This would be true if we actually had a free market. But we don't have anything like a free market, and we haven't had one for quite some time.
In a free market you'd never be able to turn a commodity into an artificially scarce and highly priced product by buying government interference in the market. But exactly that is being done, and on a pretty wide scale.
You talk as if this were an absolute that only fools would dispute, when in fact there is no such thing as the 'common good'. You're just ascribing your personal views as somehow being natural views, when in fact they aren't and never will be.
Open source is wanting your fellow man to be rich by sharing work.
I call bullshit. Open source is about self-interest; people sharing their work in order to make the product work better FOR THEMSELVES. It may look altruistic to the uninitiated, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with altruism. Even if they don't use the product themselves, working on it is often a source of enjoyment - which is just another form of self-payment and has nothing to do with the 'greater good' or any other rot of that nature.
That's a good thing, in my opinion. I can trust people motivated by self-interest to act in a certain fashion; so-called altruits, however, often have a hidden agenda that doesn't become apparent until it's too late.
You pseudo-anarchists keep thinking that anarchy has never been tried by human beings, completely ignoring not only history but current events. Anarchy has been tried, often involuntarily, time and time again; and humans have INVARIABLY rejected it for ANY form of government, no matter how atrocious.
That's how 'great' a working anarchy is. People think it sucks so much they'd rather have a brutal dictatorship than continue to suffer the 'delights' of anarchy.
Except that these companies now have the cash and the clout to buy enough congressman to pass laws outlawing innovation that might do away with their business model. As technology advances the laws must become more draconian in order to try to force a stable state on unstable conditions, but so far they seem to have the means required to keep passing those laws.
Free market economics only works in a free market. The United States isn't anywhere close to a free market, and hasn't been anywhere close since the early days of the Republic. The less free the market, the easier it is for vested interests to use the government to maintain their positions of power and status. They're so good at it, in fact, that they managed to take a commodity which is now anything but scarce and make it artificially scarce in the face of a technological tidal wave moving in the opposite direction.
The RIAA, MPAA, Disney, and others like them have proven that they can stand against both the market and technological advancement and at the very least win a reprieve. I can't think of a single other instance in U.S. history where a conglomeration of companies have had the power to stall technological advancement and changing economic structures, but this is precisely what they have done.
I'd put my faith in the free market if we actually had one. But we don't.
And the amendment is very clear. The fact that the government and the court system which the government appoints choose to ignore the 9th is irrelevant to its meaning.
I think it's abundantly apparent that the government has been ignoring both the 9th and 10th amendments for at least a century and a half now.
but is it really any more of a stretch to say that a firearm should never be registered but a car, the title/deed to your house and your dog should?
There's a vast difference between VOLUNTARY registration and COMPULSORY registration. Given the choice most people would register their more important pieces of property - and they do, through insurance - in order to track that property in the case of theft, or to be reimbursed if the property is stolen or destroyed. Those that don't would take their chances - but it would be THEIR CHOICE.
Why are some people so adamant against gun registration?
Because it's compulsory, and because it only tracks the ownership of law-abiding citizens. Criminals don't bother with registering their firearms - BY DEFINITION.
but this becomes an emotional issue when it really should be a greater good issue.
There is no greater good without individual good. You cannot do good for a society without doing good for the individuals that comprise that society. Most 'greater good' arguments are really about doing harm to individuals and passing off the debate as ultimately being good for some nebulous entity known as 'society', which paradoxically somehow doesn't have anything to do with the individuals that actually make up that society.
'Greater good' arguments are, by and large, bullshit. You can only do good for individuals. Do good for enough individuals, and you do good for the society those individuals belong to. You can't do it the other way around.
One must take an exam administered by the state to get a driver's license why not with a firearm as well?
The argument here is "why a driver's license"? There is no evidence whatsoever that acquiring a driver's license has any effect on the accident rate. So what's the real purpose of a license? It certainly has nothing to do with learning how to safely operate a vehicle, so what exactly is the point?
And why license a gun when there is no requirement to take a training course in how to use that gun? Especially when the licensing is only effective at tracking LAW-ABIDING citizens in the first place?
And yes, that did do us a lot of good, thanks for admitting it.
Quite so. It not only brought back 3,000 people from the dead, but it also allowed us to root out the Iraqi terrorists responsible and destroy forever their potential to harm us.
Stop wasting effort on bullshit like privacy and abortion
Nice sentiment. What others think important is "bullshit", but what you think important is worth wasting time on. Anyone tell you lately that you're a fucking asshole?
Doesn't stop them asking you for some ID before getting on a plane. Heck, there's nothing in there to stop them walking up to you in the street and saying "Excuse me, could we see some ID please?"
Why, yes it does. The government has only those powers granted to it by the Constitution. The rights expressly outlined are not the only rights we have.
Please point out in the Constitution where it says the government has the RIGHT to ask for your papers, your i.d., or to interfere in your business in any manner whatsoever if you aren't actually committing a crime.
If you're having trouble, I refer you to the 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Which means ANY right not specifically granted to the government by the Constitution.
The Constitution does not delineate rights, but restrictions on government powers. Everything not granted to the government within the Constitution is retained by the people.
Many of the founding fathers objected to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, out of the fear that one day people would come to believe that those were their *only* rights, and that everything else belonged to the government.
Ah, yes. Like in "Bowling for Columbine", where he 'factually' represented his acquisition of a rifle by opening a bank account? Conveniently forgetting to film all of the steps inbetween, and failing to mention he had set the entire thing up with the bank months beforehand under the guise of a promo? And that in fact the bank never handed out firearms on the premises, but did so *in this one instance* for the purposes of that promo?
Michael Moore is no better than any of the politicians he lambasts. He presents tiny slices of the truth, twisted to fit his own agenda and push his own view regardless of the actual facts at hand. And in the case of the bank in question, he outright lied - yet, not surprisingly, the truth of the matter is rejected by his worshippers, er, supporters out of hand.
All the slashdot lawyers screaming "it's not the same as stealing" usually try to get others to forget that Copyright violation is wrong, illegal and you can get in serious trouble for it.
You're so incredibly full of shit I can smell the stink from here.
I never said any such thing. I never implied any such thing. Most of the so-called "slashdot lawyers" never say or imply what you seem to think they're saying or implying, either. You're just making the shit up as you go along, applying it wholesale to everyone who disagrees with the fact that you're too fucking lazy to make the distinction.
Copyright violation is indeed illegal, you little twit. Very few people have ever said otherwise. But copyright violation IS NOT THEFT. The two things are utterly different and have NOTHING to do with one another.
but I hate seeing whiney attempts to justify using things that don't belong to you. If you don't like the license, go find an alternative.
I know it's silly to expect reading comprehension from a slashdotter, but please point out in my post where at any time I attempted to justify "using things that don't belong to you". Go ahead, take your time; I realize this is probably very difficult for you.
You can't, because I never said any such thing. I never implied any such thing. You made that up yourself, out of whole cloth.
No retroactive licensing may be applied to the code.
That's true of anything copyrighted, not just computer code under the GPL. Once you release it under copyright X, you can't further restrict that release in the future - although you can relax restrctions, if you so desire.
Unless, of course, you're Disney and can buy congress critters to grandfather whatever inane copyright schemes your lawyer-weasels have dreamed up during their luncheon crack sessions.
I don't see how this article could be considered anything other than a rehash of concerns that've been aired before, time and time again.
SF writers have always been in the prediction bind. They do the best they can with what they have. The vast majority of the time they're completely, utterly wrong. This was true in the past, is true today, and will be true in the future.
So what? Most stories aren't about technology anyway, but about people. This is true no matter what the genre. The idea that SF writers are having more difficulty predicting the future than they have in the past is just plain bullshit; for reference, pick damned near anything from the 30's to the 70's and see just how laughable most of those 'predictions' are today.
Not that it matters. It's the story that counts, not the technology (or lack of it) that's described.
It isn't the internet which needs an 'upgrade', but rather the reliance on a single, security-flawed operating system that needs to be abandoned. The more operating systems, the less likely it is than any one attack will affect a majority of the system.
And no, I don't mean "let's all migrate to Linux". A monoculture is bad regardless of the OS that comprises that monoculture. It's the insistence on the use of the monoculture that gives the internet shit-fits when some new worm makes its way through the system, resulting in decreased reliability.
The internet itself is just fine, and works exactly as it should.
You obviously don't understand the real reason behind such "copy protection". If your house doesn't have a front door you ought to expect all of your belongings to be gone when you get home.
And you obviously don't understand the difference between "theft" and "copyright violation", which makes your entire argument a pile of steaming horseshit.
But you've got a lot of company. A great many people can't seem to wrap their brains around the fact that these two things aren't even closely related. Perhaps that's why we call them "clueless".
Agreed. Unfortunately you seem to have bought the line that copyright violation is somehow equivalent to theft.
It isn't. It never has been. But if enough people like you refuse to exercise their brains concerning the matter and keep insisting that the two are one and the same, then some day they will be - at least legally. And then we're all fucked, since from that point on we won't even have the right to back up the product that we PAID FOR.
We'll be just what the software companies want us to be: licensees. We'll never own anything we purchase from them, and if they can get away with that sort of fucked-up bullshit, what's to stop other companies from doing the same thing with their products? I suppose you'd be happy RENTING everything in your house for the rest of your life, unable to do anything with it that isn't specified in the EULA that comes with those items?
If so, whoredom is just a short step away for you and everyone else like you.
I just wish they'd make it known IN WRITING in the FAQs section about their political or opinion background
I think it's been made rather clear that Malda and company are a bunch of pseudo-liberal socialist loser bastards who'd like nothing better than to have the likes of Michael Moore cum in their mouths.
Bitch and moan, bitch and moan. You'd think tech geeks would step up to the plate and encourage the makers of Syllable to keep up the good work, just as a matter of course. But what do we get on good ol' Slashdot?
Whining, of course. Whining that Syllable doesn't work as well as Windows or Linux, despite the fact that it's an alpha (at a 0.5 release, no less) and that it's only been in development for two years. Whining that it doesn't do everything under the sun right now! And especially whining over the fact that some poor brain-dead schmuck who has the gall to call himself 'tech-savvy' might, at some point in the future, have another choice in the field of OS's. God forbid that this pseudo-nerd should be presented with the opportunity to use another OS; this moron is already troubled by the existence of Linux (although the ten or so MS operating systems that he's installed over the years doesn't seem to bother him), and refuses to even believe that a thing like BSD exists.
Crawl back into your holes, naysayers. You aren't geeks; you aren't even good enough to aspire to geekhood. You're just one of the sheep and I, for one, would rather my food didn't pretend to sentience.
Slashdot Mirror
The free market is well entrenched
This would be true if we actually had a free market. But we don't have anything like a free market, and we haven't had one for quite some time.
In a free market you'd never be able to turn a commodity into an artificially scarce and highly priced product by buying government interference in the market. But exactly that is being done, and on a pretty wide scale.
Max
People do work together for the common good
You talk as if this were an absolute that only fools would dispute, when in fact there is no such thing as the 'common good'. You're just ascribing your personal views as somehow being natural views, when in fact they aren't and never will be.
Max
Socialism is about fairness
Socialism is about forcing everyone to be equally poor and equally miserable. There's nothing 'fair' about that system, either.
Max
Open source is wanting your fellow man to be rich by sharing work.
I call bullshit. Open source is about self-interest; people sharing their work in order to make the product work better FOR THEMSELVES. It may look altruistic to the uninitiated, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with altruism. Even if they don't use the product themselves, working on it is often a source of enjoyment - which is just another form of self-payment and has nothing to do with the 'greater good' or any other rot of that nature.
That's a good thing, in my opinion. I can trust people motivated by self-interest to act in a certain fashion; so-called altruits, however, often have a hidden agenda that doesn't become apparent until it's too late.
Max
You pseudo-anarchists keep thinking that anarchy has never been tried by human beings, completely ignoring not only history but current events. Anarchy has been tried, often involuntarily, time and time again; and humans have INVARIABLY rejected it for ANY form of government, no matter how atrocious.
That's how 'great' a working anarchy is. People think it sucks so much they'd rather have a brutal dictatorship than continue to suffer the 'delights' of anarchy.
Max
Except that these companies now have the cash and the clout to buy enough congressman to pass laws outlawing innovation that might do away with their business model. As technology advances the laws must become more draconian in order to try to force a stable state on unstable conditions, but so far they seem to have the means required to keep passing those laws.
Free market economics only works in a free market. The United States isn't anywhere close to a free market, and hasn't been anywhere close since the early days of the Republic. The less free the market, the easier it is for vested interests to use the government to maintain their positions of power and status. They're so good at it, in fact, that they managed to take a commodity which is now anything but scarce and make it artificially scarce in the face of a technological tidal wave moving in the opposite direction.
The RIAA, MPAA, Disney, and others like them have proven that they can stand against both the market and technological advancement and at the very least win a reprieve. I can't think of a single other instance in U.S. history where a conglomeration of companies have had the power to stall technological advancement and changing economic structures, but this is precisely what they have done.
I'd put my faith in the free market if we actually had one. But we don't.
Max
That's "losing", not "loosing".
And the amendment is very clear. The fact that the government and the court system which the government appoints choose to ignore the 9th is irrelevant to its meaning.
I think it's abundantly apparent that the government has been ignoring both the 9th and 10th amendments for at least a century and a half now.
Max
but is it really any more of a stretch to say that a firearm should never be registered but a car, the title/deed to your house and your dog should?
There's a vast difference between VOLUNTARY registration and COMPULSORY registration. Given the choice most people would register their more important pieces of property - and they do, through insurance - in order to track that property in the case of theft, or to be reimbursed if the property is stolen or destroyed. Those that don't would take their chances - but it would be THEIR CHOICE.
Why are some people so adamant against gun registration?
Because it's compulsory, and because it only tracks the ownership of law-abiding citizens. Criminals don't bother with registering their firearms - BY DEFINITION.
but this becomes an emotional issue when it really should be a greater good issue.
There is no greater good without individual good. You cannot do good for a society without doing good for the individuals that comprise that society. Most 'greater good' arguments are really about doing harm to individuals and passing off the debate as ultimately being good for some nebulous entity known as 'society', which paradoxically somehow doesn't have anything to do with the individuals that actually make up that society.
'Greater good' arguments are, by and large, bullshit. You can only do good for individuals. Do good for enough individuals, and you do good for the society those individuals belong to. You can't do it the other way around.
One must take an exam administered by the state to get a driver's license why not with a firearm as well?
The argument here is "why a driver's license"? There is no evidence whatsoever that acquiring a driver's license has any effect on the accident rate. So what's the real purpose of a license? It certainly has nothing to do with learning how to safely operate a vehicle, so what exactly is the point?
And why license a gun when there is no requirement to take a training course in how to use that gun? Especially when the licensing is only effective at tracking LAW-ABIDING citizens in the first place?
Max
I don't think an unfettered right to aircraft travel is mentioned in the constitution either.
Sure it is. It's called "the 9th Amendment". Look it up if you aren't familiar with it.
Max
And yes, that did do us a lot of good, thanks for admitting it.
Quite so. It not only brought back 3,000 people from the dead, but it also allowed us to root out the Iraqi terrorists responsible and destroy forever their potential to harm us.
Max
Stop wasting effort on bullshit like privacy and abortion
Nice sentiment. What others think important is "bullshit", but what you think important is worth wasting time on. Anyone tell you lately that you're a fucking asshole?
Max
The problem is corrupt politicians. The only way to fix that is to band together and fix the broken election system.
If the election system is broken, how do you intend to fix it? You can't do so through voting, by definition - so what's your solution?
Max
Doesn't stop them asking you for some ID before getting on a plane. Heck, there's nothing in there to stop them walking up to you in the street and saying "Excuse me, could we see some ID please?"
Why, yes it does. The government has only those powers granted to it by the Constitution. The rights expressly outlined are not the only rights we have.
Please point out in the Constitution where it says the government has the RIGHT to ask for your papers, your i.d., or to interfere in your business in any manner whatsoever if you aren't actually committing a crime.
If you're having trouble, I refer you to the 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Which means ANY right not specifically granted to the government by the Constitution.
Max
The Constitution does not delineate rights, but restrictions on government powers. Everything not granted to the government within the Constitution is retained by the people.
Many of the founding fathers objected to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, out of the fear that one day people would come to believe that those were their *only* rights, and that everything else belonged to the government.
It appears that day has arrived.
Max
The same propaganda that claims that criminals should have the right to carry guns
It doesn't matter whether or not criminals have the 'right' to carry a gun. They'll carry it anyway, regardless. Because they're CRIMINALS.
Max
in a factual and informative manner
Ah, yes. Like in "Bowling for Columbine", where he 'factually' represented his acquisition of a rifle by opening a bank account? Conveniently forgetting to film all of the steps inbetween, and failing to mention he had set the entire thing up with the bank months beforehand under the guise of a promo? And that in fact the bank never handed out firearms on the premises, but did so *in this one instance* for the purposes of that promo?
Michael Moore is no better than any of the politicians he lambasts. He presents tiny slices of the truth, twisted to fit his own agenda and push his own view regardless of the actual facts at hand. And in the case of the bank in question, he outright lied - yet, not surprisingly, the truth of the matter is rejected by his worshippers, er, supporters out of hand.
Max
All the slashdot lawyers screaming "it's not the same as stealing" usually try to get others to forget that Copyright violation is wrong, illegal and you can get in serious trouble for it.
You're so incredibly full of shit I can smell the stink from here.
I never said any such thing. I never implied any such thing. Most of the so-called "slashdot lawyers" never say or imply what you seem to think they're saying or implying, either. You're just making the shit up as you go along, applying it wholesale to everyone who disagrees with the fact that you're too fucking lazy to make the distinction.
Copyright violation is indeed illegal, you little twit. Very few people have ever said otherwise. But copyright violation IS NOT THEFT. The two things are utterly different and have NOTHING to do with one another.
That is a simple fact. Deal with it.
Max
but I hate seeing whiney attempts to justify using things that don't belong to you. If you don't like the license, go find an alternative.
I know it's silly to expect reading comprehension from a slashdotter, but please point out in my post where at any time I attempted to justify "using things that don't belong to you". Go ahead, take your time; I realize this is probably very difficult for you.
You can't, because I never said any such thing. I never implied any such thing. You made that up yourself, out of whole cloth.
Max
No retroactive licensing may be applied to the code.
That's true of anything copyrighted, not just computer code under the GPL. Once you release it under copyright X, you can't further restrict that release in the future - although you can relax restrctions, if you so desire.
Unless, of course, you're Disney and can buy congress critters to grandfather whatever inane copyright schemes your lawyer-weasels have dreamed up during their luncheon crack sessions.
Max
I don't see how this article could be considered anything other than a rehash of concerns that've been aired before, time and time again.
SF writers have always been in the prediction bind. They do the best they can with what they have. The vast majority of the time they're completely, utterly wrong. This was true in the past, is true today, and will be true in the future.
So what? Most stories aren't about technology anyway, but about people. This is true no matter what the genre. The idea that SF writers are having more difficulty predicting the future than they have in the past is just plain bullshit; for reference, pick damned near anything from the 30's to the 70's and see just how laughable most of those 'predictions' are today.
Not that it matters. It's the story that counts, not the technology (or lack of it) that's described.
Max
It isn't the internet which needs an 'upgrade', but rather the reliance on a single, security-flawed operating system that needs to be abandoned. The more operating systems, the less likely it is than any one attack will affect a majority of the system.
And no, I don't mean "let's all migrate to Linux". A monoculture is bad regardless of the OS that comprises that monoculture. It's the insistence on the use of the monoculture that gives the internet shit-fits when some new worm makes its way through the system, resulting in decreased reliability.
The internet itself is just fine, and works exactly as it should.
Max
You obviously don't understand the real reason behind such "copy protection". If your house doesn't have a front door you ought to expect all of your belongings to be gone when you get home.
And you obviously don't understand the difference between "theft" and "copyright violation", which makes your entire argument a pile of steaming horseshit.
But you've got a lot of company. A great many people can't seem to wrap their brains around the fact that these two things aren't even closely related. Perhaps that's why we call them "clueless".
Max
People who steal should be punished.
Agreed. Unfortunately you seem to have bought the line that copyright violation is somehow equivalent to theft.
It isn't. It never has been. But if enough people like you refuse to exercise their brains concerning the matter and keep insisting that the two are one and the same, then some day they will be - at least legally. And then we're all fucked, since from that point on we won't even have the right to back up the product that we PAID FOR.
We'll be just what the software companies want us to be: licensees. We'll never own anything we purchase from them, and if they can get away with that sort of fucked-up bullshit, what's to stop other companies from doing the same thing with their products? I suppose you'd be happy RENTING everything in your house for the rest of your life, unable to do anything with it that isn't specified in the EULA that comes with those items?
If so, whoredom is just a short step away for you and everyone else like you.
Max
I just wish they'd make it known IN WRITING in the FAQs section about their political or opinion background
I think it's been made rather clear that Malda and company are a bunch of pseudo-liberal socialist loser bastards who'd like nothing better than to have the likes of Michael Moore cum in their mouths.
Max
Bitch and moan, bitch and moan. You'd think tech geeks would step up to the plate and encourage the makers of Syllable to keep up the good work, just as a matter of course. But what do we get on good ol' Slashdot?
Whining, of course. Whining that Syllable doesn't work as well as Windows or Linux, despite the fact that it's an alpha (at a 0.5 release, no less) and that it's only been in development for two years. Whining that it doesn't do everything under the sun right now! And especially whining over the fact that some poor brain-dead schmuck who has the gall to call himself 'tech-savvy' might, at some point in the future, have another choice in the field of OS's. God forbid that this pseudo-nerd should be presented with the opportunity to use another OS; this moron is already troubled by the existence of Linux (although the ten or so MS operating systems that he's installed over the years doesn't seem to bother him), and refuses to even believe that a thing like BSD exists.
Crawl back into your holes, naysayers. You aren't geeks; you aren't even good enough to aspire to geekhood. You're just one of the sheep and I, for one, would rather my food didn't pretend to sentience.
Max