Monopoly is not in itself illegal. Lets skip whether its good or bad or indifferent, and cut to the chase. While I might agree thus far, I'd suggest this is not unlike hearing someone say, "my son has a jaundiced liver", and then replying, "A liver in and of itself is not a bad thing". Well, yeah. True. But so what. Kinda misses the point, doesn't it?
"You cannot have a "free" market on one hand whilst forbidding the emergence of monopoly on the other."
And yet free markets are based on a distribution of power within said market, not on any libertarian principles. Thus, the emergence of a monopoly will by definition destroy any semblance of a free market. So, if you can't have a free market without monopolies emerging (which I disagree with, although I might agree if you were referring to capitalism instead of a free market), then that means you can't have a free market that won't self destruct. Are you really suggesting that free markets are transitory by their very nature? That they carry the seeds of their own destruction? If so, wouldn't it make sense to invoke regulation to maintain a free market while there is still time?;-)
A bunch of us ran W2k on 800mhz athlons back in the day back in the dorms, but I wouldn't say we "got along just fine". It was more stable than 9x, sure, but *slow*. It hurt.
"The first ethical and moral responsibility the executives and the board of directors have is to the shareholders who have entrusted them with their treasure in anticipation of an increase in value." And yet this is recognized as a problem. You spout this as though it is without question appropriate behavior. It certainly is *not*. And you confuse moral dilemas with contractual obligations. As you point out, contractual duty can't outweigh legal responsibility, which is why there can be no contracts related to illegal behavior. It isn't a contract at that point, it is just a piece of paper. Contractual obligations can not exist that require you to break the law. MS behavior is not just a matter of considering "ethical and moral responsibility", it is a matter of violating laws. The fact that stockholders have done well backing gangsters doesn't mean that, for instance, Al Capone should have been allowed an IPO.
"no one else to blame but themselves" sounds as bad when referring to victims of illegal monopolistic behavior as it does when referring to rape victims. Oh sure, if they hadn't worn makeup, or put on a dress, and if they'd just stayed home and cleaned the kitchen then they wouldn't have gotten raped. The fact that MS "won" doesn't make it "right" from an MBA perspective. Winning by cheating isn't really winning.
You'll note that def #1 refers to an initial capitalized letter. It goes on:
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
So it isn't the government, as in def #1, it is the company that wants to sell and yet still own their product. They don't even want to give up control after making the sale. The word, as defined, does fit the behavior. Thanks for playing...
"The device was never intended as a tech toy for geeks to mess with." I have never understood what the manufacturers *intent* for a product's use has to do with the use to which an owner puts their property. I don't see that merely manufacturing a product results in any legal or ethical standing from which to tell the owner of a product anything; certainly no more standing than a vendor selling hot dogs on a street corner. Get over it. It isn't yours anymore after you've sold it.
"If you just take a for-profit's product and retool it, then don't be upset if they discontinue the model and leave you stuck - they aren't under any obligation to sell it forever." But that has nothing to do with reality. They didn't just discootinue the model, they broke all the models that had been previously sold and that currently *belonged* to people out in the world.
The car analogy would be this: If you buy a car, rebuild the suspension, and then discover that the manufacturer has remotely destroyed the engine.
I think any computer with the ability to display a truly feminine personality would be a market winner. There are real reasons why people liked the Star Trek Computer.
I don't think "centrism" is always inappropriate. Cultural Relativism is a tool for producing more nearly un-biased observer/recorders (it originated in Anthropology) and works within the context for which it was developed. When one *is* a participant, however, they by definition have bias, and the model needs to change. Sometimes having a tribe is a good thing, too.
The actual article is meant to be more general. This is the first of excerpts from "True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society," The central position is that "new communications technologies are loosening the culture's grip on what people once called 'objective reality'", in general, and why, specificly, as one aspect of this trend, why people are so quick to see bias in the news. Which includes news regarding the election or the middle east or the economy or whatever. I think "post-fact" as a descriptive label that would, in fact, cover a lot of otherwise seemingly paradoxical behavior.
I certainly can understand a parent preferring that their children cop-out rather than address a grievous issue, but it seems like a form of rationalization to project such a pragmatism before principles point of view to a stranger. I have to wonder if you aren't trying to convince yourself that convenience is worth the cost to your integrity. To ignore appears on the outside to observers as tacit agreement. Polite rebuke is preferable to complicity, at least to this fellow member of the dialog. Therefor, in keeping with my stated point of view, I must say that your comment doesn't pass muster: "...being the naughty geek girl that despises them for their level of fail (sic) can be a satisfying substitute. She wasn't being naughty. That is a shameful remark. "Despise"? Isn't that over the top? Adding "naughty" to "satisfying substitute" seems soft core pornographic in innuendo. You don't seem to be presenting yourself here as the father of daughters. I'm glad that "deal with it or play on a different field" wasn't the motto for JFK or Rosa Parks or Gandhi or any number of individuals who decided that the status que doesn't by definition deserve continuance, let alone propagation.
On a more positive note, Maslow is wonderful. Have you also studied Milgram's Obedience to Authority?
Oh, and I hate to double post but I meant to also suggest that the poster didn't mean "not all downloads are illegal", but rather that while property law is fairly universal, psuedo property law isn't. There are places where imaginary property isn't protected. Thus, in those regions, "copyright owner" is a contradiction in terms. Its not like the ways of our own little village are natural laws, after all.
Just as a matter of accuracy, "illegal downloading" isn't actually "illegal". That is to say, at least in the united states, we aren't talking about a crime but rather a tort. Thats why the RIAA brings suit, rather than a DA prosecuting (and lately the DAs have sided against the RIAA). This is exactly why many people have a problem with less than accurate and inflammatory language like "theft" when neither theft nor stealing has occurred. I think there is a point to be made on your side, but be aware that employing methods without merit makes it hard to see past said methods, and perceive the true gist of your point of view. Just a thought...
At this point in time its 70% Funny, 30% Insightful. I think the poster meant it to be funny. Its insightful that it was moderated as insightful in that the Boston Tea Party is not an unfair analogy to current behaviors. Your "Troll" moderation was probably fair, above, but "Redundant" immediately there after? I suspect you were merely re-expressing your ire, yes? Now that is the moderation to meta-moderate...
But it still deprives them of the revenue that object represents.
You are assuming that illegal P2P downloading deprives them of revenue. While that is claimed, and seems to fit a common sense model of the world, there is a problem. Empirical evidence to date (both in Europe and the USA) indicates that in regions where P2P increases, it is followed shortly by an increase in sales. The increase is small, and near the noise level, but without doubt the correlation is negative or neutral. Thus, rationally, I must suggest that is at least seems to be the case that P2P *illegal* downloading either doesn't deprive them of revenue, or perhaps even increases their revenue. Just like radio broadcasts...
Well its nice to see you finally agreeing with me. Thank you.
Most people who own computers have higher than HDTV resolution. Yet HDTV isn't a non-starter. Obviously it isn't for every venue, but I've seen people quite surprised at the resolution a decent 700 MB xvid compressed video will attain.
The day you start downloading MP3s (which are a non-starter for you), and downloading movies (which you say would be a non-starter with compression for the same exact reason), is the day your opinion is relevant to the demographic to which I directed my observation. The existence of other markets doesn't imply the other markets are the only markets. Or are you suggesting no one would ever buy or use an MP3 player?
Somehow there seems to be this preconception that freedom is maximized by doing away with the rule of law. Some of the people who rail against federalism would be less than happy to be associated with anarchism. Yet how else could it be perceived? Agreed: if there was effective competition then providers of service wouldn't be able to abuse their customers. The idea that federal regulation would limit freedom isn't wrong. However, the freedom to rape *should* be limited. Likewise other abuses of power. Seems obvious, but oh well...
Unless the fines are severe enough to put them out of business. Whoever takes over would be unlikely to make the same mistake. Would suck to be a Comcast customer, sure, but like, hey...it *sucks* to be a cCmcast customer.
Two clowns sign up with Comcast. Both are brutually murdered.
How do you kill a clown? Give them a free Comcast account.
So this cannibal walks into a bar and sits beside these clowns. The cannibal wacks one clown on the head and they start eating him. Suddenly the second clown looks up and says, "Hey, do you taste something funny?"
Two hobo clowns were waiting at the bus stop along with a nun with her leg in a cast. The first hobo asked, "Sister, how did you break your leg?"
The nun replied, "I slipped in the bathtub."
The second hobo asked the first, "What's a bathtub?"
The first hobo replied, "How should I know, I'm not Catholic!"
OK, lets move it from dear John letters to the IRS. But for the analogy to hold, it would have to be that the IRS throws away a percentage of all the submitted tax returns from certain states (but not favored states) and forces them to resubmit (which is what happens with the packets and lost connection). After resubmitting, there is again a probability that your submission will be thrown away. You are "just slowed down", not "stopped", because if you continue to submit, eventually the odds suggest you will get through. Right.
The fact that they can say, "Its our network, we'll screw whoever we please when we please", *is* the problem. If we allowed roads to all be privately owned, we'd likewise be screwed. We need to nationalize the "tubes" (;-) hehehe ) and lease bandwidth back to any- and everybody who wants to be an ISP. Can you imagine if the telephone companies decided that too many people were dialing 800 numbers? If they started hanging up 1/2 of the 800 calls, people wouldn't be saying, "Well, they own the phone system, they can cut me off if I dial a number they don't like."
Slashdot Mirror
Monopoly is not in itself illegal. Lets skip whether its good or bad or indifferent, and cut to the chase. While I might agree thus far, I'd suggest this is not unlike hearing someone say, "my son has a jaundiced liver", and then replying, "A liver in and of itself is not a bad thing". Well, yeah. True. But so what. Kinda misses the point, doesn't it?
;-)
"You cannot have a "free" market on one hand whilst forbidding the emergence of monopoly on the other."
And yet free markets are based on a distribution of power within said market, not on any libertarian principles. Thus, the emergence of a monopoly will by definition destroy any semblance of a free market. So, if you can't have a free market without monopolies emerging (which I disagree with, although I might agree if you were referring to capitalism instead of a free market), then that means you can't have a free market that won't self destruct. Are you really suggesting that free markets are transitory by their very nature? That they carry the seeds of their own destruction? If so, wouldn't it make sense to invoke regulation to maintain a free market while there is still time?
A bunch of us ran W2k on 800mhz athlons back in the day back in the dorms, but I wouldn't say we "got along just fine". It was more stable than 9x, sure, but *slow*. It hurt.
"The first ethical and moral responsibility the executives and the board of directors have is to the shareholders who have entrusted them with their treasure in anticipation of an increase in value." And yet this is recognized as a problem. You spout this as though it is without question appropriate behavior. It certainly is *not*. And you confuse moral dilemas with contractual obligations. As you point out, contractual duty can't outweigh legal responsibility, which is why there can be no contracts related to illegal behavior. It isn't a contract at that point, it is just a piece of paper. Contractual obligations can not exist that require you to break the law. MS behavior is not just a matter of considering "ethical and moral responsibility", it is a matter of violating laws. The fact that stockholders have done well backing gangsters doesn't mean that, for instance, Al Capone should have been allowed an IPO.
"no one else to blame but themselves" sounds as bad when referring to victims of illegal monopolistic behavior as it does when referring to rape victims. Oh sure, if they hadn't worn makeup, or put on a dress, and if they'd just stayed home and cleaned the kitchen then they wouldn't have gotten raped. The fact that MS "won" doesn't make it "right" from an MBA perspective. Winning by cheating isn't really winning.
You'll note that def #1 refers to an initial capitalized letter. It goes on:
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
So it isn't the government, as in def #1, it is the company that wants to sell and yet still own their product. They don't even want to give up control after making the sale. The word, as defined, does fit the behavior. Thanks for playing...
"The device was never intended as a tech toy for geeks to mess with." I have never understood what the manufacturers *intent* for a product's use has to do with the use to which an owner puts their property. I don't see that merely manufacturing a product results in any legal or ethical standing from which to tell the owner of a product anything; certainly no more standing than a vendor selling hot dogs on a street corner. Get over it. It isn't yours anymore after you've sold it.
"If you just take a for-profit's product and retool it, then don't be upset if they discontinue the model and leave you stuck - they aren't under any obligation to sell it forever." But that has nothing to do with reality. They didn't just discootinue the model, they broke all the models that had been previously sold and that currently *belonged* to people out in the world.
The car analogy would be this: If you buy a car, rebuild the suspension, and then discover that the manufacturer has remotely destroyed the engine.
I think any computer with the ability to display a truly feminine personality would be a market winner. There are real reasons why people liked the Star Trek Computer.
I don't think "centrism" is always inappropriate. Cultural Relativism is a tool for producing more nearly un-biased observer/recorders (it originated in Anthropology) and works within the context for which it was developed. When one *is* a participant, however, they by definition have bias, and the model needs to change. Sometimes having a tribe is a good thing, too.
The actual article is meant to be more general. This is the first of excerpts from "True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society," The central position is that "new communications technologies are loosening the culture's grip on what people once called 'objective reality'", in general, and why, specificly, as one aspect of this trend, why people are so quick to see bias in the news. Which includes news regarding the election or the middle east or the economy or whatever. I think "post-fact" as a descriptive label that would, in fact, cover a lot of otherwise seemingly paradoxical behavior.
Truly, "A closed mouth gathers no foot", but then how else do you propose to *bite* those who deserve it? ;-)
Just kidding.
I certainly can understand a parent preferring that their children cop-out rather than address a grievous issue, but it seems like a form of rationalization to project such a pragmatism before principles point of view to a stranger. I have to wonder if you aren't trying to convince yourself that convenience is worth the cost to your integrity. To ignore appears on the outside to observers as tacit agreement. Polite rebuke is preferable to complicity, at least to this fellow member of the dialog. Therefor, in keeping with my stated point of view, I must say that your comment doesn't pass muster: "...being the naughty geek girl that despises them for their level of fail (sic) can be a satisfying substitute. She wasn't being naughty. That is a shameful remark. "Despise"? Isn't that over the top? Adding "naughty" to "satisfying substitute" seems soft core pornographic in innuendo. You don't seem to be presenting yourself here as the father of daughters. I'm glad that "deal with it or play on a different field" wasn't the motto for JFK or Rosa Parks or Gandhi or any number of individuals who decided that the status que doesn't by definition deserve continuance, let alone propagation.
On a more positive note, Maslow is wonderful. Have you also studied Milgram's Obedience to Authority?
Oh, and I hate to double post but I meant to also suggest that the poster didn't mean "not all downloads are illegal", but rather that while property law is fairly universal, psuedo property law isn't. There are places where imaginary property isn't protected. Thus, in those regions, "copyright owner" is a contradiction in terms. Its not like the ways of our own little village are natural laws, after all.
Just as a matter of accuracy, "illegal downloading" isn't actually "illegal". That is to say, at least in the united states, we aren't talking about a crime but rather a tort. Thats why the RIAA brings suit, rather than a DA prosecuting (and lately the DAs have sided against the RIAA). This is exactly why many people have a problem with less than accurate and inflammatory language like "theft" when neither theft nor stealing has occurred. I think there is a point to be made on your side, but be aware that employing methods without merit makes it hard to see past said methods, and perceive the true gist of your point of view. Just a thought...
At this point in time its 70% Funny, 30% Insightful. I think the poster meant it to be funny. Its insightful that it was moderated as insightful in that the Boston Tea Party is not an unfair analogy to current behaviors. Your "Troll" moderation was probably fair, above, but "Redundant" immediately there after? I suspect you were merely re-expressing your ire, yes? Now that is the moderation to meta-moderate...
But it still deprives them of the revenue that object represents.
You are assuming that illegal P2P downloading deprives them of revenue. While that is claimed, and seems to fit a common sense model of the world, there is a problem. Empirical evidence to date (both in Europe and the USA) indicates that in regions where P2P increases, it is followed shortly by an increase in sales. The increase is small, and near the noise level, but without doubt the correlation is negative or neutral. Thus, rationally, I must suggest that is at least seems to be the case that P2P *illegal* downloading either doesn't deprive them of revenue, or perhaps even increases their revenue. Just like radio broadcasts...
"When a pickpocket meets a saint, all he sees are her pockets."
Somehow there seems to be this preconception that freedom is maximized by doing away with the rule of law. Some of the people who rail against federalism would be less than happy to be associated with anarchism. Yet how else could it be perceived? Agreed: if there was effective competition then providers of service wouldn't be able to abuse their customers. The idea that federal regulation would limit freedom isn't wrong. However, the freedom to rape *should* be limited. Likewise other abuses of power. Seems obvious, but oh well...
Yes. Accept for saying "no". But the rest is not wrong. Well except for beginning by saying "no".
Unless the fines are severe enough to put them out of business. Whoever takes over would be unlikely to make the same mistake. Would suck to be a Comcast customer, sure, but like, hey...it *sucks* to be a cCmcast customer.
Two clowns sign up with Comcast. Both are brutually murdered.
How do you kill a clown? Give them a free Comcast account.
So this cannibal walks into a bar and sits beside these clowns. The cannibal wacks one clown on the head and they start eating him. Suddenly the second clown looks up and says, "Hey, do you taste something funny?"
Two hobo clowns were waiting at the bus stop along with a nun with her leg in a cast. The first hobo asked, "Sister, how did you break your leg?" The nun replied, "I slipped in the bathtub." The second hobo asked the first, "What's a bathtub?" The first hobo replied, "How should I know, I'm not Catholic!"
OK, lets move it from dear John letters to the IRS. But for the analogy to hold, it would have to be that the IRS throws away a percentage of all the submitted tax returns from certain states (but not favored states) and forces them to resubmit (which is what happens with the packets and lost connection). After resubmitting, there is again a probability that your submission will be thrown away. You are "just slowed down", not "stopped", because if you continue to submit, eventually the odds suggest you will get through. Right.
The fact that they can say, "Its our network, we'll screw whoever we please when we please", *is* the problem. If we allowed roads to all be privately owned, we'd likewise be screwed. We need to nationalize the "tubes" ( ;-) hehehe ) and lease bandwidth back to any- and everybody who wants to be an ISP. Can you imagine if the telephone companies decided that too many people were dialing 800 numbers? If they started hanging up 1/2 of the 800 calls, people wouldn't be saying, "Well, they own the phone system, they can cut me off if I dial a number they don't like."
Free Market => Holy Ghost yep
but, I'd suggest:
Ayn Rand was Jesus, and Milton Friedman is Peter, upon whom The Church was built at the University of Chicago School of Economics.