libelous. HardOCP is punished and this case is not a First Amendment issue.
B. The court agrees with HardOCP, ruling that the article is not libelous. Infinium Labs' case is thrown out, and this case is not a First Amendment issue.
They aren't usurping the courts in the least. If HardOCP committed libel, and Infinium sues them for it, they are using the court system in precisely the way it was intended.
"It is certainly important that the public in general and investors in particular be aware of this history, for it directly affects the viability of that company."
Unless of course that information as presented in the article isn't true. If that is the case, Infinium has every right to sue.
And if, in a court of law, it is determined that HardOCP committed libel, they should be silenced, or at least punished proportionally to the crime.
Infinium Labs would go to court to prove that HardOCP's article was libelous, and therefor not protected speech. One of two outcomes would occur:
A. The court agrees with Infinium Labs, ruling that the article is not, in fact, protected speech. HardOCP is punished and this case is not a First Amendment issue.
B. The court agrees with HardOCP, ruling that the article is protected speech. Infinium Labs' case is thrown out, and this case is not a First Amendment issue.
So either way, this is not a First Amendment issue. Try again.
Is the federal or a state government trying to shut down HardOCP, or forcing them to retract an article?
In other words, how is this a 'freedom of speech' issue?
Because we're not the only ones who know their product is worthless.
Not to draw a comparison between this particular innovator and the latter-mentioned madmen, but I just wanted to point out that making a difference isn't always a good thing.
Because people like that are hailed here as heroes for daring to stand up to The Man! It's how they justify other illegal activities such as downloading music via P2P.
And who gets to decide what is an "appropriate share"? Taxpayers? Nope! That decision is in the hands of a government beaurcrat whose only job, it seems, is to pander to enough special interest groups to secure their next term in office.
"So I don't think much of the ambition is removed from the individual as there is no signs that the progress of society halts in these countries."
Then how come the majority of scientific and medical breakthroughs these days come out of the United States?
Liberals treat these "expenses" as a variable in the tax/spend equation that can only increase.
Constantly raising taxes isn't the only way to balance a budget.
Unfortunately nobody in power so much as acknowledges the idea of cutting expenses. And our president is as bad as the rest of them, and is worse in one regard. He cuts taxes without doing the other side of the equation; cutting expenses.
I do live in the U.S. And here how much we are robbed is not decided by the consensus.
Oh you can argue that it is sine we put our elected officials who rob us in office, but do you honestly think that if every proposed tax hike was put to a referendum, our taxes would be even close to what they are?
How is the whole of society better off in an existance where no matter how much or how little one contributes to society, they will always get the same return? That sort of philosophy, when bred with human nature, results in a decreased motivation to work harder than your peers. Ambition is therefore removed from the individual, and the progress of society halts in its tracks.
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul will always have the support of Paul" --George Bernard Shaw
Hardly the point; whether it's $100 or $100 million, it is not the government's money.