and if the content creator wants to shun an entire region of their content rather than get paid, there is nothing stopping someone from downloading the content, that is not offered legally to them in other ways.
If something is not available to you legally then it is not available to you. Nobody has a fundamental right to the content that others create.
If the producer of content has decided not to offer their content in your region, then you have no right to have it. It's their content, not yours. There is no fundamental right to the content someone else has created. As owners of the content it's completely up to them who is allowed to view it.
Can we finally solve the age old question as to whether the seat should be left up or down? This is a function based on how many males vs females there are, and how often a male needs to, er, sit.
No, but the person who sells the Tesla car is a person who happens to work for Tesla.
The person who arranges the transaction doesn't own the car, the person known as "Tesla Corporation" does.
The salesman has permission via their employment to sell the car. It's still a transaction between the buyer and the salesperson. The money doesn't so to the salesperson's account, but that's irrelevant.
An individual should be able to voluntarily trade with another. A company should be able to voluntarily trade with another company, or another individual. The state should not be involved.
No, but the person who sells the Tesla car is a person who happens to work for Tesla. That salesman should be able to sell his product to anyone who is willing to buy it without government involvment.
This is not a loophole, it's policy. Good policy. Rather than bowing to pressure from other governments the other governments should pay attention and try and compete by reducing their tax rate accordingly. Anything else is price fixing, on a global scale.
I run Gentoo on both my work and home PCs, and I use a special flavour of Ubuntu with real-time extensions to drive a CNC controller. I have experienced hassles with Gentoo along the way, but they seem fewer are farther between now. Compiling from source isn't an issue for me. I can have all 4 cores pegged to 100% for a couple of hours and I hardly even notice it. I prefer the control I have with Gentoo.
You're correct, but the problem you mention is nothing to do with capitalism. If you're suugesting that socialism is a solution to that then you're advocating that the state actively harms people to help those in need.
The only ethical way to help people in need is via compassion and charity. Since government enforced wealth redistribution is compulsoy, it cannot be compassionate not charitable. Those traits are voluntary. It's not the political system via the government that should address the issue of people in need, it's the social system via communities and *voluntary* action that should.
Ethically capitalism is way ahead. Nobody should be in enforced slavery. The state shouldn't actively harm us, they should be procting us from people who want to harm us. Socialism (of the kind in the US, Europe and almost everywhere else) sees the state actively harming people under the guise of "helping" them. That's ethically and morally wrong.
There is no slavery in a proper capitalist system (that is, a system where people are free) - at least not slavery of the kind we're talking about. People will always be slaves to nature and the needs of their bodies - no system can change that.
It's the goal of socialism. When you work for money and the state then confiscates a portion of that money for their own uses,that's effective slavery. You are working for them without choice. Socialism makes EVERYONE who works a slave to the state.
Capitalism is about freedom of choice and freedom of trade. If anything, people are slaves to nature - we must feed and clothe ourselves. That's nothing to do with capitalism though.
The entire government is running a money extortion program, in particular the IRS. Taxation is extortion (forcibly confiscating someone's private property using a threat of force if they don't comply). The sooner the scam is stopped and liberty restored the better.
It doesn't to me. If I sell a book to someone and a part of that sale is a contract that explicitely prohibits digitisation, then they should not be able to digitise. The law should not be able to trump private contracts.
What's sad about people making a lot of money? Just because one person makes lots of money doesn't mean anyone else should be sad as a result. Envious maybe. Perhaps even jealous. Unequality is not a bad thing - it's natural.
I can put anything on a CD I like. I can go into the bush and record 2 hours of bird noises. Nobody can tell me I am not allowed to make as many copies of such a CD as I like.
The AARC is making the assumption that the only CDs that can be put into the car's stereo system are CDs with content they own the copyright of. That's patently not true. People can put in CDs that have their own music (that is, music they themselves have created). Because of this I don't think the AARC have a leg to stand on. CM and Ford wouldn't be infringing copyright laws - end users would be.
It's their right to do this though. It's their content, paid for by them and produced by them. They should be able to put any restrictions they like on where they can sell it. I do not believe though that they should be allowed to prevent people from using their own personal equipment to copy bits to other equipment. Copyright shouldn't exist.
Slashdot Mirror
and if the content creator wants to shun an entire region of their content rather than get paid, there is nothing stopping someone from downloading the content, that is not offered legally to them in other ways.
If something is not available to you legally then it is not available to you. Nobody has a fundamental right to the content that others create.
If the producer of content has decided not to offer their content in your region, then you have no right to have it. It's their content, not yours. There is no fundamental right to the content someone else has created. As owners of the content it's completely up to them who is allowed to view it.
I thought it was very nerdy, and very interesting too.
Can we finally solve the age old question as to whether the seat should be left up or down? This is a function based on how many males vs females there are, and how often a male needs to, er, sit.
Sugar is poison. A 1.5l bottle of Coke has 5 days worth of recommended sugar in it. It's shocking to see children drinking this stuff.
No, but the person who sells the Tesla car is a person who happens to work for Tesla.
The person who arranges the transaction doesn't own the car, the person known as "Tesla Corporation" does.
The salesman has permission via their employment to sell the car. It's still a transaction between the buyer and the salesperson. The money doesn't so to the salesperson's account, but that's irrelevant.
An individual should be able to voluntarily trade with another. A company should be able to voluntarily trade with another company, or another individual. The state should not be involved.
Back to my point: land of the free indeed.
No, but the person who sells the Tesla car is a person who happens to work for Tesla. That salesman should be able to sell his product to anyone who is willing to buy it without government involvment.
I don't understand how the state can prevent one man from selling his goods to another. Land of the free indeed.
This is not a loophole, it's policy. Good policy. Rather than bowing to pressure from other governments the other governments should pay attention and try and compete by reducing their tax rate accordingly. Anything else is price fixing, on a global scale.
I run Gentoo on both my work and home PCs, and I use a special flavour of Ubuntu with real-time extensions to drive a CNC controller. I have experienced hassles with Gentoo along the way, but they seem fewer are farther between now. Compiling from source isn't an issue for me. I can have all 4 cores pegged to 100% for a couple of hours and I hardly even notice it. I prefer the control I have with Gentoo.
No company should be prevented from selling their products directly to the public. Land of the free indeed.
You're correct, but the problem you mention is nothing to do with capitalism. If you're suugesting that socialism is a solution to that then you're advocating that the state actively harms people to help those in need.
The only ethical way to help people in need is via compassion and charity. Since government enforced wealth redistribution is compulsoy, it cannot be compassionate not charitable. Those traits are voluntary. It's not the political system via the government that should address the issue of people in need, it's the social system via communities and *voluntary* action that should.
On that we disagree. People should be protected from the initiation of force. The state shouldn't be in the business of actively harming people.
Ethically capitalism is way ahead. Nobody should be in enforced slavery. The state shouldn't actively harm us, they should be procting us from people who want to harm us. Socialism (of the kind in the US, Europe and almost everywhere else) sees the state actively harming people under the guise of "helping" them. That's ethically and morally wrong.
There is no slavery in a proper capitalist system (that is, a system where people are free) - at least not slavery of the kind we're talking about. People will always be slaves to nature and the needs of their bodies - no system can change that.
It's the goal of socialism. When you work for money and the state then confiscates a portion of that money for their own uses,that's effective slavery. You are working for them without choice. Socialism makes EVERYONE who works a slave to the state.
Capitalism is about freedom of choice and freedom of trade. If anything, people are slaves to nature - we must feed and clothe ourselves. That's nothing to do with capitalism though.
And many atheists do not.
The term "atheism" means "without theism". I.e. without a belief in a god. It's about a lack of belief, not a belief of lack.
When the earthquake that destroyed Christchurch struck
Destroyed? Hardly.
The entire government is running a money extortion program, in particular the IRS. Taxation is extortion (forcibly confiscating someone's private property using a threat of force if they don't comply). The sooner the scam is stopped and liberty restored the better.
It doesn't to me. If I sell a book to someone and a part of that sale is a contract that explicitely prohibits digitisation, then they should not be able to digitise. The law should not be able to trump private contracts.
They're not specifically doing anything to attract either gender to contribute. Everything they do is gender neutral. This is a non issue.
Nullum est periculum mercedem non.
What's sad about people making a lot of money? Just because one person makes lots of money doesn't mean anyone else should be sad as a result. Envious maybe. Perhaps even jealous. Unequality is not a bad thing - it's natural.
I can put anything on a CD I like. I can go into the bush and record 2 hours of bird noises. Nobody can tell me I am not allowed to make as many copies of such a CD as I like.
The AARC is making the assumption that the only CDs that can be put into the car's stereo system are CDs with content they own the copyright of. That's patently not true. People can put in CDs that have their own music (that is, music they themselves have created). Because of this I don't think the AARC have a leg to stand on. CM and Ford wouldn't be infringing copyright laws - end users would be.
It's their right to do this though. It's their content, paid for by them and produced by them. They should be able to put any restrictions they like on where they can sell it. I do not believe though that they should be allowed to prevent people from using their own personal equipment to copy bits to other equipment. Copyright shouldn't exist.