It really is amazing how many little brats will log in to slashdot and rant and rave over how "shitty" popular bands are - and then use their own taste in music as an argument to do away with the RIAA!
Here's a clue, junior: just because you don't happen to like Avril Lavigne doesn't mean that she sucks. All it means is that you don't like her music. That's *all* it means, nothing more. You're just one little boy whose opinion is no more important than anyone else's, *including* the fans of Avril Lavigne. Get over yourself, kid.
For clarity's sake, let's say by "shitty" I meant "stuff that wouldn't sell a fraction of what it does without marketing a culture to mindless masses."
You're forgetting that *you* are one of the mindless masses. Don't kid yourself; you aren't any better than anyone around you.
In any event, you don't have a clue what would sell with or without the marketing engine. I'm willing to bet that Britney Spears would be just as big a hit without the RIAA, especially after she produced and distributed her first online video.
Do the teenage girls (or any other popularity-influenced demographic, with lesser or greater degrees of mindlessness)
The 'mindlessness' of teenage girls doesn't begin to the compare to the arrogance of little boys who (falsely) think they're somehow superior to some chunk of the population *just because of the music they listen to*. When you think about it, that's just about one of the most pathetic things a person could possibly believe.
Capitalism requires a free market. Having the RIAA stand as the middleman between music makers and music buyers through oligopolistic practices and then attempting to enforce that oligopoly by buying laws is hardly a function of the free market.
The RIAA has nothing whatsoever to do with capitalism. There's a bloke named Adam Smith who did a pretty good job of explaining how the free market works if you need an education in what capitalism actually is.
You're ignoring the fact that the 'counseling' industry is a huge money-maker for the participating therapists. More mental disorders means more people who're convinced they need treatment means more money in the bank for the practitioners.
The real beauty of the system is that many of these classifications are specious at best and often vague to the point of being useless. Even better there's little evidence to indicate that most forms of therapy are in any way effective at treating the problem (real or imagined), so you can treat patients for YEARS - and then blame it on the patient if the treatment doesn't work.
There's a whole lot of snake oil on the counseling side of psychology, and no lack of salesment to sell it.
Why the hell would that be so? Why can't nations act in a way that's in the interest of the world?
Because it's the primary duty of the government of ANY nation to represent the interests of its people first and foremost. That's what government is FOR. Any government which puts the interests of another nation before that of its people is betraying its constituency.
Rather than createing another body that represents the democratic nations of the world, they would rather there existed no trans-national body with acknowledged legitimacy over serious issues like genocide, international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
You're right, as an American I'm not for creating even the vestiges of a one-world government. In fact, I'm all for America withdrawing from the world stage when it comes to the internal affairs of other nations. I have no interest whatsoever in sending American troops - or American money - to other countries in an attempt to impose rationality on irrational peoples.
Let them slave under dictatorships. Let them massacre each other in tribal genocides. I really don't give a shit.
Sue me for thinking critically and analyzing your proposal, and also considering how many companies have moved from state to state or chosen to setup in specific states or other countries entirely because of tax laws involved. It's a historic and economic fact that overtaxing a group of people will drive them out of the area.
Apparently not so critically. You're making the mistake of thinking that a business is a group of people who wouldn't otherwise be taxed. They aren't; they're the same people and you're taxing them the same amount, just using the business as a tool for collection rather than the dozens of different methods (all with their own loopholes) on the books today. Businesses are a *point of collection* and nothing more.
The only difference between my scheme and all the others out there - other than simplicity - is that *foreign investors* also end up getting taxed.
Not when all you need to understand what I said is a basic history lesson, a leven of education I achieved in the third grade. Don't know about you, though.
Clearly it didn't help you develop skills in reason or logic.
Aha, lack of reading comprehension.
Y'know, ignorance is common on slashdot but plain, outright stupidity isn't that common. You belong to a very select minority. Normally I'd tell you to go back and re-read the thread until the little light bulb goes off over your head but in your case I don't think that'll help.
It's a game company. Nothing you will ever get from them will be of any value whatsoever beyond idle entertainment. So stop buying from them.
I did this the moment I heard about the bnetd case a couple of years back. Vowed never to purchase one of their products again, and I haven't. If you're concerned about the company acting like one of the spawn of Satan (which they are) then DON'T PURCHASE THEIR PRODUCTS.
And once you decide you actually have the balls to follow through, and aren't just some little prick on slashdot you SAYS he'll do this but then buys everything that Blizzard dumps on the market anyway, send them a letter explaining that their licensing practices are just plain evil - as is their attitude towards bnetd - and that's why you've decided never to have anything to do with them again. Give them a big "fuck you and the horse you rode in on".
I did this. I seriously doubt it made any difference at all to the company, but it sure was fun. All Blizzard does is produce games, so unless you're really so much of a loser you can't stand the thought of going cold-turkey where Blizzard is concerned it really isn't that big of a deal to tell them to 'piss off'.
You could even - gasp! - send the $40 you'd spend on a Blizzard game to the folks who need it for the appeal.
Blah blah...and I've never had a single problem with a Suse install, which has always been considerably faster than any Windows install I've done. None of my Linux boxes have ever been compromised, either.
Actually, this is one of the mystifying things about democracy. The plain truth of the matter is that we don't *know* exactly why more people don't vote. There are a number of theories, but for each of them there is a body of data suggesting they are wrong. Which is to say, for every piece of evidence suggesting people don't vote because they are disaffected, or whatever, there is another piece of evidence suggesting people don't vote because they generally think things are fine the way they are.
Last week a news article briefly appeared on Yahoo concerning a study on what Americans thought about their leaders and their government. A record 68% had little faith in either, felt that their vote wouldn't change anything since the government as a whole didn't represent them, and identified themselves as 'disenfranchised'.
When two-thirds of your electorate says the government and their leaders can't be trusted, you know you have a problem. This is not what people say when they "think things are fine the way they are".
If you're so set on doing away with local control and enacting version 1.0 of our future dictatorship, then put your money where your mouth is and amend the Constitution. My guess is that the vast majority - and I do mean VAST majority - of the American public will shoot down your efforts right at the outset.
The firefighters are necessary. Besides, I rather like firefighters.
We have far too many cops for a supposedly civilized nation. But then, we have far too many laws that result in the highest percentage of incarcerated citizenry in the First World, as well. I could do with less cops, if I knew the bastards wouldn't be wasting my tax dollars drop-kicking dopeheads into jail, or busting hookers and their customers, or handing out speeding tickets when I'd rather they were hunting down rapists, thieves, and murderers.
As for teachers...forced government schooling is an abomination. Voluntary schooling, no problem; forced schooling, no fucking way. My tax dollars could be put to MUCH better use (e.g., a rebate that I'll go out and spend, thereby CREATING JOBS).
An even easier method is to do away with sales, income, and property taxes altogether and rely solely upon a corporate income tax of GROSS (not NET) profits. Not only do you do away with accounting loopholes, but you:
- tax the employees of the corporation - tax the customers of the corporation - tax the shareholders of the corporation, *even if they're foreigners*
Use the corporation itself as the collection point for all taxes. Much, much simpler than a sales tax and certainly more fair - if you do away with Congressionally-approved exemptions.
it would start to pass certain powers to the Federal Govt
I guess that whole "United STATES" thing just went over your head in high school history class, eh?
There are certain areas that make sense to be centralised;
And those areas are enumerated in the Constitution. Try actually reading the document to see what they are. Pay particular attention to the 9th and 10th Amendments.
not only would it make complying with the law easier
Since law for everyone, everywhere would be set at the federal level, and local concerns would never hold any weight or water. Might as well do away with the idea of statehood altogether.
but it would save the taxpayers a lot of $$$ in not having to employ fifty sets of state legislature and bureaucracy...
Clearly you've never worked for government. The larger the bureaucracy, the more inefficient it becomes. You'd still need approximately the same amount of government, only now it'd be under control of the feds and cost much, much more to operate. Worse, that government no longer answers to the locals who pay for it.
I'll pass on your test-bed version of one-world government, thanks.
Yeah, sounds like the press - who couldn't find their ass with both hands when it comes to rocketry - are desperate to show that Rutan's design is inherently flawed in some fashion. Mike Melville admitted after both flights that unusual craft performance was due to an error on his part, but Rutan went further and claimed that it was to be expected - that's why they use *test pilots*, for chrissakes! Nobody has any bloody idea how the craft will actually handle until they fly the thing into space! And it shows just how good Mike is, in that he recognized the errors, managed to correct them, and *still* achieved the goal set for the flight.
The real question here is: why is the press so eager to destroy the reputation of SSO, Rutan, and the idea of private space flight in general? Would they have been happier if SSO had blown up in a spectacular fashion? Are they trying to get the government to step in and end private space flight for all time? Are they pissed off that Mike didn't crash SSO and boost their ratings for the night?
The story here isn't SSO, it's the press's attitude towards SSO. I don't remember Lindbergh or Earhardt getting this sort of treatment....
In fact, most humans will take whatever's not nailed down if you let them.
What bullshit. Guys like you claim that the majority of the human race consists of assholes simply because you yourself would do these things and can't stand the idea that you're in a morally deficient minority.
Is it sane logic to begin looking at our laws and just begin striking those that are violated the most, as this somehow means that the laws are inherently flawed?
Yes, it does. Laws are enacted at the behest of the citizenry through its representatives, in accordance with the Constitution. There is no other reason for laws to exist in a representative system.
That doesn't mean that the idea of copyright is flawed. It only means that the draconian interpretation and ludicrous extension of copyright law is viewed as more than a bit ridiculous by a sizable minority of the American populace, resulting in widespread disobedience. This should be obvious, even to a git like you.
The same thing happened with highway speed limits, resulting in a whopping 90% non-compliance with posted limits in many area of the country. The state continued to try to enforce a nationwide 55 mph limit against the will of the people, and eventually lost in most places. Notice that with the exception of certain highways in Montana speed limits weren't abolished, they were just raised to a more acceptable level.
The 'law' is not the product of holy scripture, and you are not its prophet.
People don't tend to break laws in large numbers unless they believe that there's something wrong with those laws to begin with. In any representative system the people have the final say on what laws should and should not exist; when representation breaks down you get a noticeable disparity between law and compliance, as we're seeing with copyright.
This doesn't mean that these people think the concept of copyright is flawed, just that its implementation leaves something to be desired. Hence record numbers of acts of non-compliance.
Slashdot Mirror
Whether or not trusted computing can do anything about that remains to be seen, of course.
Not on my computer, it won't be.
Max
It really is amazing how many little brats will log in to slashdot and rant and rave over how "shitty" popular bands are - and then use their own taste in music as an argument to do away with the RIAA!
Here's a clue, junior: just because you don't happen to like Avril Lavigne doesn't mean that she sucks. All it means is that you don't like her music. That's *all* it means, nothing more. You're just one little boy whose opinion is no more important than anyone else's, *including* the fans of Avril Lavigne. Get over yourself, kid.
Max
For clarity's sake, let's say by "shitty" I meant "stuff that wouldn't sell a fraction of what it does without marketing a culture to mindless masses."
You're forgetting that *you* are one of the mindless masses. Don't kid yourself; you aren't any better than anyone around you.
In any event, you don't have a clue what would sell with or without the marketing engine. I'm willing to bet that Britney Spears would be just as big a hit without the RIAA, especially after she produced and distributed her first online video.
Do the teenage girls (or any other popularity-influenced demographic, with lesser or greater degrees of mindlessness)
The 'mindlessness' of teenage girls doesn't begin to the compare to the arrogance of little boys who (falsely) think they're somehow superior to some chunk of the population *just because of the music they listen to*. When you think about it, that's just about one of the most pathetic things a person could possibly believe.
Max
Capitalism requires a free market. Having the RIAA stand as the middleman between music makers and music buyers through oligopolistic practices and then attempting to enforce that oligopoly by buying laws is hardly a function of the free market.
The RIAA has nothing whatsoever to do with capitalism. There's a bloke named Adam Smith who did a pretty good job of explaining how the free market works if you need an education in what capitalism actually is.
Max
I personally feel there is some sort of mental defect in coffee addicts
Nice work, getting your troll modded 'insightful'.
Max
You're ignoring the fact that the 'counseling' industry is a huge money-maker for the participating therapists. More mental disorders means more people who're convinced they need treatment means more money in the bank for the practitioners.
The real beauty of the system is that many of these classifications are specious at best and often vague to the point of being useless. Even better there's little evidence to indicate that most forms of therapy are in any way effective at treating the problem (real or imagined), so you can treat patients for YEARS - and then blame it on the patient if the treatment doesn't work.
There's a whole lot of snake oil on the counseling side of psychology, and no lack of salesment to sell it.
Max
Why the hell would that be so? Why can't nations act in a way that's in the interest of the world?
Because it's the primary duty of the government of ANY nation to represent the interests of its people first and foremost. That's what government is FOR. Any government which puts the interests of another nation before that of its people is betraying its constituency.
Max
Your quibble is incorrect. The parent poster has it right.
Max
Rather than createing another body that represents the democratic nations of the world, they would rather there existed no trans-national body with acknowledged legitimacy over serious issues like genocide, international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
You're right, as an American I'm not for creating even the vestiges of a one-world government. In fact, I'm all for America withdrawing from the world stage when it comes to the internal affairs of other nations. I have no interest whatsoever in sending American troops - or American money - to other countries in an attempt to impose rationality on irrational peoples.
Let them slave under dictatorships. Let them massacre each other in tribal genocides. I really don't give a shit.
Max
Sue me for thinking critically and analyzing your proposal, and also considering how many companies have moved from state to state or chosen to setup in specific states or other countries entirely because of tax laws involved. It's a historic and economic fact that overtaxing a group of people will drive them out of the area.
Apparently not so critically. You're making the mistake of thinking that a business is a group of people who wouldn't otherwise be taxed. They aren't; they're the same people and you're taxing them the same amount, just using the business as a tool for collection rather than the dozens of different methods (all with their own loopholes) on the books today. Businesses are a *point of collection* and nothing more.
The only difference between my scheme and all the others out there - other than simplicity - is that *foreign investors* also end up getting taxed.
Not when all you need to understand what I said is a basic history lesson, a leven of education I achieved in the third grade. Don't know about you, though.
Clearly it didn't help you develop skills in reason or logic.
Aha, lack of reading comprehension.
Y'know, ignorance is common on slashdot but plain, outright stupidity isn't that common. You belong to a very select minority. Normally I'd tell you to go back and re-read the thread until the little light bulb goes off over your head but in your case I don't think that'll help.
Max
It's a game company. Nothing you will ever get from them will be of any value whatsoever beyond idle entertainment. So stop buying from them.
I did this the moment I heard about the bnetd case a couple of years back. Vowed never to purchase one of their products again, and I haven't. If you're concerned about the company acting like one of the spawn of Satan (which they are) then DON'T PURCHASE THEIR PRODUCTS.
And once you decide you actually have the balls to follow through, and aren't just some little prick on slashdot you SAYS he'll do this but then buys everything that Blizzard dumps on the market anyway, send them a letter explaining that their licensing practices are just plain evil - as is their attitude towards bnetd - and that's why you've decided never to have anything to do with them again. Give them a big "fuck you and the horse you rode in on".
I did this. I seriously doubt it made any difference at all to the company, but it sure was fun. All Blizzard does is produce games, so unless you're really so much of a loser you can't stand the thought of going cold-turkey where Blizzard is concerned it really isn't that big of a deal to tell them to 'piss off'.
You could even - gasp! - send the $40 you'd spend on a Blizzard game to the folks who need it for the appeal.
Max
Blah blah...and I've never had a single problem with a Suse install, which has always been considerably faster than any Windows install I've done. None of my Linux boxes have ever been compromised, either.
Max
Actually, this is one of the mystifying things about democracy. The plain truth of the matter is that we don't *know* exactly why more people don't vote. There are a number of theories, but for each of them there is a body of data suggesting they are wrong. Which is to say, for every piece of evidence suggesting people don't vote because they are disaffected, or whatever, there is another piece of evidence suggesting people don't vote because they generally think things are fine the way they are.
Last week a news article briefly appeared on Yahoo concerning a study on what Americans thought about their leaders and their government. A record 68% had little faith in either, felt that their vote wouldn't change anything since the government as a whole didn't represent them, and identified themselves as 'disenfranchised'.
When two-thirds of your electorate says the government and their leaders can't be trusted, you know you have a problem. This is not what people say when they "think things are fine the way they are".
Max
Joe Voter has even the foggiest notion what's best for the country.
Let's not forget that YOU are Joe Voter.
Max
gross profits = total sales
net profits = sales - expenses
Replace the word 'corporation' with 'business'.
you would actually wind up pushing a lot of businesses right out of the country
You have no evidence of that.
and generally do a lot more harm than good.
Nor of that.
Max
If you're so set on doing away with local control and enacting version 1.0 of our future dictatorship, then put your money where your mouth is and amend the Constitution. My guess is that the vast majority - and I do mean VAST majority - of the American public will shoot down your efforts right at the outset.
Max
Give the microsoft bashing a break already, it's beyond despicable.
No matter how bad Microsoft gets, we can always find it in our hearts to despise it just a little bit more....
Max
The firefighters are necessary. Besides, I rather like firefighters.
We have far too many cops for a supposedly civilized nation. But then, we have far too many laws that result in the highest percentage of incarcerated citizenry in the First World, as well. I could do with less cops, if I knew the bastards wouldn't be wasting my tax dollars drop-kicking dopeheads into jail, or busting hookers and their customers, or handing out speeding tickets when I'd rather they were hunting down rapists, thieves, and murderers.
As for teachers...forced government schooling is an abomination. Voluntary schooling, no problem; forced schooling, no fucking way. My tax dollars could be put to MUCH better use (e.g., a rebate that I'll go out and spend, thereby CREATING JOBS).
Max
An even easier method is to do away with sales, income, and property taxes altogether and rely solely upon a corporate income tax of GROSS (not NET) profits. Not only do you do away with accounting loopholes, but you:
- tax the employees of the corporation
- tax the customers of the corporation
- tax the shareholders of the corporation, *even if they're foreigners*
Use the corporation itself as the collection point for all taxes. Much, much simpler than a sales tax and certainly more fair - if you do away with Congressionally-approved exemptions.
Max
it would start to pass certain powers to the Federal Govt
I guess that whole "United STATES" thing just went over your head in high school history class, eh?
There are certain areas that make sense to be centralised;
And those areas are enumerated in the Constitution. Try actually reading the document to see what they are. Pay particular attention to the 9th and 10th Amendments.
not only would it make complying with the law easier
Since law for everyone, everywhere would be set at the federal level, and local concerns would never hold any weight or water. Might as well do away with the idea of statehood altogether.
but it would save the taxpayers a lot of $$$ in not having to employ fifty sets of state legislature and bureaucracy...
Clearly you've never worked for government. The larger the bureaucracy, the more inefficient it becomes. You'd still need approximately the same amount of government, only now it'd be under control of the feds and cost much, much more to operate. Worse, that government no longer answers to the locals who pay for it.
I'll pass on your test-bed version of one-world government, thanks.
Max
Not true. About an inch dropped in Eugene and skies turned dark. Eugene is two hours south of Portland.
Max
Yeah, sounds like the press - who couldn't find their ass with both hands when it comes to rocketry - are desperate to show that Rutan's design is inherently flawed in some fashion. Mike Melville admitted after both flights that unusual craft performance was due to an error on his part, but Rutan went further and claimed that it was to be expected - that's why they use *test pilots*, for chrissakes! Nobody has any bloody idea how the craft will actually handle until they fly the thing into space! And it shows just how good Mike is, in that he recognized the errors, managed to correct them, and *still* achieved the goal set for the flight.
The real question here is: why is the press so eager to destroy the reputation of SSO, Rutan, and the idea of private space flight in general? Would they have been happier if SSO had blown up in a spectacular fashion? Are they trying to get the government to step in and end private space flight for all time? Are they pissed off that Mike didn't crash SSO and boost their ratings for the night?
The story here isn't SSO, it's the press's attitude towards SSO. I don't remember Lindbergh or Earhardt getting this sort of treatment....
Max
In fact, most humans will take whatever's not nailed down if you let them.
What bullshit. Guys like you claim that the majority of the human race consists of assholes simply because you yourself would do these things and can't stand the idea that you're in a morally deficient minority.
Peddle your crap somewhere else, sociopath.
Max
Is it sane logic to begin looking at our laws and just begin striking those that are violated the most, as this somehow means that the laws are inherently flawed?
Yes, it does. Laws are enacted at the behest of the citizenry through its representatives, in accordance with the Constitution. There is no other reason for laws to exist in a representative system.
That doesn't mean that the idea of copyright is flawed. It only means that the draconian interpretation and ludicrous extension of copyright law is viewed as more than a bit ridiculous by a sizable minority of the American populace, resulting in widespread disobedience. This should be obvious, even to a git like you.
The same thing happened with highway speed limits, resulting in a whopping 90% non-compliance with posted limits in many area of the country. The state continued to try to enforce a nationwide 55 mph limit against the will of the people, and eventually lost in most places. Notice that with the exception of certain highways in Montana speed limits weren't abolished, they were just raised to a more acceptable level.
The 'law' is not the product of holy scripture, and you are not its prophet.
Max
People don't tend to break laws in large numbers unless they believe that there's something wrong with those laws to begin with. In any representative system the people have the final say on what laws should and should not exist; when representation breaks down you get a noticeable disparity between law and compliance, as we're seeing with copyright.
This doesn't mean that these people think the concept of copyright is flawed, just that its implementation leaves something to be desired. Hence record numbers of acts of non-compliance.
Max