People who use the crazy straw man arguments of Ayn Rand tend to be the type of people who want an excuse to feel good about doing nothing.
Wow! You can read minds! Somebody call Penn and Teller!
Not because I like them to bow or scrape, not because I feel better than them, but because I feel like I am building a world where people help each other, a world where, if the situation were reversed I would be helped. I also feel good about not having desperate miserable people around me.
That's nice, but it has fuck-all to do with Rand or objectivism.
The irony is that Ayn Rand's philosophy is
No, the real irony is that you think it's necessary to lie about what Rand said. Either that or you failed to understand it. Regardless it's clear you don't know that the fuck you're talking about.
I am for sure going to point out how selfish, egotistical, and short sighted you are.
Oh yeah, here we go with another idiot: "I'm morally superior to anyone who doesn't believe what I believe, and I'll make sure that all you worthless bastards know it!"
There are plenty of good reasons for wanting to help others that don't revolve around being a self important prick.
But that appears to be your main motivation, at least. The fact that the hypocrisy is lost on you makes your post a comedy piece, classic slashdot style.
then a person is deprived liberty by the objectivist system - where once I could walk through public parks, or go to public museums, libraries and art galleries, I am now banned from doing such things (as everything must be owned) and the coercive force of the state will be used to enforce that.
Neither Rand nor objectivism argues for either thing. You've made all of this up out of whole cloth. If you think otherwise, please point to any one of her books which encourages the seizure of public property and using the force of the state to make the creation of public property illegal.
There really isn't especially more of less liberty in either system, and the objectivist version ignores positive liberty to focus exclusively on negative liberty - that is, it worries only about liberties that may be deprived, and ignores liberties that may be granted. A man with little property has very little freedom in an objectivist world.
How can liberty be 'granted'? You start out with X amount of liberty at birth, and from that point on various organizations deprive you of bits and pieces, taking the power for themselves. In some cases this is generally seen as a good thing (you don't have the liberty to murder your neighbor without the possibility of being punished); in others it's a bad thing.
No one can 'grant' you liberty, only return a piece of the power which was initially taken from you. Hell, this isn't objectivism - it's the founding principle of the Constitution of these United States. It's why the 9th and 10th Amendments exist. Our founding fathers drove this point home repeatedly in the Federalist essays; Rand just picked it up and extended it into the realm of traditional philosophy.
There is little prove that the government is always wrong, always less efficient, and always less productive.
Rand wasn't an anarchist. She NEVER argued that government shouldn't exist. Why you're attributing this sort of crap to Rand or objectivism is unclear.
Handing everything to the government certaonly doesn't work, but that doesn't mean there aren't things a government can do effectively
Rand said that government was necessary (e.g., how else would you enforce contracts with the morally inferior?). The only point of contention was that she thought that government was interfering far too much - in the market and in the private lives of Joe Citizen.
Funny, a lot of people believe the very same thing TODAY.
Of course, I doubt you'll understant. I think that statement alone tells me all I need to know about the small-minded and greedy anarchist that resides where you soul once did.
You've pretty much proved the point of everyone who argued in favor of Rand's interpretation. The people who agree with you are morally superior, while those who don't are "small-minded and greedy".
Good going there, Tex. Nice job, putting your leg in that there beartrap.
Its throughout her writings that she has no respect for the idea.
I think you missed the mark here. Rand had no respect for the false altruist, the one that goes around 'helping' people by taking power from others for his or herself. And let's face it: a lot of so-called "altruists" come from the position of "I know better than you, therefore I get to make decisions for you". These people call themselves altruists but in truth they're nothing more than power-seekers looking for a justification for their activities. If you don't believe as they do they have no problem whatsoever depriving you of power and FORCING you to do as you're told - for the greater good, the children, whatever.
Now there may well be a minority of people whom she does describe.
I sincerely doubt it's a minority. These self-same "altruists" are the folks who take every opportunity to deprive their neighbors of power, even when it comes down to simple decisions like "am I going to wear a seatbelt" or "should I wear my motorcycle helmet". It's for your own good that you don't get to make that decision yourself, of course....
The typical do-gooder isn't doing somethign because it makes him feel good- he's doing it because he thinks he's doing the right thing.
And he doesn't give a shit what anyone else thinks. The right of others to make that decision *for themselves* doesn't even enter into the equation. Any which way you slice it, these folks are operating from the presumption that they're moral, you're not, and therefore they DESERVE to have the power to tell you what you can and cannot do.
Its like religious zealots who try to convert everyone- they believe they are saving your soul.
And if you don't want your soul "saved" they think they're entirely justified in using whatever power they can acquire to force you to do what they think is right. Fanatics are scum, the filth on the bottom of humanity's boots; they're the most dangerous and evil people on the planet. What they're being fanatical about is entirely irrelevent to the fanaticism itself.
Ayn Rand never addressed what we would call true charities. They didn't even enter into the equation for her. What she vilified were the false charities, the fronts people used to acquire power or take it away from others, and there I think she was spot-on. These so-called acts of "altruism" aren't altruistic at all, and never have been; they're just covers for people who wish to force themselves on their neighbors.
It's a bad argument used by lazy thinkers on both sides of the political spectrum, not just a conservative mantra.
"Think of the children" used to be a (mostly) conservative battle cry, while "it's for the greater good" was a liberal one. Now both sides use either one where appropriate for sound bites, since they both seem to be an effective Pavlovian cue for shutting down the higher brain centers in those that hear them.
But they all mean the same thing, i.e., "I'm smarter and more moral than you are, and that means that I get to decide what you can and cannot do. So shut the fuck up and do as you're told, prole."
Study after study after study has conclusively shown a net depressed impact on music sales, especially in Europe, due directly to downloading music illegally.
Cites, please. In the form of empirical evidence published in an accredited, peer-reviewed journal.
But for you people to sit here and still insist after all this time that piracy is somehow generating revenue for the music industry is completely stupid. It's not. It's costing them more money than it's making them.
This happens when the economic model in use is fundamentally broken. People turn to the black market in large numbers. It isn't an ethical argument but a practical one.
And it won't be resolved until you self-righteous chest-pounding downloaders here stop defending your activity as some moralistic crusade against the evil content cartels
There are extremists on both sides of any issue. They usually aren't worth listening to.
But I don't deny that there are people who match my profile who engage in widespread copyright infringement and then either lie about it, pretend it's not illegal, or defend it with some holier-than-thou diatribe (much like this one) about why it's justified.
The reasoning actually doesn't matter, only the activity. A person is what he does, not what he says he is or what he thinks he is.
It's obvious that people who commit copyright violation are criminals. So are people who jaywalk. So what? The only issue of interest is *why* so many people engage in the activity despite the penalties for doing so, and what can be done to remove the incentives the activity provides.
The law doesn't work. I think that's pretty fucking obvious to even the dullest slashdotter. And if the law isn't a viable recourse then your only option is to revise the economic model in question. There is no third course.
Extremists on either side don't have a clue. The RIAA refuses to revise their model because to do so would mean giving up enormous power, something RIAA heads will never do *even if it ultimately destroys their business*. For these people power is like crack, and they're self-destructively addicted beyond all hope of recovery. The money is secondary to folks who used to exercise effective monopoly (or oligarchical) control of an entire segment of the market.
The hard-core 'pirates', on the other hand, are just people who want everything they desire to be free. In this case they argue that music should be free (for whatever reason - it doesn't matter what they say), but the fact is they just don't want to pay for the product. They want their music AND their beer, and since they can't afford both (and stealing beer is much riskier) they take what they want.
But the extremists are just that - extremists. Tiny minorities. And we know for a fact that the vast majority of downloaders *aren't* extremists. It's all the folks inbetween who're of interest, not the loons at the far ends of the spectrum. Their motivation is an economic one; they pirate because they think, on some level or another, that the current pricing/control scheme is 'fixed' to screw them in some way. Typical black-market behavior when the masses start getting involved in that market.
And that tells you that the only solution is to change the model. Perhaps drastically.
A lot of things in life are unfairly priced [one way or another]. Doesn't mean you can just take them when you want.
While that's a grand thought it's pretty damned apparent that it doesn't reflect reality. Not in any way, shape, or form, not when it comes to downloadable music (and since that's what we're talking about here, don't even bother bringing any strawmen to the dance).
Fact is, copyright violation for music is still on the rise despite all the efforts of the government and the RIAA to stop it. The penalties if you get caught continue to increase but these fear tactics haven't made a noticeable dent in the activity; last month the U.S. reached the point where 70% of all people with internet accounts at least 'sometimes' engaged in acts of online "piracy". This isn't an activity restricted to certain age brackets (e.g., college kids) or income levels.
Economics 101: if a big chunk of the populace is actively engaged in the black market despite the risks, then something is seriously wrong with the model which spawned the black market in the first place. If the majority of the people who have access to the black market actually use it then your model isn't just flawed, it's fucked up beyond repair.
Bad economic models encourage otherwise law-abiding citizens to break the law in order to obtain what they want. It doesn't matter a good goddamn whether you think it's right or ethical; what you *think* doesn't matter for shit. The only thing that matters here is identifying the cause of the behavior and working to eliminate it, replacing the broken economic model with one that works well enough to at least partially satisfy everyone concerned.
It's pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain what that new model would be: cheap high-quality mp3s, no DRM, preferably no obstructionist middle man between the band and buyer. It doesn't take a fucking rocket science to figure out that if the latest Britney CD was sold online at $0.50/track in a 320/44 mp3 that it'd sell like hotcakes - especially if the buyer knew that 90% of the profit were going straight to Britney herself.
Are the RIAA and labels totally disgraceful? Doesn't matter. That's how they choose to do business.
It does matter. To say anything else is just plain ignorance. Economics 101 again, see above.
Imagine if all you stupid children spent energy spreading word-of-mouth about indy bands instead of further spreading label music.
I see. You're one of those egotistical college fucks who thinks he's somehow superior to everyone else because he hates Britney but waxes lyrical about some shitty garage band. Grow the fuck up, junior; being a 'rebel without a clue' doesn't make you cool, and never will.
But no, you're stupid and ignorant and fuel the things you hate the most.
Count yourself in among the ranks of "stupid and ignorant", not to mention "arrogant". Try wrapping that tiny brain of yours around some basic economic theory before spouting off on the topic again, because it's clear you don't have the first fucking clue what you're ranting about.
You sign your every message with a sig that's purposefully tailored to annoy christians
Only the ones that don't have any sense of humor. Y'know, people who enjoy laughing at others but take themselves way too seriously. Like you.
It's perfectly okay for you to annoy others, but woe be to anyone who dares give you a well-reasoned answer (as the grandparent poster did), since that will annoy you.
A well-reasoned response? Pull the other finger, Jack. If you consider his response a 'reasoned' one that says more about you than it ever will about me.
Here's a little hint: if you don't want to debate with christians about christianity, don't comment about them or their religion.
Here's a little hint: as an American I can say whatever I please, without having to 'debate' anyone - especially idiots who talk about the joys of seeing my skull smashed in. Losers like this just don't deserve much of anything but contempt.
In any event, a right to free speech doesn't mean you get the right to an audience. Yammer on if you like 'ultranova', but I won't be here to listen. Perhaps your god will pick up the slack.
w/rt your tag line - My God rose again. Your god is vanity, and your own god's hammer is gonna smush you in the end.
Yada yada, another pseudo-christian mouthing off about how doom and gloom are going to visit my ass and send me straight to hell. I've heard it all before, boy; you don't even rate.
it has done its job remarkably well, convincing the world that science can discover everything that has occurred in the past, by simply observing the present (e.g. evolutionary origins of life).
Well, it certainly hasn't convinced *you*, so why the fuck do you care? Mind your own business, leave other people to theirs, and everyone's happy, eh? So long as you aren't preaching your claptrap to the annoyance of others (or worse, to their children) I certainly don't give a damn what you believe, or what sort of nonsense you spout off about in the privacy of your home.
In the States, the problem isn't that environmentalists don't want nuclear power, the problem is that they don't trust the Bush administration with it.
That's crap. Among most of the frothing idiots who fill the ranks of the 'environmental movement' nuclear power plants are Engines of Death and Destruction(TM). That's been part and parcel of every major so-called environmental group since the '60's.
Bush has nothing to do with it. The greenies hate nuclear power generation with a passion and will never relent in their opposition to it. The few intelligent greenies who argue that nuclear power is far less destructive than fossil-fuel generation are vilified by their own people.
pursuing an agenda of undermining public education
Our educational system was specifically designed to manufacture interchangeable factory drones who followed orders and avoided thinking whenever possible - and it seems to have done it's job well. If anything it's a smashing success.
If you want research and innovation, public education is not the place I'd focus my efforts.
The same folks who label everyone else 'mindless consumers' practically paint the ceiling everytime someone mentions "Google", or to a lesser extent "Apple". It's geek herd mentality, which geeks insist they're too smart to fall for.
Instead of thinking of the endless supply of "someone took a shit at Google today" articles as a waste of space, think of it as an opportunity to observe pre-Borg-like behavior in nerds across the world. It's also an hypocrisy laugh-in that just never stops giving.
So sit back, sip the coffee, and watch the show....
Not trying to join up with them and make the voice of reason present within that grou might be much much more unwise.
The "voice of reason" isn't going to have any effect on the inclusion of so-called 'trusted computing'. It WILL be included, no matter anyone else thinks about the matter.
So why should they join the group and give it another layer of legitimacy, when in the end the group is going to shove trusted computing up everyone's ass anyways?
American patents don't apply in China, so by definition no patent has been violated - even if a case could be made in the states. American law doesn't stretch a single foot outside of American borders, at least when it comes to countries the U.S. can't conquer or cow into submission.
Many of these programmers do act like jerks. Ever spent time dealing with MMORPG developers and you quickly find out there are many jerks and too many have god-complexes. When you point out things they should not do they quickly turn around attacking the person pointing out the issue instead of dealing with the issue.
That's a problem with the company who allows programmers to become game developers. There is absolutely no correlation whatsoever between the ability to program and the ability to develop a good game; the two aren't related in any way. But there are a good many programmers who labor under that delusion, and the result is what we see on the market today. For every game worth playing there are fifty that're absolute trash; and even those we consider buying are often so full of game design flaws that we have to wonder what the fuck the 'developers' were thinking.
Our standards for gaming have become so low that we artificially inflate the value of any game that doesn't suck. So a game that might rate a '3' on a scale of 1 to 10 suddenly becomes a '6', because so many other games are a '1'. A '6' becomes a '9' not because it is a '9', but because the game not only doesn't suck, it's actually okay.
If you want to improve the games you need to stop making programmers developers; this approach doesn't make any more sense than it does to make a plumber the head architect for a new building design. Programmers should do what they do best - program. They don't have any business doing design work unless they actually have a talent for it. What a game company should be looking for is people who've actually proven they can design good games; say, the old SPI or GDW crowd, or Steve Perrin, etc. Not programmers, *game designers*. Assuming any of these folks are still alive, of course.
Not that I see that happening. People buy schlock, and rave over any game that's above that minimal standard. So long as they do that any programmer who thinks that he's a game designer will have a shot at screwing up yet another great idea, all the while insisting that *he* knows how to do things right. And if it doesn't work out as planned, well obviously it's someone else's fault - even the customers, for not recognizing his brilliance.
Yes, you keep saying that. But what you fail to understand is that this is nothing more than your own personal opinion. While it may be true for you, it is in no way, shape, or form true for a great many other people. Your world is not our world.
For a lot of us we can and do have sex simply because it's fun. No more, no less.
Well, they're lying.
Bullshit. You don't like the world as it is so you decide anyone who doesn't agree with you is a liar.
Try getting over yourself, kid. You don't get to decide for the rest of us what's right and what's not, what's real and what's not. If this bothers you then too fucking bad - I mean, what're you going to do about it? Whine about the rest of us being liars or morally decadent? Cry me a river, but it's not as if you have the power to force your beliefs on us, nor will you ever have that power.
Kids not being reared properly is the single reason our society will continue in its decadent downward spiral.
More decadence, please. Maybe it'll be enough to counteract the right-wing christian fundies and their own brand of forced moral lunacy. Even the whole thing out, so to speak.
If the power of the U.S. government is seriously challenged, that government will do whatever it takes to remain in power, even if it has to nuke its own civilian population
You're making the mistake of assuming that the government is a borg-like structure all thinking with one mind and acting with one will. This will be anything but the case in the face of a popular uprising.
This ain't the 1700s anymore. Today, the average soldier has, after accounting for all of the conventional support weaponry indirectly at his disposal, a many hundreds to one advantage in firepower over the average armed civilian.
And as anyone who's actually served knows, these numbers are bunk, especially in the case of overwhelming civilian resistance. They only mean anything if you were to line up every rebel and every soldier on a nice flat plain, and told the rebels that they all had to stand in place without moving. Then you'd get maximum effect for your artillery, and cluster bombs, and so forth.
In real combat conditions it's never that easy. Homemade bombs of fuel and fertilizer can blow the most powerful tank to hell; a molotov can take an APC out; pungi sticks are cheaper than land mines. Fighting a determined civilian populace is every commander's worst nightmare; you never know who the enemy is, or what is or is not a weapon, or if by simply driving down the street in convoy you're walking into an ambush. Not to mention the absolute nightmare that logistics would become.
And lets not forget that these are Americans, gunning down their own people. While I'm sure a significant fraction wouldn't have any problem with that scenario, an even larger fraction would. This from anecdotal experience, but do you have any experience of your own to counter it? Other than armchair punditry?
You get over yourself, idiot. Exactly who the hell do you think you are to decide for the rest of us what constitutes a serious threat to freedom in this country, and what does not?
Please, do go back to sleep. You're just getting in the way.
You're assuming that a) there're enough Americans to care, and b) that most Americans haven't become spineless lapdogs. Me, what I see are people who don't give a shit if they lose their rights so long as they get the thrill of forcing their neighbors to lose them as well (power by proxy); and people who wouldn't stand against the government if their very lives depended on it, and are working hard to make sure the rest of us adopt the very same victim mentality.
Sometimes a nation passes a point of no return and eventually self-destructs, never to rise again. History is replete with such examples. Could be we aren't heading for a revolution but a very painful, murderous dissolution.
Whether you think it a war or not, the Constitution doesn't allow this sort of treatment of American citizens. In case you've forgotten (much like our current Congress has), the Constitution trumps ALL OTHER LAW, ALWAYS. There is no greater law in the land. The Patriot Act can never, under any circumstances, supercede the Constitution of these United States.
Slashdot Mirror
People who use the crazy straw man arguments of Ayn Rand tend to be the type of people who want an excuse to feel good about doing nothing.
Wow! You can read minds! Somebody call Penn and Teller!
Not because I like them to bow or scrape, not because I feel better than them, but because I feel like I am building a world where people help each other, a world where, if the situation were reversed I would be helped. I also feel good about not having desperate miserable people around me.
That's nice, but it has fuck-all to do with Rand or objectivism.
The irony is that Ayn Rand's philosophy is
No, the real irony is that you think it's necessary to lie about what Rand said. Either that or you failed to understand it. Regardless it's clear you don't know that the fuck you're talking about.
I am for sure going to point out how selfish, egotistical, and short sighted you are.
Oh yeah, here we go with another idiot: "I'm morally superior to anyone who doesn't believe what I believe, and I'll make sure that all you worthless bastards know it!"
There are plenty of good reasons for wanting to help others that don't revolve around being a self important prick.
But that appears to be your main motivation, at least. The fact that the hypocrisy is lost on you makes your post a comedy piece, classic slashdot style.
Max
then a person is deprived liberty by the objectivist system - where once I could walk through public parks, or go to public museums, libraries and art galleries, I am now banned from doing such things (as everything must be owned) and the coercive force of the state will be used to enforce that.
Neither Rand nor objectivism argues for either thing. You've made all of this up out of whole cloth. If you think otherwise, please point to any one of her books which encourages the seizure of public property and using the force of the state to make the creation of public property illegal.
There really isn't especially more of less liberty in either system, and the objectivist version ignores positive liberty to focus exclusively on negative liberty - that is, it worries only about liberties that may be deprived, and ignores liberties that may be granted. A man with little property has very little freedom in an objectivist world.
How can liberty be 'granted'? You start out with X amount of liberty at birth, and from that point on various organizations deprive you of bits and pieces, taking the power for themselves. In some cases this is generally seen as a good thing (you don't have the liberty to murder your neighbor without the possibility of being punished); in others it's a bad thing.
No one can 'grant' you liberty, only return a piece of the power which was initially taken from you. Hell, this isn't objectivism - it's the founding principle of the Constitution of these United States. It's why the 9th and 10th Amendments exist. Our founding fathers drove this point home repeatedly in the Federalist essays; Rand just picked it up and extended it into the realm of traditional philosophy.
There is little prove that the government is always wrong, always less efficient, and always less productive.
Rand wasn't an anarchist. She NEVER argued that government shouldn't exist. Why you're attributing this sort of crap to Rand or objectivism is unclear.
Handing everything to the government certaonly doesn't work, but that doesn't mean there aren't things a government can do effectively
Rand said that government was necessary (e.g., how else would you enforce contracts with the morally inferior?). The only point of contention was that she thought that government was interfering far too much - in the market and in the private lives of Joe Citizen.
Funny, a lot of people believe the very same thing TODAY.
Max
Of course, I doubt you'll understant. I think that statement alone tells me all I need to know about the small-minded and greedy anarchist that resides where you soul once did.
You've pretty much proved the point of everyone who argued in favor of Rand's interpretation. The people who agree with you are morally superior, while those who don't are "small-minded and greedy".
Good going there, Tex. Nice job, putting your leg in that there beartrap.
Max
Its throughout her writings that she has no respect for the idea.
I think you missed the mark here. Rand had no respect for the false altruist, the one that goes around 'helping' people by taking power from others for his or herself. And let's face it: a lot of so-called "altruists" come from the position of "I know better than you, therefore I get to make decisions for you". These people call themselves altruists but in truth they're nothing more than power-seekers looking for a justification for their activities. If you don't believe as they do they have no problem whatsoever depriving you of power and FORCING you to do as you're told - for the greater good, the children, whatever.
Now there may well be a minority of people whom she does describe.
I sincerely doubt it's a minority. These self-same "altruists" are the folks who take every opportunity to deprive their neighbors of power, even when it comes down to simple decisions like "am I going to wear a seatbelt" or "should I wear my motorcycle helmet". It's for your own good that you don't get to make that decision yourself, of course....
The typical do-gooder isn't doing somethign because it makes him feel good- he's doing it because he thinks he's doing the right thing.
And he doesn't give a shit what anyone else thinks. The right of others to make that decision *for themselves* doesn't even enter into the equation. Any which way you slice it, these folks are operating from the presumption that they're moral, you're not, and therefore they DESERVE to have the power to tell you what you can and cannot do.
Its like religious zealots who try to convert everyone- they believe they are saving your soul.
And if you don't want your soul "saved" they think they're entirely justified in using whatever power they can acquire to force you to do what they think is right. Fanatics are scum, the filth on the bottom of humanity's boots; they're the most dangerous and evil people on the planet. What they're being fanatical about is entirely irrelevent to the fanaticism itself.
Ayn Rand never addressed what we would call true charities. They didn't even enter into the equation for her. What she vilified were the false charities, the fronts people used to acquire power or take it away from others, and there I think she was spot-on. These so-called acts of "altruism" aren't altruistic at all, and never have been; they're just covers for people who wish to force themselves on their neighbors.
Max
It's a bad argument used by lazy thinkers on both sides of the political spectrum, not just a conservative mantra.
"Think of the children" used to be a (mostly) conservative battle cry, while "it's for the greater good" was a liberal one. Now both sides use either one where appropriate for sound bites, since they both seem to be an effective Pavlovian cue for shutting down the higher brain centers in those that hear them.
But they all mean the same thing, i.e., "I'm smarter and more moral than you are, and that means that I get to decide what you can and cannot do. So shut the fuck up and do as you're told, prole."
Max
Study after study after study has conclusively shown a net depressed impact on music sales, especially in Europe, due directly to downloading music illegally.
Cites, please. In the form of empirical evidence published in an accredited, peer-reviewed journal.
But for you people to sit here and still insist after all this time that piracy is somehow generating revenue for the music industry is completely stupid. It's not. It's costing them more money than it's making them.
This happens when the economic model in use is fundamentally broken. People turn to the black market in large numbers. It isn't an ethical argument but a practical one.
And it won't be resolved until you self-righteous chest-pounding downloaders here stop defending your activity as some moralistic crusade against the evil content cartels
There are extremists on both sides of any issue. They usually aren't worth listening to.
But I don't deny that there are people who match my profile who engage in widespread copyright infringement and then either lie about it, pretend it's not illegal, or defend it with some holier-than-thou diatribe (much like this one) about why it's justified.
The reasoning actually doesn't matter, only the activity. A person is what he does, not what he says he is or what he thinks he is.
It's obvious that people who commit copyright violation are criminals. So are people who jaywalk. So what? The only issue of interest is *why* so many people engage in the activity despite the penalties for doing so, and what can be done to remove the incentives the activity provides.
The law doesn't work. I think that's pretty fucking obvious to even the dullest slashdotter. And if the law isn't a viable recourse then your only option is to revise the economic model in question. There is no third course.
Extremists on either side don't have a clue. The RIAA refuses to revise their model because to do so would mean giving up enormous power, something RIAA heads will never do *even if it ultimately destroys their business*. For these people power is like crack, and they're self-destructively addicted beyond all hope of recovery. The money is secondary to folks who used to exercise effective monopoly (or oligarchical) control of an entire segment of the market.
The hard-core 'pirates', on the other hand, are just people who want everything they desire to be free. In this case they argue that music should be free (for whatever reason - it doesn't matter what they say), but the fact is they just don't want to pay for the product. They want their music AND their beer, and since they can't afford both (and stealing beer is much riskier) they take what they want.
But the extremists are just that - extremists. Tiny minorities. And we know for a fact that the vast majority of downloaders *aren't* extremists. It's all the folks inbetween who're of interest, not the loons at the far ends of the spectrum. Their motivation is an economic one; they pirate because they think, on some level or another, that the current pricing/control scheme is 'fixed' to screw them in some way. Typical black-market behavior when the masses start getting involved in that market.
And that tells you that the only solution is to change the model. Perhaps drastically.
Max
A lot of things in life are unfairly priced [one way or another]. Doesn't mean you can just take them when you want.
While that's a grand thought it's pretty damned apparent that it doesn't reflect reality. Not in any way, shape, or form, not when it comes to downloadable music (and since that's what we're talking about here, don't even bother bringing any strawmen to the dance).
Fact is, copyright violation for music is still on the rise despite all the efforts of the government and the RIAA to stop it. The penalties if you get caught continue to increase but these fear tactics haven't made a noticeable dent in the activity; last month the U.S. reached the point where 70% of all people with internet accounts at least 'sometimes' engaged in acts of online "piracy". This isn't an activity restricted to certain age brackets (e.g., college kids) or income levels.
Economics 101: if a big chunk of the populace is actively engaged in the black market despite the risks, then something is seriously wrong with the model which spawned the black market in the first place. If the majority of the people who have access to the black market actually use it then your model isn't just flawed, it's fucked up beyond repair.
Bad economic models encourage otherwise law-abiding citizens to break the law in order to obtain what they want. It doesn't matter a good goddamn whether you think it's right or ethical; what you *think* doesn't matter for shit. The only thing that matters here is identifying the cause of the behavior and working to eliminate it, replacing the broken economic model with one that works well enough to at least partially satisfy everyone concerned.
It's pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain what that new model would be: cheap high-quality mp3s, no DRM, preferably no obstructionist middle man between the band and buyer. It doesn't take a fucking rocket science to figure out that if the latest Britney CD was sold online at $0.50/track in a 320/44 mp3 that it'd sell like hotcakes - especially if the buyer knew that 90% of the profit were going straight to Britney herself.
Are the RIAA and labels totally disgraceful? Doesn't matter. That's how they choose to do business.
It does matter. To say anything else is just plain ignorance. Economics 101 again, see above.
Imagine if all you stupid children spent energy spreading word-of-mouth about indy bands instead of further spreading label music.
I see. You're one of those egotistical college fucks who thinks he's somehow superior to everyone else because he hates Britney but waxes lyrical about some shitty garage band. Grow the fuck up, junior; being a 'rebel without a clue' doesn't make you cool, and never will.
But no, you're stupid and ignorant and fuel the things you hate the most.
Count yourself in among the ranks of "stupid and ignorant", not to mention "arrogant". Try wrapping that tiny brain of yours around some basic economic theory before spouting off on the topic again, because it's clear you don't have the first fucking clue what you're ranting about.
Max
You sign your every message with a sig that's purposefully tailored to annoy christians
Only the ones that don't have any sense of humor. Y'know, people who enjoy laughing at others but take themselves way too seriously. Like you.
It's perfectly okay for you to annoy others, but woe be to anyone who dares give you a well-reasoned answer (as the grandparent poster did), since that will annoy you.
A well-reasoned response? Pull the other finger, Jack. If you consider his response a 'reasoned' one that says more about you than it ever will about me.
Here's a little hint: if you don't want to debate with christians about christianity, don't comment about them or their religion.
Here's a little hint: as an American I can say whatever I please, without having to 'debate' anyone - especially idiots who talk about the joys of seeing my skull smashed in. Losers like this just don't deserve much of anything but contempt.
In any event, a right to free speech doesn't mean you get the right to an audience. Yammer on if you like 'ultranova', but I won't be here to listen. Perhaps your god will pick up the slack.
Max
w/rt your tag line - My God rose again. Your god is vanity, and your own god's hammer is gonna smush you in the end.
Yada yada, another pseudo-christian mouthing off about how doom and gloom are going to visit my ass and send me straight to hell. I've heard it all before, boy; you don't even rate.
it has done its job remarkably well, convincing the world that science can discover everything that has occurred in the past, by simply observing the present (e.g. evolutionary origins of life).
Well, it certainly hasn't convinced *you*, so why the fuck do you care? Mind your own business, leave other people to theirs, and everyone's happy, eh? So long as you aren't preaching your claptrap to the annoyance of others (or worse, to their children) I certainly don't give a damn what you believe, or what sort of nonsense you spout off about in the privacy of your home.
Max
In the States, the problem isn't that environmentalists don't want nuclear power, the problem is that they don't trust the Bush administration with it.
That's crap. Among most of the frothing idiots who fill the ranks of the 'environmental movement' nuclear power plants are Engines of Death and Destruction(TM). That's been part and parcel of every major so-called environmental group since the '60's.
Bush has nothing to do with it. The greenies hate nuclear power generation with a passion and will never relent in their opposition to it. The few intelligent greenies who argue that nuclear power is far less destructive than fossil-fuel generation are vilified by their own people.
Max
pursuing an agenda of undermining public education
Our educational system was specifically designed to manufacture interchangeable factory drones who followed orders and avoided thinking whenever possible - and it seems to have done it's job well. If anything it's a smashing success.
If you want research and innovation, public education is not the place I'd focus my efforts.
Max
Not to mention competing with Legitimite copies of Linux.
There's no such thing as a copy of Linux which *isn't* legitimate.
Max
The same folks who label everyone else 'mindless consumers' practically paint the ceiling everytime someone mentions "Google", or to a lesser extent "Apple". It's geek herd mentality, which geeks insist they're too smart to fall for.
Instead of thinking of the endless supply of "someone took a shit at Google today" articles as a waste of space, think of it as an opportunity to observe pre-Borg-like behavior in nerds across the world. It's also an hypocrisy laugh-in that just never stops giving.
So sit back, sip the coffee, and watch the show....
Max
Isn't it us geeks who buy the "bright-shiny-new" hardware before everyone else does?
That's hardly an argument for the buyer being intelligent and well-informed. In fact, I'd say it's a pretty good argument *against* these things.
Max
Not trying to join up with them and make the voice of reason present within that grou might be much much more unwise.
The "voice of reason" isn't going to have any effect on the inclusion of so-called 'trusted computing'. It WILL be included, no matter anyone else thinks about the matter.
So why should they join the group and give it another layer of legitimacy, when in the end the group is going to shove trusted computing up everyone's ass anyways?
Max
American patents don't apply in China, so by definition no patent has been violated - even if a case could be made in the states. American law doesn't stretch a single foot outside of American borders, at least when it comes to countries the U.S. can't conquer or cow into submission.
Max
Many of these programmers do act like jerks. Ever spent time dealing with MMORPG developers and you quickly find out there are many jerks and too many have god-complexes. When you point out things they should not do they quickly turn around attacking the person pointing out the issue instead of dealing with the issue.
That's a problem with the company who allows programmers to become game developers. There is absolutely no correlation whatsoever between the ability to program and the ability to develop a good game; the two aren't related in any way. But there are a good many programmers who labor under that delusion, and the result is what we see on the market today. For every game worth playing there are fifty that're absolute trash; and even those we consider buying are often so full of game design flaws that we have to wonder what the fuck the 'developers' were thinking.
Our standards for gaming have become so low that we artificially inflate the value of any game that doesn't suck. So a game that might rate a '3' on a scale of 1 to 10 suddenly becomes a '6', because so many other games are a '1'. A '6' becomes a '9' not because it is a '9', but because the game not only doesn't suck, it's actually okay.
If you want to improve the games you need to stop making programmers developers; this approach doesn't make any more sense than it does to make a plumber the head architect for a new building design. Programmers should do what they do best - program. They don't have any business doing design work unless they actually have a talent for it. What a game company should be looking for is people who've actually proven they can design good games; say, the old SPI or GDW crowd, or Steve Perrin, etc. Not programmers, *game designers*. Assuming any of these folks are still alive, of course.
Not that I see that happening. People buy schlock, and rave over any game that's above that minimal standard. So long as they do that any programmer who thinks that he's a game designer will have a shot at screwing up yet another great idea, all the while insisting that *he* knows how to do things right. And if it doesn't work out as planned, well obviously it's someone else's fault - even the customers, for not recognizing his brilliance.
Max
Sex is not just about banging-time.
Yes, you keep saying that. But what you fail to understand is that this is nothing more than your own personal opinion. While it may be true for you, it is in no way, shape, or form true for a great many other people. Your world is not our world.
For a lot of us we can and do have sex simply because it's fun. No more, no less.
Well, they're lying.
Bullshit. You don't like the world as it is so you decide anyone who doesn't agree with you is a liar.
Try getting over yourself, kid. You don't get to decide for the rest of us what's right and what's not, what's real and what's not. If this bothers you then too fucking bad - I mean, what're you going to do about it? Whine about the rest of us being liars or morally decadent? Cry me a river, but it's not as if you have the power to force your beliefs on us, nor will you ever have that power.
Max
Kids not being reared properly is the single reason our society will continue in its decadent downward spiral.
More decadence, please. Maybe it'll be enough to counteract the right-wing christian fundies and their own brand of forced moral lunacy. Even the whole thing out, so to speak.
Max
If the power of the U.S. government is seriously challenged, that government will do whatever it takes to remain in power, even if it has to nuke its own civilian population
You're making the mistake of assuming that the government is a borg-like structure all thinking with one mind and acting with one will. This will be anything but the case in the face of a popular uprising.
This ain't the 1700s anymore. Today, the average soldier has, after accounting for all of the conventional support weaponry indirectly at his disposal, a many hundreds to one advantage in firepower over the average armed civilian.
And as anyone who's actually served knows, these numbers are bunk, especially in the case of overwhelming civilian resistance. They only mean anything if you were to line up every rebel and every soldier on a nice flat plain, and told the rebels that they all had to stand in place without moving. Then you'd get maximum effect for your artillery, and cluster bombs, and so forth.
In real combat conditions it's never that easy. Homemade bombs of fuel and fertilizer can blow the most powerful tank to hell; a molotov can take an APC out; pungi sticks are cheaper than land mines. Fighting a determined civilian populace is every commander's worst nightmare; you never know who the enemy is, or what is or is not a weapon, or if by simply driving down the street in convoy you're walking into an ambush. Not to mention the absolute nightmare that logistics would become.
And lets not forget that these are Americans, gunning down their own people. While I'm sure a significant fraction wouldn't have any problem with that scenario, an even larger fraction would. This from anecdotal experience, but do you have any experience of your own to counter it? Other than armchair punditry?
Max
Get over yourself and just get on with life.
You get over yourself, idiot. Exactly who the hell do you think you are to decide for the rest of us what constitutes a serious threat to freedom in this country, and what does not?
Please, do go back to sleep. You're just getting in the way.
Max
Most likely a serious violent revolt would end up with the installation of a dictator and martial law... no matter which side 'won'.
Tell that to George Washington and crew.
Max
You're assuming that a) there're enough Americans to care, and b) that most Americans haven't become spineless lapdogs. Me, what I see are people who don't give a shit if they lose their rights so long as they get the thrill of forcing their neighbors to lose them as well (power by proxy); and people who wouldn't stand against the government if their very lives depended on it, and are working hard to make sure the rest of us adopt the very same victim mentality.
Sometimes a nation passes a point of no return and eventually self-destructs, never to rise again. History is replete with such examples. Could be we aren't heading for a revolution but a very painful, murderous dissolution.
Max
Security is necessary to have freedom.
Ben Franklin had something to say about that. Unless you think you're smarter than ol' Ben was?
Max
Whether you think it a war or not, the Constitution doesn't allow this sort of treatment of American citizens. In case you've forgotten (much like our current Congress has), the Constitution trumps ALL OTHER LAW, ALWAYS. There is no greater law in the land. The Patriot Act can never, under any circumstances, supercede the Constitution of these United States.
Max