I know that every single person in my dorms stole music, movies, and/or software from KaZaA.
Yet another college brat spouting off about his dorm as if that were a reflection of real life. Get a clue, kid.
I have yet to meet a single person who used KaZaA and never stole anything (and no, I don't believe you)
Whether you believe me or not is irrelevant to the actual fact of the matter. Fortunately for me, your opinion on my trustworthiness matters for dick.
The Consitution protects property rights. Intellectual property is part of that.
There is no such thing as intellectual property, nor is anything remotely like this ever mentioned in the Constitution. Since you apparently haven't read this document, here's the relevant excerpt:
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"
Note that this is the *entire* scope of the patent and copyright process. The *sole goal* is to promote the progress of science and the 'useful arts' (rap would no doubt be excluded); no provision whatsoever is made for protecting ' 'intellectual property'. In fact, neither inventions nor artistic endeavors are considered to *be* property, which is covered under *other* sections of the Constitution.
Your assertion is not only specious, it's just plain wrong.
Stop making claims you know to be ridiculous and pretending that you have the right to dictate to a company how any transaction will occur (without their consent).
Listen up, junior. I do have the right to do this since *I'm doing it right now*. What the fuck are you going to do about it? Pass another law? Yeah, let me pause here while I and the other hundred million or so users of the dozen major file sharing networks laugh my ass off at you. You're completely and utterly impotent; there's not a goddamn thing you can do about it other than rant here on Slashdot.
The only option, in this case, is to change the business model. And to assume that people are basically good, because the alternative means that Big Brother will have to come about to enforce the laws in question.
Like I said, I sample and then I buy. Because I assume that people are basically decent human beings, I'm willing to bet that many - probably most - other folks do the same. That says something about *my* character.
The fact that you think everyone (except yourself, of course) is a crook and a liar says a great deal about *your* character.
Some games that did rather well despite the lack of violence:
- Thief and Thief 2 - The Longest Journey - Syberia - Myst - just about any Sim game
While 85% of the games out there might feature violence, I sincerely doubt that 85% of the *purchases* are of violence-oriented games.
Of course, if you're a college kid whose life revolves around Counterstrike and who uses terms like 'd00d!' then your perception of the matter is probably seriously warped by your personal experience.
I'm just saying we should be honest about what the MAJORITY of it's users are doing
Precisely my point. You have no idea what the majority of these users are doing, you're just assuming that your completely unsupported opinion on the matter is actual fact.
However, you and I don't get to dictate to an artist how we sample their content
Sure we do. No 'artist' has a constitutional right to restrict sampling nor, for that matter, copying. I sample, and I buy if I like what I hear - this may be illegal, but I don't give a shit. As far as I'm concerned the law is a crock.
Don't like it? I don't really care. Fact is that's the way I operate, and the RIAA and the band - if they're any good - make money off of me because of this. Neither the RIAA nor the band has any business telling me that I have to change my ways. So long as they get their chunk o' change (again assuming they're worth the price, which is why I sample in the first place) they only business they have is shutting the fuck up and cashing their check.
Fact is, could be most of the folks out there do exactly what I do. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? No, you don't - not a whit. And neither does the RIAA.
This had the effect of completely stopping piracy of copyright works owned by RIAA member companies.
What alternate reality are you from? The sharing of mp3s is more common now than it has ever been. You can check this out for yourself by trying any one of a dozen of file sharing programs.
Apparently people aren't terribly frightened of the RIAA or MPAA.
If it sucked, why would you want it? I saw the movie in the theater and it did, indeed, suck big green donkey dicks. It *blew*. I can't imagine wasting my time downloading a copy of this crap.
I could go on, but I have to go to *work* and use real software to get *real* things done.
And what Windows OS can handle the number crunching required in the genetic analysis of fish in the lab that my wife works it? Forget a Windows version of the app - it doesn't exist.
None. Windows can't deal with the enormous number crunching required without crapping out. Linux, on the other hand, is capable of the task.
The point being simple: the software for these various tasks is written for whatever OS is being used by the company, unless the OS is incapable of the job. If everyone were to switch to Linux tomorrow, then software would be written to control (in real time, mind you) milling machines that make hydraulic components for the cranes that build skyscrapers.
But it turns out that Windows simply can't be used for certain tasks, the one I mentioned above being just one example. So in quite a few places software for Linux is being used to get *real* things done at *work*, regardless of what you personally believe or wish to be true.
I don't think content providers have really broken the relationship with customers. At least they are not solely responsible for it. Customers have told them, "given sufficiently convenient tools, we will avoid paying for content that you produce"
And the world revolves around your arsehole, as well.
Most people aren't thieves looking for a free ride. This is a myth propagated by folks who are, indeed, morally bereft and assume that if they are then everyone else must be as well. It's a way of making yourself feel like less of a shit for being a dick, or for making yourself feel superior to the rest of the human race.
Basic psychological studies have proven, time and again, that the average Joe or Jane is not a crook. That the average Joe or Jane will only stoop to criminal activity if they think the law they're breaking is idiotic or unfair, or if they think they're being fucked by the system. Given the number of people using file sharing services, I'd hazard a guess that quite a few people are of the opinion that they're being bent over by the record and music industry and feel justified in getting some 'payback'.
And there are quite a few of us who 'try before we buy'. I just downloaded the entire Evanescence CD and found enough of it to be worthwhile to purchase it. I've done this with *hundreds of CDs*, which I now own, CDs I'd never have purchased if I couldn't download them and play them for a week to see if they were worth the money.
I've also passed on a number of the more popular CDs once I realized that all but one or two tracks were complete shit. Perhaps this is why the RIAA is so ticked off at folks like myself? We sample and say 'no freakin' way I'm paying $16 for two bloody songs!' and then go on to purchase every Ani DiFranco CD ever made? I wonder....
In any event, the people who get on Slashdot and claim that everyone would be a criminal if only they could get away with it are not only full of shit, but saying volumes about their *own* character to the rest of the world. It's *these* people who can't be trusted and should be avoided at all costs.
US hegemony is the best way for the US to protect its interests, cultural, economic and strategic. To suggest otherwise is idealistic leftist folly.
And what interests would those be? List them out specifically, please, and show in detail how hegemony is going to be a good thing.
Also explain to me how pissing off everyone else is supposed to help these national 'interests'. By your reasoning if Europe decided to impose hegemony on America, it would be a good and right thing for Europe - and screw America. What's good for the goose, eh?
The black hole a) lasts for only a fraction of a second, and b) because of the limited Schwarzchild radius will actually expel radiation faster than it could suck in matter, even if you dropped it into a matter rich environment. If a black hole is constructed that's smaller than a certain size, it is completely incapable of surviving long enough to grow to the point where it could accrue matter faster than it expends energy.
But if this doesn't make any sense to you, just look around you: the only black holes in existence are very, very big ones - all the small ones evaporated shortly after the Big Bang. Furthermore, if black holes like this *can* be created in the lab, then they're also, at times, created in nature. And yet, if they were the mass-sucking demons of science fiction lore, you'd need *only one natural creation in all of Earth history* to destroy the planet.
The fact that you're posting this question to Slashdot proves that you're perfectly safe. Unlike David Brin's science fantasy novel 'Earth', we're in no danger of destroying the planet in this fashion.
The US has managed to depose a brutal dictator, with a minmum of civilian casualties
Tell me, idiot: of the more than 300 countries in this world of ours, more than 100 are ruled by 'brutal dictators', some of which make Saddam look civilized by comparison. Why then are we not conquering *their* sorry asses and 'liberating' them from their fascist, totalitarian regimes?
Oooh, could it be that a) Iraq is an easily-beaten pansy, as proven in by Shrub senior, and b) that Iraq has lots and lots of oil? If not, then when are we going to impose 'liberation' on the other one-third of the world ruled by dictators?
But it's ability to project power is significantly limited as a result.
The underlying assumption here is that the ability to 'project power' against other nations through the use of military force is a good thing. As an American who doesn't buy the Shrub's line of bullshit, I beg to differ; the world does not need a new empire, and America will certainly suffer if it tries to impose one.
As far as I'm concerned, my nation would do a hell of alot better if it simply would shut the fuck up and mind it's own goddamn business. I see no benefit to world hegemony other than promoting a few select corporate interests for a limited period of time - interests which do not coincide with mine, nor will I see any benefit from ('trickle down' economists can kiss my hairy ass, thanks).
And please - don't start with the pseudo-humanitarian arguments. As an American I'm not in the business of saving other people from themselves, nor do I want my tax dollars spent on military foolishness to pursue these kinds of 'liberation'.
You say it, brother. Every day I see the creeping evangelism of Orwellian doublespeak advancing through the ranks, where you only want privacy if you have something criminal to hide, where safety can be bought at the expense of rights, and where Big Brother *really does* know what's good for you.
The eyes of Americans glaze over, citizen by citizen, getting that glassy fanatic's look. If this continues, we will soon be the number one threat to world peace - if we aren't already there.
Why, today I heard a senator describe Canada as a 'safe haven for terrorists', demanding that something should be done to 'force' the Canadians into taking their 'duty to world peace and security' seriously. Goddamn if it didn't sound like some asshole prepping the ground work for a fucking invasion...if Americans could accept *that* then I'd say the world is well and truly screwed.
Those asshole food companies shouldn't donate to food banks! Poor people should get a job or starve!
You fucking nutball.
Anyone who'd equate the dispensation of software licenses with the donation of food to the hungry is the fucking nutball. Take a look in the fucking mirror, asshole.
That you can get promoted faster if you spam slashdot with pro-MS bullshit?
And what was Microsoft convicted of? It is not illegal to be a monopoly.
Jesus H., did you sleep through the entire trial? MS was indeed convicted of using it's monopoly position in an underhanded, devious, illegal way to squash all competition and force businesses to agree to extremely unfavorable contract conditions. This isn't a matter of supposition; it's a fucking matter of *fact*. Fact recorded in court proceedings.
Or wait - I guess you think that's all a conspiracy to topple your god Bill from his pedestal? Why don't you just drop the pretense and start your own MS religion, where little loser geeks dream of blowing Billy in the hopes that the divine seed will somehow gift them with fantastic money-making abilities.
Mouth piece. And I mean that in any fashion you choose to take it. Or whatever orifice, as the case may be.
they are giving a billion dollars worth of software whether you like it or not.
What complete bullshit. Did you miss Econ 101? The product is only worth a billion dollars if you're giving it away for free *to organizations which would've purchased it anyway*. As the targeted organizations don't have the budget to pay for the software on the market, the actual cost of the operation is whatever it takes to stamp and ship the CDs.
This is *not* a billion dollars of software. That's just PR for idiots who can't do the math.
I fail to see how giving away the MS OS can be considered to be an act of 'charity'. Perhaps if the company donated real, honest-to-god dollars to feed the hungry or house the homeless a claim towards charity could be made, but this is nothing more than PR.
And, as some posters have pointed out, a way to hook otherwise MS-free organizations into the upgrade/support purchase cycle.
There is nothing whatsoever 'charitable' about this move.
We live in a FREE country. You don't HAVE to sign a contract with an employment agency if you don't want to
Damn straight. And if I decide to tell the company to go fuck themselves, that's the end of the relationship. I have a Constitutional right to go forth and get my ass employed, and that company doesn't have any goddamned business trying to interfere with that endeavor.
Oh, wait - that's in my fantasy America, where such bullshit restrictions are so obviously unconstitutional, anti-freedom, and anti-free market that no one would dare try to put them in an actual contract....
That would actually raise taxes on the poorer portion of the population, the portion less able to pay any extra taxes.
That would apply only if you're enough of an idiot to apply the flat tax to all income brackets. You could, for example, exempt the first $30,000 of everyone's income, applying the tax to all monies made beyond that initial income.
This would in essence keep lower-income folks from getting taxed at all, while still making it worthwhile for middle-income earners to make money beyond the exempt amount - and stick the rich with the most to pay (although at the same percentage as everyone else).
The boys presenting this scheme have a good, solid idea which has been used to before by some other industries (e.g., the airlines). Fact is, actual attendance is dismally low compared to seating when you adjust for all times, around 1/5 of the theater seats available. Decreasing price results in increasing attendance; Econ 101 tells you that in many cases the improved attendance will actually result in *more* profits, not less. That is:
Fill 20 seats at $7 each = $140 Fill 50 seats at $4 each = $200 Fill 100 seats at $2.50 each = $250
And so on.
But the MPAA isn't interested in the basics of the free market. What they're interested in is control, pure and simple - and price fixing is one very obvious, and very effective, method of maintaining control. If you can no longer enforce price fixing then you lose one of your more important tools for controlling not only the theaters that run your movies, but also of moviegoers.
How's that? It's really very, very simple: the higher the price the less movies the consumer can afford. Because the consumer can only see x number of movies, advertising can be used to 'herd' the consumer into spending his limited movie income on movies the MPAA chooses to push. The higher the price, the more limited the options, the more likely the consumer will spend his money on something being heavily promoted by the MPAA.
Lower the price and the consumer can now make more movie choices. The consumer, blast his heathen soul, might decide to use some of this disposable income to see movies *not* promoted by the MPAA - perhaps smaller, independent films. The consumer, that communist scumbag, might actually begin to believe that he has a more options - he might even take some of that 'movie money' and spend it on something else! After all, if all he wants to see are two films a month, and they're now half the price that they were, he might spend the other half of the money on something radical, like a book.
Bad, bad consumer!
In any event, remember that the MPAA is at the top of the heap. Like any organization that's king of the hill, change is a threat to the status quo and one that must be quashed regardless of the possible upside. To the invested, change is evil and must be prevented at all costs.
This particular change takes some power out of the hands of the MPAA and puts it into the hands of the consumer. Despite the fact that it would most likely increase overall profits, the loss of power is simply unacceptable and cannot be tolerated. Price-fixing *must* be maintained.
For organizations like the RIAA, the MPAA, or monopolies like Microsoft, profit takes a big back seat to power. The free market is of no interest whatsoever to these folks; in fact, the less free, the better.
Liberals, conservatives, what's the difference? Far as I can tell, both groups consist of a bunch of assholes who think they have the right to butt into everyone else's business and tell their neighbors how to live.
The way I see it, both groups should just shut the fuck up and tend to their own. Extremists of any color are bad news, not to mention annoying to the rest of us. Yammering on and on, getting up on their high horse and insisting that everyone *has* to do thing X, or *can't* do thing Y, etc. etc.
'Liberals' and 'conservatives' - just two other words for 'fucknut', in my way of thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
I know that every single person in my dorms stole music, movies, and/or software from KaZaA.
Yet another college brat spouting off about his dorm as if that were a reflection of real life. Get a clue, kid.
I have yet to meet a single person who used KaZaA and never stole anything (and no, I don't believe you)
Whether you believe me or not is irrelevant to the actual fact of the matter. Fortunately for me, your opinion on my trustworthiness matters for dick.
The Consitution protects property rights. Intellectual property is part of that.
There is no such thing as intellectual property, nor is anything remotely like this ever mentioned in the Constitution. Since you apparently haven't read this document, here's the relevant excerpt:
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"
Note that this is the *entire* scope of the patent and copyright process. The *sole goal* is to promote the progress of science and the 'useful arts' (rap would no doubt be excluded); no provision whatsoever is made for protecting '
'intellectual property'. In fact, neither inventions nor artistic endeavors are considered to *be* property, which is covered under *other* sections of the Constitution.
Your assertion is not only specious, it's just plain wrong.
Stop making claims you know to be ridiculous and pretending that you have the right to dictate to a company how any transaction will occur (without their consent).
Listen up, junior. I do have the right to do this since *I'm doing it right now*. What the fuck are you going to do about it? Pass another law? Yeah, let me pause here while I and the other hundred million or so users of the dozen major file sharing networks laugh my ass off at you. You're completely and utterly impotent; there's not a goddamn thing you can do about it other than rant here on Slashdot.
The only option, in this case, is to change the business model. And to assume that people are basically good, because the alternative means that Big Brother will have to come about to enforce the laws in question.
Like I said, I sample and then I buy. Because I assume that people are basically decent human beings, I'm willing to bet that many - probably most - other folks do the same. That says something about *my* character.
The fact that you think everyone (except yourself, of course) is a crook and a liar says a great deal about *your* character.
Max
Some games that did rather well despite the lack of violence:
- Thief and Thief 2
- The Longest Journey
- Syberia
- Myst
- just about any Sim game
While 85% of the games out there might feature violence, I sincerely doubt that 85% of the *purchases* are of violence-oriented games.
Of course, if you're a college kid whose life revolves around Counterstrike and who uses terms like 'd00d!' then your perception of the matter is probably seriously warped by your personal experience.
Max
I'm just saying we should be honest about what the MAJORITY of it's users are doing
Precisely my point. You have no idea what the majority of these users are doing, you're just assuming that your completely unsupported opinion on the matter is actual fact.
However, you and I don't get to dictate to an artist how we sample their content
Sure we do. No 'artist' has a constitutional right to restrict sampling nor, for that matter, copying. I sample, and I buy if I like what I hear - this may be illegal, but I don't give a shit. As far as I'm concerned the law is a crock.
Don't like it? I don't really care. Fact is that's the way I operate, and the RIAA and the band - if they're any good - make money off of me because of this. Neither the RIAA nor the band has any business telling me that I have to change my ways. So long as they get their chunk o' change (again assuming they're worth the price, which is why I sample in the first place) they only business they have is shutting the fuck up and cashing their check.
Fact is, could be most of the folks out there do exactly what I do. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? No, you don't - not a whit. And neither does the RIAA.
Max
This had the effect of completely stopping piracy of copyright works owned by RIAA member companies.
What alternate reality are you from? The sharing of mp3s is more common now than it has ever been. You can check this out for yourself by trying any one of a dozen of file sharing programs.
Apparently people aren't terribly frightened of the RIAA or MPAA.
Max
If it sucked, why would you want it? I saw the movie in the theater and it did, indeed, suck big green donkey dicks. It *blew*. I can't imagine wasting my time downloading a copy of this crap.
Max
I could go on, but I have to go to *work* and use real software to get *real* things done.
And what Windows OS can handle the number crunching required in the genetic analysis of fish in the lab that my wife works it? Forget a Windows version of the app - it doesn't exist.
None. Windows can't deal with the enormous number crunching required without crapping out. Linux, on the other hand, is capable of the task.
The point being simple: the software for these various tasks is written for whatever OS is being used by the company, unless the OS is incapable of the job. If everyone were to switch to Linux tomorrow, then software would be written to control (in real time, mind you) milling machines that make hydraulic components for the cranes that build skyscrapers.
But it turns out that Windows simply can't be used for certain tasks, the one I mentioned above being just one example. So in quite a few places software for Linux is being used to get *real* things done at *work*, regardless of what you personally believe or wish to be true.
I know this because I see it every day.
Max
I don't think content providers have really broken the relationship with customers. At least they are not solely responsible for it. Customers have told them, "given sufficiently convenient tools, we will avoid paying for content that you produce"
And the world revolves around your arsehole, as well.
Most people aren't thieves looking for a free ride. This is a myth propagated by folks who are, indeed, morally bereft and assume that if they are then everyone else must be as well. It's a way of making yourself feel like less of a shit for being a dick, or for making yourself feel superior to the rest of the human race.
Basic psychological studies have proven, time and again, that the average Joe or Jane is not a crook. That the average Joe or Jane will only stoop to criminal activity if they think the law they're breaking is idiotic or unfair, or if they think they're being fucked by the system. Given the number of people using file sharing services, I'd hazard a guess that quite a few people are of the opinion that they're being bent over by the record and music industry and feel justified in getting some 'payback'.
And there are quite a few of us who 'try before we buy'. I just downloaded the entire Evanescence CD and found enough of it to be worthwhile to purchase it. I've done this with *hundreds of CDs*, which I now own, CDs I'd never have purchased if I couldn't download them and play them for a week to see if they were worth the money.
I've also passed on a number of the more popular CDs once I realized that all but one or two tracks were complete shit. Perhaps this is why the RIAA is so ticked off at folks like myself? We sample and say 'no freakin' way I'm paying $16 for two bloody songs!' and then go on to purchase every Ani DiFranco CD ever made? I wonder....
In any event, the people who get on Slashdot and claim that everyone would be a criminal if only they could get away with it are not only full of shit, but saying volumes about their *own* character to the rest of the world. It's *these* people who can't be trusted and should be avoided at all costs.
Max
US hegemony is the best way for the US to protect its interests, cultural, economic and strategic. To suggest otherwise is idealistic leftist folly.
And what interests would those be? List them out specifically, please, and show in detail how hegemony is going to be a good thing.
Also explain to me how pissing off everyone else is supposed to help these national 'interests'. By your reasoning if Europe decided to impose hegemony on America, it would be a good and right thing for Europe - and screw America. What's good for the goose, eh?
Max
Maybe you just resort to all the verbal abuse because you don't have any valid points to make.
Answer my question, twit. When are we going to liberate the other one-third of the world under the brutal oppression of dictators?
Max
Should the world hold a democratic vote to whether or not we want to participate in the ultimate Darwin Award entry?
Only if we insist that the voters have some basic, provable form of intelligence - like the ability to pass a Physics 101 course.
Max
The black hole a) lasts for only a fraction of a second, and b) because of the limited Schwarzchild radius will actually expel radiation faster than it could suck in matter, even if you dropped it into a matter rich environment. If a black hole is constructed that's smaller than a certain size, it is completely incapable of surviving long enough to grow to the point where it could accrue matter faster than it expends energy.
But if this doesn't make any sense to you, just look around you: the only black holes in existence are very, very big ones - all the small ones evaporated shortly after the Big Bang. Furthermore, if black holes like this *can* be created in the lab, then they're also, at times, created in nature. And yet, if they were the mass-sucking demons of science fiction lore, you'd need *only one natural creation in all of Earth history* to destroy the planet.
The fact that you're posting this question to Slashdot proves that you're perfectly safe. Unlike David Brin's science fantasy novel 'Earth', we're in no danger of destroying the planet in this fashion.
Max
The US has managed to depose a brutal dictator, with a minmum of civilian casualties
Tell me, idiot: of the more than 300 countries in this world of ours, more than 100 are ruled by 'brutal dictators', some of which make Saddam look civilized by comparison. Why then are we not conquering *their* sorry asses and 'liberating' them from their fascist, totalitarian regimes?
Oooh, could it be that a) Iraq is an easily-beaten pansy, as proven in by Shrub senior, and b) that Iraq has lots and lots of oil? If not, then when are we going to impose 'liberation' on the other one-third of the world ruled by dictators?
When? Give me a goddamn answer, boy.
Max
But it's ability to project power is significantly limited as a result.
The underlying assumption here is that the ability to 'project power' against other nations through the use of military force is a good thing. As an American who doesn't buy the Shrub's line of bullshit, I beg to differ; the world does not need a new empire, and America will certainly suffer if it tries to impose one.
As far as I'm concerned, my nation would do a hell of alot better if it simply would shut the fuck up and mind it's own goddamn business. I see no benefit to world hegemony other than promoting a few select corporate interests for a limited period of time - interests which do not coincide with mine, nor will I see any benefit from ('trickle down' economists can kiss my hairy ass, thanks).
And please - don't start with the pseudo-humanitarian arguments. As an American I'm not in the business of saving other people from themselves, nor do I want my tax dollars spent on military foolishness to pursue these kinds of 'liberation'.
Max
You say it, brother. Every day I see the creeping evangelism of Orwellian doublespeak advancing through the ranks, where you only want privacy if you have something criminal to hide, where safety can be bought at the expense of rights, and where Big Brother *really does* know what's good for you.
The eyes of Americans glaze over, citizen by citizen, getting that glassy fanatic's look. If this continues, we will soon be the number one threat to world peace - if we aren't already there.
Why, today I heard a senator describe Canada as a 'safe haven for terrorists', demanding that something should be done to 'force' the Canadians into taking their 'duty to world peace and security' seriously. Goddamn if it didn't sound like some asshole prepping the ground work for a fucking invasion...if Americans could accept *that* then I'd say the world is well and truly screwed.
Max
Well, they *do* have weapons of mass destruction. Several hundred of them, in fact.
Max
Those asshole food companies shouldn't donate to food banks! Poor people should get a job or starve!
You fucking nutball.
Anyone who'd equate the dispensation of software licenses with the donation of food to the hungry is the fucking nutball. Take a look in the fucking mirror, asshole.
Max
What did I learn from Microsoft?
That you can get promoted faster if you spam slashdot with pro-MS bullshit?
And what was Microsoft convicted of? It is not illegal to be a monopoly.
Jesus H., did you sleep through the entire trial? MS was indeed convicted of using it's monopoly position in an underhanded, devious, illegal way to squash all competition and force businesses to agree to extremely unfavorable contract conditions. This isn't a matter of supposition; it's a fucking matter of *fact*. Fact recorded in court proceedings.
Or wait - I guess you think that's all a conspiracy to topple your god Bill from his pedestal? Why don't you just drop the pretense and start your own MS religion, where little loser geeks dream of blowing Billy in the hopes that the divine seed will somehow gift them with fantastic money-making abilities.
Mouth piece. And I mean that in any fashion you choose to take it. Or whatever orifice, as the case may be.
Max
Windows Server 2003 is crushing Linux in the majority of tests
How about some links to these non-biased tests? Yeah, right, another BillyG fan-boy.
Max
they are giving a billion dollars worth of software whether you like it or not.
What complete bullshit. Did you miss Econ 101? The product is only worth a billion dollars if you're giving it away for free *to organizations which would've purchased it anyway*. As the targeted organizations don't have the budget to pay for the software on the market, the actual cost of the operation is whatever it takes to stamp and ship the CDs.
This is *not* a billion dollars of software. That's just PR for idiots who can't do the math.
Max
I fail to see how giving away the MS OS can be considered to be an act of 'charity'. Perhaps if the company donated real, honest-to-god dollars to feed the hungry or house the homeless a claim towards charity could be made, but this is nothing more than PR.
And, as some posters have pointed out, a way to hook otherwise MS-free organizations into the upgrade/support purchase cycle.
There is nothing whatsoever 'charitable' about this move.
Max
We live in a FREE country. You don't HAVE to sign a contract with an employment agency if you don't want to
Damn straight. And if I decide to tell the company to go fuck themselves, that's the end of the relationship. I have a Constitutional right to go forth and get my ass employed, and that company doesn't have any goddamned business trying to interfere with that endeavor.
Oh, wait - that's in my fantasy America, where such bullshit restrictions are so obviously unconstitutional, anti-freedom, and anti-free market that no one would dare try to put them in an actual contract....
Max
I get really annoyed with people who claim that their time is incredibly valuable
It's *my* time. Your annoyance is irrelevant. You don't have any business wasting my time - because I say so. Don't like it? Too damn bad.
Max
That would actually raise taxes on the poorer portion of the population, the portion less able to pay any extra taxes.
That would apply only if you're enough of an idiot to apply the flat tax to all income brackets. You could, for example, exempt the first $30,000 of everyone's income, applying the tax to all monies made beyond that initial income.
This would in essence keep lower-income folks from getting taxed at all, while still making it worthwhile for middle-income earners to make money beyond the exempt amount - and stick the rich with the most to pay (although at the same percentage as everyone else).
Works for me.
Max
The boys presenting this scheme have a good, solid idea which has been used to before by some other industries (e.g., the airlines). Fact is, actual attendance is dismally low compared to seating when you adjust for all times, around 1/5 of the theater seats available. Decreasing price results in increasing attendance; Econ 101 tells you that in many cases the improved attendance will actually result in *more* profits, not less. That is:
Fill 20 seats at $7 each = $140
Fill 50 seats at $4 each = $200
Fill 100 seats at $2.50 each = $250
And so on.
But the MPAA isn't interested in the basics of the free market. What they're interested in is control, pure and simple - and price fixing is one very obvious, and very effective, method of maintaining control. If you can no longer enforce price fixing then you lose one of your more important tools for controlling not only the theaters that run your movies, but also of moviegoers.
How's that? It's really very, very simple: the higher the price the less movies the consumer can afford. Because the consumer can only see x number of movies, advertising can be used to 'herd' the consumer into spending his limited movie income on movies the MPAA chooses to push. The higher the price, the more limited the options, the more likely the consumer will spend his money on something being heavily promoted by the MPAA.
Lower the price and the consumer can now make more movie choices. The consumer, blast his heathen soul, might decide to use some of this disposable income to see movies *not* promoted by the MPAA - perhaps smaller, independent films. The consumer, that communist scumbag, might actually begin to believe that he has a more options - he might even take some of that 'movie money' and spend it on something else! After all, if all he wants to see are two films a month, and they're now half the price that they were, he might spend the other half of the money on something radical, like a book.
Bad, bad consumer!
In any event, remember that the MPAA is at the top of the heap. Like any organization that's king of the hill, change is a threat to the status quo and one that must be quashed regardless of the possible upside. To the invested, change is evil and must be prevented at all costs.
This particular change takes some power out of the hands of the MPAA and puts it into the hands of the consumer. Despite the fact that it would most likely increase overall profits, the loss of power is simply unacceptable and cannot be tolerated. Price-fixing *must* be maintained.
For organizations like the RIAA, the MPAA, or monopolies like Microsoft, profit takes a big back seat to power. The free market is of no interest whatsoever to these folks; in fact, the less free, the better.
Max
Liberals, conservatives, what's the difference? Far as I can tell, both groups consist of a bunch of assholes who think they have the right to butt into everyone else's business and tell their neighbors how to live.
The way I see it, both groups should just shut the fuck up and tend to their own. Extremists of any color are bad news, not to mention annoying to the rest of us. Yammering on and on, getting up on their high horse and insisting that everyone *has* to do thing X, or *can't* do thing Y, etc. etc.
'Liberals' and 'conservatives' - just two other words for 'fucknut', in my way of thinking.
Max