There's a variant of this: Anarcho-Tyrrany. The government allows a certain amount of mayhem, and then cracks down in general, in the name of taking care of the mayhem. In the end, the government has more power and more control, but the mayhem continues. Can you say "War on Drugs"? Can you say "War on Poverty"? How about, "War on Terr..."?
Believe me, if it was Clinton or Gore you would see far more intrusion than you see now.
Democrats were and still are the force behind continuous growth of the governmental powers.
Used to be the Dems were the party of Big Government, and the Repubs were the party of Big Business. But both together are the party of Multinational Corporatism.
Have you ever read 1984? The restrictions on freedom that have been proposed don't come close to that. "Totalitarian" is completely the wrong word to use here, America isn't about to become anything like a totalitarian state.
How about _Brave New World_? The state doesn't have to exert force to maintain control; people simply don't care anymore, as long as they have their soma, feelies, and other various and sundry amusements.
In the case of the supermarket chain it's pretty simple: "Hi. You know that personal information you were stupid enough to give us? Well, now the feds know how many ho-hos you ate last month. Fatty."
This is downright sinister. Because you know what's next? The Fat Police.
Haven't searched their site to see why they ask for the registration, guess I ought to. Might be interesting to know - I don't know if they correlate (or try to)the signin with an IP address or referrer or user-agent or nothing at all. Thanks for the reply
They're cooperating with the FBI. They're hoping bin Laden will register and then they'll finally be able to track him.
The thing with organizations like the RIAA and the MPAA is they don't know when to quit. They need to learn a new way to make money that works with the modern world, or just go away all together.
It's always worth a try to manipulate the coercive power of the government in your favor. It's a lot easier than changing. Hey, it's what the lawyers are for, right? It's a spoils game. Until we change _that_, then everybody and his brother will be working the current system to their own advantage.
The thing is, this is probably just a sample. The thing to look out for is all the 14 year old girls who never play their CDs in their computers but the CD player their parents bought them for their birthday.
Test: try this out on a CD that 14-year old girls buy. Implementation: Every CD, including the ones the techies are buying. Are the marketers that dumb? Can it work? Do we have to pretend to be part of the test demographic to foil this test?
Re:Part of bigger problem, not just N'sync CDs
on
NSync Copy Protected CD
·
· Score: 2, Funny
You are all sheep. Think for yourselves before posting a stupid response to a real problem
Just send a letter. Every time I've written, I've gotten an answer. Even when I asked my Leftist Statist Corporate State Lapdog to explain the 10th Amendment to me...
Disney will decide whether you are allowed to watch it, and how many times. Disney will decide whether you may tape shows to watch later, and how many times you can watch them, or when they will become unwatchable, or even if you can watch them at all.
Hey, as long as Disney provides good feelies, then I'm just happy. Soma!
He _does_ have a point. I mean, if I were unjustly accused, it's not likely to be a high-profile case, so I don't have enough $$$ to get Keker. OTOH, this is probably a case an Idealist would love, too, since this is a chance to make a big impact on fixing an unjust law. So I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. He gets a chance to do something good for the rule of law, and gets famous for doing it.
Why is the U.S. such a big believer in precedents? No other country determines case outcomes based on precedent as strongly as the U.S. If we can get over our precedents maybe we wouldn't have to worry so much about the future. Things can be decided on a case-by-case basis.
It's called "Common Law". It makes it so the legislature doesn't have to write laws about EVERY SINGLE LITTLE DINKY THING THAT HAS EVER HAPPENED AND THAT COULD HAPPEN.
A well-rounded education, wherein someone learns to think, to be a reasoning, responsible, civic-minded citizen, being now useless in the USA, what does that say about the USA?
It goes along with the prevalent attitude in U of "just teach me what I need to know to get a real good paying job (I don't care if remain a dummy)". Of course, that is immature and foolish, and any prof who tries to redirect that mindset into something more mature is doing some good.
Also, the global multinationals only want cogs who will take their place quietly in the consumerist machine.
Can someone please explain how regulating an abusive monopoloy like Microsoft hurts the economy?
Microsoft has a market monopoly, which is purely voluntary (granted by customers, for whatever stupid or good reasons). It's in a situation where it can lose that monopoly through its own incompetence, or through competition. It cannot coerce through threats (say, like the US Gov't can on behalf of the USPS, which has a government-granted monopoly on First Class mail deliver). It has no army (I'm not counting the Lawyer Division). It can jack up prices and reduce service. Gee, in a free market, that's usually an opportunity for competitors! If the competitors don't appear, that would be a testament to the sad state of American (World?) entrepeneurship. But leaving it to govenment regulators ("My favorite color is gray") is the _worst_ thing to do, because they take on God-like airs (we _know_ enough to do it all just right) and act Devilish (the end result is some distortion in the economy, a government-mandated wealth transfer to a privileged group).
You can see the market working. Just because it isn't finishing off Microsoft on your schedule doesn't mean the finality of judgment won't be any different. C'mon, any company that thinks "Bob" was a good idea is doomed.
Now's the real chance for companies to gain a real competitive advantage over those who'll shackle themselves to Microsoft.
Exactly! Instead of figuring out ways they can be rid of the expensive employees, why don't companies see them as valuable employees?
Obviously, this inability is a major Achilles heel of the free market. So HP gets rid of valuable employees, and flourishes as a result! I can't stand the contradiction...
Slashdot Mirror
There's a variant of this: Anarcho-Tyrrany. The government allows a certain amount of mayhem, and then cracks down in general, in the name of taking care of the mayhem. In the end, the government has more power and more control, but the mayhem continues. Can you say "War on Drugs"? Can you say "War on Poverty"? How about, "War on Terr..."?
Democrats were and still are the force behind continuous growth of the governmental powers.
Used to be the Dems were the party of Big Government, and the Repubs were the party of Big Business. But both together are the party of Multinational Corporatism.
How about _Brave New World_? The state doesn't have to exert force to maintain control; people simply don't care anymore, as long as they have their soma, feelies, and other various and sundry amusements.
This is downright sinister. Because you know what's next? The Fat Police.
They're cooperating with the FBI. They're hoping bin Laden will register and then they'll finally be able to track him.
I would if I hadn't already pretended to sell her into slavery in Mozambique for some extra $$$.
We have to destroy the village to save it.
It's always worth a try to manipulate the coercive power of the government in your favor. It's a lot easier than changing. Hey, it's what the lawyers are for, right? It's a spoils game. Until we change _that_, then everybody and his brother will be working the current system to their own advantage.
I am not a lawyer, but I play one on
Test: try this out on a CD that 14-year old girls buy. Implementation: Every CD, including the ones the techies are buying. Are the marketers that dumb? Can it work? Do we have to pretend to be part of the test demographic to foil this test?
What problem? I don't listen to NSync.
The problem with StarOffice is that it isn't Microsoft Office for Free [tm].
Before it was even announced on /.! Hate to think of the /. effect on top of that.
We have yet to come up with a foolproof anything.
Yes, that's a major problem. But, how many of us are funding the entertainment industry?
After reading Thurgood Marshall's bloviations, I realized that the Court was mentally incapable of taking the rule of law seriously.
Just send a letter. Every time I've written, I've gotten an answer. Even when I asked my Leftist Statist Corporate State Lapdog to explain the 10th Amendment to me...
6. Running a high-volume Microsoft CD bootlegging operation with illegal aliens in your basement.
Hey, as long as Disney provides good feelies, then I'm just happy. Soma!
And in 10 years, it'll be a crime to think about it. Newspeak: Thoughtcrime. Squash those evil thoughts _before_ they happen!
He _does_ have a point. I mean, if I were unjustly accused, it's not likely to be a high-profile case, so I don't have enough $$$ to get Keker. OTOH, this is probably a case an Idealist would love, too, since this is a chance to make a big impact on fixing an unjust law. So I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. He gets a chance to do something good for the rule of law, and gets famous for doing it.
It's called "Common Law". It makes it so the legislature doesn't have to write laws about EVERY SINGLE LITTLE DINKY THING THAT HAS EVER HAPPENED AND THAT COULD HAPPEN.
It goes along with the prevalent attitude in U of "just teach me what I need to know to get a real good paying job (I don't care if remain a dummy)". Of course, that is immature and foolish, and any prof who tries to redirect that mindset into something more mature is doing some good.
Also, the global multinationals only want cogs who will take their place quietly in the consumerist machine.
Microsoft has a market monopoly, which is purely voluntary (granted by customers, for whatever stupid or good reasons). It's in a situation where it can lose that monopoly through its own incompetence, or through competition. It cannot coerce through threats (say, like the US Gov't can on behalf of the USPS, which has a government-granted monopoly on First Class mail deliver). It has no army (I'm not counting the Lawyer Division). It can jack up prices and reduce service. Gee, in a free market, that's usually an opportunity for competitors! If the competitors don't appear, that would be a testament to the sad state of American (World?) entrepeneurship. But leaving it to govenment regulators ("My favorite color is gray") is the _worst_ thing to do, because they take on God-like airs (we _know_ enough to do it all just right) and act Devilish (the end result is some distortion in the economy, a government-mandated wealth transfer to a privileged group).
You can see the market working. Just because it isn't finishing off Microsoft on your schedule doesn't mean the finality of judgment won't be any different. C'mon, any company that thinks "Bob" was a good idea is doomed.
Now's the real chance for companies to gain a real competitive advantage over those who'll shackle themselves to Microsoft.
Obviously, this inability is a major Achilles heel of the free market. So HP gets rid of valuable employees, and flourishes as a result! I can't stand the contradiction...