The whole reason to get a monopoly is so you can abuse it. We restrict them because it's harmful to society to have one country controlling EVERYTHING - this happend in a microcosm during the 20s in coal mining towns all over the US. And I _do_ think that, given 100% zero retrictions on commerce, that within a few generations, any given industry will be completly controlled by a single entity.
"Reality and the freedom to choose" have nothing to do with a free market economy - all the alternatives you mentioned (except MacOS) don't compete within the system - your choices are Windows, Mac, or not playing. BeOS is an EXCELLENT example - a real, viable, commercial alternative to windows that got completly shut out of the market because a monopoly player was able to eliminate even the possibility of competition.
How about this: "You can talk all you want, but by restricting the right to buy airtime to corporations and wealthy private individuals, we'll make sure that nobody ever hears what you have to say"
Granted, this only holds up if theres no alternative methods of distributing your message, but, more and more, it seems that's what we're heading for. If nobody is permitted to hear you, or, more precisely, nobody even knows you're speaking, are you really talking? (Incidently, this is why we have public access cable TV)
well, we buy all our hardware from Dell and it's great stuff - it's sturdy, solid, and stable. I'm sure we pay through the nose for it, of course. (Incidently, how is crappy onboard audio a problem for corporate machines?)
Because citizens being entitled to access to communications media naturally flows from the concept that protection of free speech covers the right to communicate, not the right to talk. Under your definition of free speech, the only way to restrict free speech is to (physically) gag someone. Incidentlly, I believe that people have to right to talk to whoever they want, however they want - untill that SPECIFIC PERSON they are targetting decides they don't want to be talked to. Thats why, for example, spam that attempts to circumvent spam filters would be illegal in a perfect world (I know this isn't practical) and why telemarketers should have to leave you alone, forever, if you tell them to.
In a capitalist society, you will ALWAYS have more than one choice.
Untrue - in an uncontrolled free market, a single highly successfull company will always be able to dominated and control the market, over a period of time. This is why we have monopoly laws. Your MS analgy is flawed - they dominate 95% of the DESKTOP market, and there is only one operating system competing with Windows on the desktop. Linux and other free software do not compete.
Well, I guess I'm just repeating all the previous posts, but wanna hazard any guesses WHY she was targeted with incredibly high limits, with extraordinary interest rates? It's because they KNOW that people in this demographic will often spend beyond thier means, and be bailed out by mommy and daddy. Those who don't get bailed out get bad credit reports and an incredible hassle. This is predatory marketing. Incidently, credit card companies also sell the names and contact information of new companies to other predatory-type companies (magazine and book clubs, for example - I got bit by a magazine subscription company myself, that subscribed me under false pretenses, refused to allow me to cancel, and the CC company wouldn't back me). They are extremly quick to file poor credit reports and very slow to file good onces - And, since I have poor credit because of aformentioned magazine thing (my fault, I know), I now get MORE offers - including ones from the same company that got me in trouble in the first place!
It's got to do with the market, obviously - high-level math software is mostly sold to universities and whatnot with budgets. So the majority of the market that will be buying it will be willing to pay a high price. This also works the other way - if, say, Office cost 10 bucks you'd probably sell more copies - and since the cost of media is negligable, thats just more profit.
I saw Eyes wide shut, got it, am not a retard, and am not afraid to say it sucked - it was ALMOST a fantastic movie. But this whole "secret Hellfire club sex drugs power" thing has been done before, and better. Cut all that crap and stick with the side-stories, which were where the great film-making was.
It's true that they aren't allowed to just go whupping someones ass, but barring MAJOR issues being made about it, it's rare for anything to happen - relatively minor roughing up is pretty common. And yes, fighting back in any way against a police officer is a felony (assaulting a police officer), even if he's busy beating you.
Very true - police officers tend to get REALLY pissy when you do things like ask them for their badge numbers and the name of their superior. They also tend to get quite testy in the presence of camerasa, COPS not withstanding. It's the people with the power who most resent having power used against them - which is why we need signifigant civilian oversight on law enforcement.
You'd think someone who reads slashdot would know more about it, but lets make it perfectly clear - the product is not illegal in Russia. And having a CEO offer to take personal responsibilty for something when a subordinate has been blamed is pretty fucking unheard of ANYWHERE.
If you don't consider/. to be a serious news source, you can either a) take it at face value and enjoy it for what it gives you or b) watch Fox news like everyone else.
Well, I've followed it in some detail, and while he certainly made some judgement errors (heh), what he did doesn't come near to justifying the sentence - and it certainly seems as is Intel had rather more voice in the case that should be proper.
Without wanting to open up too much of a can of worms, who says that you have any more rights than someone who's been in jail, served thier sentence, and is now out? Even if that crime was a sex offence. Yadda yadda, first they came for the unionists, etc, etc, but you get the point.
I'm gonna assuem you're trolling, because anyone with a half a brain and a good history text (no, not the one they gave you in high school) will show you exactly where the goverment has shoved your checks and balances. News flash - the checks and balances don't just magically happen. People have to enforce them. That means you. Get off your ass and prove yourself worthy of being an American, or go live in some piddly bannanna dictatorship where you'll be more comfortable.
Well, I'm not a christian, don't believe in God or the Bible, and wouldn't worship God even if he came down from heaven and TOLD me he existed (the guys an asshole), but if I _did_ believe in him, I wouldn't find it hard to believe that there could be a literal mark as well as a metaphorical one.
Slightly off-topic - one of the guys who was on the ground floor of amateur crypto (I think one of the RSA guys, but I don't feel like googling for it) was really interested in cyber-cash and anonymous micro-payments, and devised a scheme for road tolls that would allow anonymous usage measurements and billing to be done without allowing any one persons movements to be tracked. The government ditched it and went with a system that allowed individual tracking.
A couple points - you aren't required to carry ID. If an officer asks you for ID, and you have it, you have to show it to him. If you aren't carrying ID, it's all good. As for fingerprints and DNA, it's about the ease of application - I'm not fingerprinted everytime I buy something, or in routine traffic stops. It's sufficently difficult to compare fingerprints that it's only done when it's meaningful.
There may be plenty of people who have knee jerk reactions, but I'd say that a mandatory, IMPLANTED id card is about as "personal freedom" related as you can get. As I've said before - YOU can tag yourself all you want. I don't care about you. But if you want to tag ME? You better come with your guns. I am not an animal. I am not a subject. I am not a commodity. I am a citizen and the goverment exists to serve ME, not the other way around.
No, the people who object the this are the ones who think it's demeaning and improper for the government to assume that all it's citizens are criminals. Just as I object to modern copyright law and the DMCA because it presuposes that I will violate the law unless stopped, I object to this sort of national ID tracking and monitoring because it presuposes that I am a criminal. You can tag yourself all you want, if you're worried about being in an avalanche.
But why the hell is the average person typing fuckgeneralmotors.com? I'm far from the average internet user, and _I_ certainly have never typed that....
I don't think we REALLY need to worry too much about companies assassinating copyright holders:P And if we do, thats more a sign that we need to fix our society than that we need to keep copyright legislation:P. Anyway, any company thats gonna kill someone so they can publish his stuff will just kidnap and torture him until he signs the copyright over to them.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole reason to get a monopoly is so you can abuse it. We restrict them because it's harmful to society to have one country controlling EVERYTHING - this happend in a microcosm during the 20s in coal mining towns all over the US. And I _do_ think that, given 100% zero retrictions on commerce, that within a few generations, any given industry will be completly controlled by a single entity.
"Reality and the freedom to choose" have nothing to do with a free market economy - all the alternatives you mentioned (except MacOS) don't compete within the system - your choices are Windows, Mac, or not playing. BeOS is an EXCELLENT example - a real, viable, commercial alternative to windows that got completly shut out of the market because a monopoly player was able to eliminate even the possibility of competition.
How about this: "You can talk all you want, but by restricting the right to buy airtime to corporations and wealthy private individuals, we'll make sure that nobody ever hears what you have to say"
Granted, this only holds up if theres no alternative methods of distributing your message, but, more and more, it seems that's what we're heading for. If nobody is permitted to hear you, or, more precisely, nobody even knows you're speaking, are you really talking? (Incidently, this is why we have public access cable TV)
Alienware makes some amazingly cool cases. Too bad they won't let you buy just an empty case :( Prices are good for the support they offer, though.
well, we buy all our hardware from Dell and it's great stuff - it's sturdy, solid, and stable. I'm sure we pay through the nose for it, of course. (Incidently, how is crappy onboard audio a problem for corporate machines?)
Because citizens being entitled to access to communications media naturally flows from the concept that protection of free speech covers the right to communicate, not the right to talk. Under your definition of free speech, the only way to restrict free speech is to (physically) gag someone. Incidentlly, I believe that people have to right to talk to whoever they want, however they want - untill that SPECIFIC PERSON they are targetting decides they don't want to be talked to. Thats why, for example, spam that attempts to circumvent spam filters would be illegal in a perfect world (I know this isn't practical) and why telemarketers should have to leave you alone, forever, if you tell them to.
Untrue - in an uncontrolled free market, a single highly successfull company will always be able to dominated and control the market, over a period of time. This is why we have monopoly laws. Your MS analgy is flawed - they dominate 95% of the DESKTOP market, and there is only one operating system competing with Windows on the desktop. Linux and other free software do not compete.
1) It's evil when Yahoo does it too
2) It's not a browser-specific functionality that relies on vendor lock in
Well, I guess I'm just repeating all the previous posts, but wanna hazard any guesses WHY she was targeted with incredibly high limits, with extraordinary interest rates? It's because they KNOW that people in this demographic will often spend beyond thier means, and be bailed out by mommy and daddy. Those who don't get bailed out get bad credit reports and an incredible hassle. This is predatory marketing. Incidently, credit card companies also sell the names and contact information of new companies to other predatory-type companies (magazine and book clubs, for example - I got bit by a magazine subscription company myself, that subscribed me under false pretenses, refused to allow me to cancel, and the CC company wouldn't back me). They are extremly quick to file poor credit reports and very slow to file good onces - And, since I have poor credit because of aformentioned magazine thing (my fault, I know), I now get MORE offers - including ones from the same company that got me in trouble in the first place!
It's got to do with the market, obviously - high-level math software is mostly sold to universities and whatnot with budgets. So the majority of the market that will be buying it will be willing to pay a high price. This also works the other way - if, say, Office cost 10 bucks you'd probably sell more copies - and since the cost of media is negligable, thats just more profit.
I saw Eyes wide shut, got it, am not a retard, and am not afraid to say it sucked - it was ALMOST a fantastic movie. But this whole "secret Hellfire club sex drugs power" thing has been done before, and better. Cut all that crap and stick with the side-stories, which were where the great film-making was.
It's true that they aren't allowed to just go whupping someones ass, but barring MAJOR issues being made about it, it's rare for anything to happen - relatively minor roughing up is pretty common. And yes, fighting back in any way against a police officer is a felony (assaulting a police officer), even if he's busy beating you.
Very true - police officers tend to get REALLY pissy when you do things like ask them for their badge numbers and the name of their superior. They also tend to get quite testy in the presence of camerasa, COPS not withstanding. It's the people with the power who most resent having power used against them - which is why we need signifigant civilian oversight on law enforcement.
You'd think someone who reads slashdot would know more about it, but lets make it perfectly clear - the product is not illegal in Russia. And having a CEO offer to take personal responsibilty for something when a subordinate has been blamed is pretty fucking unheard of ANYWHERE.
If you don't consider /. to be a serious news source, you can either a) take it at face value and enjoy it for what it gives you or b) watch Fox news like everyone else.
Well, I've followed it in some detail, and while he certainly made some judgement errors (heh), what he did doesn't come near to justifying the sentence - and it certainly seems as is Intel had rather more voice in the case that should be proper.
Without wanting to open up too much of a can of worms, who says that you have any more rights than someone who's been in jail, served thier sentence, and is now out? Even if that crime was a sex offence. Yadda yadda, first they came for the unionists, etc, etc, but you get the point.
The ideas you mention negate the purpose of using the chip at all - if it's going to be controlled from a PDA, why not just use the PDA+biometrics?
I'm gonna assuem you're trolling, because anyone with a half a brain and a good history text (no, not the one they gave you in high school) will show you exactly where the goverment has shoved your checks and balances. News flash - the checks and balances don't just magically happen. People have to enforce them. That means you. Get off your ass and prove yourself worthy of being an American, or go live in some piddly bannanna dictatorship where you'll be more comfortable.
Well, I'm not a christian, don't believe in God or the Bible, and wouldn't worship God even if he came down from heaven and TOLD me he existed (the guys an asshole), but if I _did_ believe in him, I wouldn't find it hard to believe that there could be a literal mark as well as a metaphorical one.
Slightly off-topic - one of the guys who was on the ground floor of amateur crypto (I think one of the RSA guys, but I don't feel like googling for it) was really interested in cyber-cash and anonymous micro-payments, and devised a scheme for road tolls that would allow anonymous usage measurements and billing to be done without allowing any one persons movements to be tracked. The government ditched it and went with a system that allowed individual tracking.
A couple points - you aren't required to carry ID. If an officer asks you for ID, and you have it, you have to show it to him. If you aren't carrying ID, it's all good. As for fingerprints and DNA, it's about the ease of application - I'm not fingerprinted everytime I buy something, or in routine traffic stops. It's sufficently difficult to compare fingerprints that it's only done when it's meaningful.
There may be plenty of people who have knee jerk reactions, but I'd say that a mandatory, IMPLANTED id card is about as "personal freedom" related as you can get. As I've said before - YOU can tag yourself all you want. I don't care about you. But if you want to tag ME? You better come with your guns. I am not an animal. I am not a subject. I am not a commodity. I am a citizen and the goverment exists to serve ME, not the other way around.
No, the people who object the this are the ones who think it's demeaning and improper for the government to assume that all it's citizens are criminals. Just as I object to modern copyright law and the DMCA because it presuposes that I will violate the law unless stopped, I object to this sort of national ID tracking and monitoring because it presuposes that I am a criminal. You can tag yourself all you want, if you're worried about being in an avalanche.
The part that says that any powers they don't explicitly have, they don't have.
But why the hell is the average person typing fuckgeneralmotors.com? I'm far from the average internet user, and _I_ certainly have never typed that....
I don't think we REALLY need to worry too much about companies assassinating copyright holders :P And if we do, thats more a sign that we need to fix our society than that we need to keep copyright legislation :P. Anyway, any company thats gonna kill someone so they can publish his stuff will just kidnap and torture him until he signs the copyright over to them.