Why not? Oh, and I take issue with the word "steal" since they weren't deprived of their original product, but that's an old argument and you should know better
I don't know why I'm letting myself get dug into this argument, but I guess I'll bite. Do you think it is "stealing" if I go and photocopy a book and start distributing it to everyone I know? While the original author may not be "deprived" of their original product, it doesn't mean that they haven't been deprived of a potential sale. I would recommend you look into copyright law and why it exists.
No, it's not. It's a constutional republic, and you're response shows exactly why that is. Just because the majority want something from the minority doesn't mean you get it. Do you think it was OK when the white majority in this country held the black minority in slavery?
I'm sure I'll get flamed away and modded down for even making such an extreme analogy, but it holds. Just because these companies make millions of dollars a year, doesn't mean it becomes OK to steal from them.
Banning games doesn't put a stop to domestic violence, doesn't ensure that mentally unstable kids get the help they need, doesn't stop bullying in the hallways, and doesn't deal with the economic inequalities and racial tensions that are the real source of violence in American culture.
How, after reading this, can I buy anything this guy has to say? He seems to make a valid argument that video games don't cause kids to kill each other (although he doesn't really deal with the issue of aggressive behavior in general, and he doesn't really deal specifically with any of the studies he is taling about), but then he goes on to make this kind of generalization.
I could definately buy the notion that racial tensions are one of the reasons for violence in our country. However, the "economic inequalities" argument is really lacking. Some of the poorest areas in the country are in rural areas where violent crime is at its lowest. This sounds like typical liberal claptrap that tries to justify wealth redistribution.
Sorry I didn't clarify. The Consutition enumerates the powers of the Federal government. It does not begin with the assumption that the Federal Government weilds unlimited power and is then limited from that point. I think the 10th Amendment makes that clear by saying any power not delegated to the United States (meaning Federal Government) are reserved for the states and people.
And MS is oozing accountability? After all, they were found guilty of anti-competitive business practices and were punished with . . . punished with what, exactly?
Well, if you would take my entire sentence into consideration, you would see the "accountability" I was specifically refering to was making a profit. Microsoft can't continue to exist unless they make money. We've seen, obviously, the government doesn't have to worry about sticky problems like, oh say, a "budget".
As for the antitrust stuff, I'll leave that to another thread to argue.
And if the government starts competing with whatever business you may be involved with, you'll be ok with that? Of course, judging by your extremely informative "Tough" response, I'm guessing you are a government employee.
I don't have to show you where the government is prohibited from doing anything. The Consitition grants power to the government, it doesn't limit it.
No, that's not at all what they were doing. If you extend the concept of "rights and freedoms" to things like having a more secure OS, you can extend to anything, like "enjoying a good movie".
Please, show me where in the Consitution or any amendments where we have the "right" you are talking about.
Ultimately, this comes down to unfair competition. People will say that it's good that Microsoft will have to compete with the NSA. How could that possibly be fair? How is a private corporation that has to make money to continue its existence going to compete with a government organization that has little to no accountability?
Gimme a break. I guess I can turn around and say, "What we really need to be looking at is how many off the shelf applications you can install after you are done..." or "Which OS is easier to use by a newbie..." or anything else.
Is it even possible to stay on topic for once around here?
As well as the mobile charger modules, you're given a torch module for the FreeCharge. Unfortunately it's a bit disappointing, considering that FreePlay has produced wind-up torches before.
This sounds like some cool James Bond device. Battery charger for emergency phone calls AND bad guy incinerator!
If the Supreme Court refuses the hear it, it will have the effect of letting the decision stand. This would go against what they have said about the pledge in the past, so I would expect for them to decide to hear it.
Maybe not explicitly, but that's what I was attempting to say. Sorry if I didn't get it across very well.
Also, I remember learning of studies (hate to refer to studies when I don't have the source, but I'll do it anyway) that showed two things: 1) Whoever spends the most money is not necessarily the one who wins and 2) Most money donated by groups go to people that already agree with them.
When we give the government power to regulate our lives and do this and that, it becomes necessary for businesses and groups to lobby the government to turn the tide of regulation their way. They are out to protect their interests, as are most groups and people. The real cure to the campaign system is to return to a government with less power. It's almost like a law of physics: power will currupt, period. The more power a government weilds, the more it will open itself up for corruption.
If we pass more laws (and you'll note that existing campaign laws are broken often), we'll simply be adding to the problem. Regardless of whether you like it or not, money is speech. To say that I can only give a certain amount of money to a politician whom I agree with, limits my free speech (IMHO). Apparantly, the Supreme Court mostly agrees with me. To say the answer is to give the government more power over the arena of political debate is like pouring gasoline on a fire to quench it.
I've seen a variety of reasons people thing Netflix rocks. I just have to say I love it because I can preselect movies. Nothing more frustrating than my wife and I spending an hour at Blockbuster remembering the list of movies that we had come up with. This way, we simply add the movie whenever we think of it.
We're in Phoenix, AZ and you can usually get a movie, watch it and send it back within 6-7 days . Very rarely do we not have a movie to watch.
I think the point is that the picture and sound quality on these tapes surpass that of DVD. It sounds like, for now, they intend it to stay the niche market it is.
The amount of data that can be put on a DVD, combined with the actual compression standard, is not enough to put the kind of quality they are putting on to these tapes.
Looking at most of the responses, so far it looks like we have another "Read the article..."
I realized that after I had posted. But regardless, the point is still the same. This is a pre-trial settlment. They have not been found guilty of anything yet in this civil case, so this talk of "punishment" for their "crimes" is jumping the gun a bit....
Nobody is missing the point except the idiots who keep asking why Microsoft gets to pick its own punishment. It's not! This is a settlement. Must we define what a settlement is?
They went to court, they lost, they appealed and then they went to settlment talks. The government could refuse to settle and move on to trial. If Microsoft lost at that point and did not appeal or lost on appeal, they wouldn't get any say in their punishment. Well, they would get to plead their case for punishment A or B, but it's not as if they have to agree to their punishment.
Is it possible to have an intelligent discussion on anything related to Microsoft?
Why is it that posts that ask why Microsoft gets to "decides its own punishment", which is obviously false, get modded up, but others that explain the reality of the sitation don't?
I know my credit card company allows me to setup a temporary credit card number for an online purchase. This way, when I want to purchase something online, I can setup a completely seperate credit card number WITH a purchase limit on it that is only good for X number of days.
Of course, I'm too lazy to do that, so I just use my credit card.
That's pretty interesting. I wonder how someone like myself, who can only see out of one eye due to a birth defect, might react to being able to suddenly see out of both eyes.
Maybe I would be able to play baseball. The only time I've ever hitten a baseball with a bat was on accident when it was coming towards my head and I ducked with the bat over my head.
The social security laws put into what in effect was a contract. They put in their share, they have every right to expect the government to do their part.
I couldn't agree more. The people who have put money into social security should expect to see it back.
Most like this is where we diverge:-). I most definately do see your points about historically rich and historically poor people. However, I hear so many success stories of those who grew up in poverty or near-poverty (like myself) who go on to do better things. I don't think I'm very extraordinary in my accomplishments.
I think with the availablity of scholarships and financial aid from both private and public arenas, people have no excuse for not attending college, or at least not getting an education that will lift them out of their situation. I know I had to work extremely hard, forgoing the fun normally associated with people in their college age years to get to the point where I am at today. And I don't see the barriers for others that you do.
This is not at all meant to say that sexism and racism are not prevalent today. However, I think most of the barriers and limitations on people are within themselves and not without.
Oh yes, the great myth that the rich deserve it because they worked so hard for it. Ah, the stories of Bush growing up poor and...no, wait, he was born rich...
er...
It's quite easy to go and talk about the various rich people who were born rich. Can we talk about those who were born in poor conditions (such as myself) and have managed to work my up to a level of what many might consider pretty well off? Can we talk about the many rich children who end up living a poor adult life? It's intellectually unfair to point to those who are rich because they were born rich and say that all of the rich are like that.
And give me a break with Bill Gates. He may have been born rich by your standards, but the wealth he has today is nothing compared to that. He created that wealth by his work over the last 25 years. You may have problems with his company and their methods of making money (which I would even agree with on many points), but that still doesn't mean that he hasn't worked in his life to earn his wealth.
Ah, well, at least we can safely say that the people who work the hardest are the best paid, and the ones who's job is the most important are the best paid...oh wait...hitting a ball with a stick and then running around a field gets you millions, while taking care of kids leaves you dirt poor...my mistake.
Because the market results in what many might consider unfair salaries, doesn't mean it's evil. In order to fully address this point, I would have to talk about the various issues I have with public education and I don't want to do that right now.
Yeah, those lazy russians never worked hard ever! Never invented anything! I mean, its not as if they were the first in space or anything, not like they were the first to land a probe on the moon or anything like that. They didn't come up with a better way to do open heart surgery [upenn.edu] or anything...
So you think you can come up with two examples and make your point? That's pretty lame. Let's go ahead and have an entire discussion devoted to a comparison of innovations in any area made by the United States in the last 100 years and compare it to the former USSR. Do you honestly think you would win that one? Give me a break.
I did not say the Russians were a lazy people. I'm saying, what is the incentive to work harder, faster and better come from if you are'nt going to be able to reap the rewards?
Please, stop being a blind tool of your leader's propaganda and try to understand the difference between socialism and totalitarism.
I will attempt to do just that. I realize that there is a difference between Canada and the former USSR. When I reacted to the comment on socialism being evil, I was reacting mainly with totalitarian, communistic governments, which is unfair.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not? Oh, and I take issue with the word "steal" since they weren't deprived of their original product, but that's an old argument and you should know better
I don't know why I'm letting myself get dug into this argument, but I guess I'll bite. Do you think it is "stealing" if I go and photocopy a book and start distributing it to everyone I know? While the original author may not be "deprived" of their original product, it doesn't mean that they haven't been deprived of a potential sale. I would recommend you look into copyright law and why it exists.
Isn't this a fucking democracy?
No, it's not. It's a constutional republic, and you're response shows exactly why that is. Just because the majority want something from the minority doesn't mean you get it. Do you think it was OK when the white majority in this country held the black minority in slavery?
I'm sure I'll get flamed away and modded down for even making such an extreme analogy, but it holds. Just because these companies make millions of dollars a year, doesn't mean it becomes OK to steal from them.
From the article:
Banning games doesn't put a stop to domestic violence, doesn't ensure that mentally unstable kids get the help they need, doesn't stop bullying in the hallways, and doesn't deal with the economic inequalities and racial tensions that are the real source of violence in American culture.
How, after reading this, can I buy anything this guy has to say? He seems to make a valid argument that video games don't cause kids to kill each other (although he doesn't really deal with the issue of aggressive behavior in general, and he doesn't really deal specifically with any of the studies he is taling about), but then he goes on to make this kind of generalization.
I could definately buy the notion that racial tensions are one of the reasons for violence in our country. However, the "economic inequalities" argument is really lacking. Some of the poorest areas in the country are in rural areas where violent crime is at its lowest. This sounds like typical liberal claptrap that tries to justify wealth redistribution.
I'm glad to know that our elected officials will be prepared to deal with the threat of large monsters destroying our cities...
Sorry I didn't clarify. The Consutition enumerates the powers of the Federal government. It does not begin with the assumption that the Federal Government weilds unlimited power and is then limited from that point. I think the 10th Amendment makes that clear by saying any power not delegated to the United States (meaning Federal Government) are reserved for the states and people.
Well, if you would take my entire sentence into consideration, you would see the "accountability" I was specifically refering to was making a profit. Microsoft can't continue to exist unless they make money. We've seen, obviously, the government doesn't have to worry about sticky problems like, oh say, a "budget".
As for the antitrust stuff, I'll leave that to another thread to argue.
And if the government starts competing with whatever business you may be involved with, you'll be ok with that? Of course, judging by your extremely informative "Tough" response, I'm guessing you are a government employee.
I don't have to show you where the government is prohibited from doing anything. The Consitition grants power to the government, it doesn't limit it.
No, that's not at all what they were doing. If you extend the concept of "rights and freedoms" to things like having a more secure OS, you can extend to anything, like "enjoying a good movie".
Please, show me where in the Consitution or any amendments where we have the "right" you are talking about.
Ultimately, this comes down to unfair competition. People will say that it's good that Microsoft will have to compete with the NSA. How could that possibly be fair? How is a private corporation that has to make money to continue its existence going to compete with a government organization that has little to no accountability?
Gimme a break. I guess I can turn around and say, "What we really need to be looking at is how many off the shelf applications you can install after you are done..." or "Which OS is easier to use by a newbie..." or anything else.
Is it even possible to stay on topic for once around here?
But yes, the parent post is soooo insightful....
As well as the mobile charger modules, you're given a torch module for the FreeCharge. Unfortunately it's a bit disappointing, considering that FreePlay has produced wind-up torches before.
This sounds like some cool James Bond device. Battery charger for emergency phone calls AND bad guy incinerator!
(Yes, it's a joke.)
If the Supreme Court refuses the hear it, it will have the effect of letting the decision stand. This would go against what they have said about the pledge in the past, so I would expect for them to decide to hear it.
Maybe not explicitly, but that's what I was attempting to say. Sorry if I didn't get it across very well.
Also, I remember learning of studies (hate to refer to studies when I don't have the source, but I'll do it anyway) that showed two things: 1) Whoever spends the most money is not necessarily the one who wins and 2) Most money donated by groups go to people that already agree with them.
The real problem is power, plain and simple.
When we give the government power to regulate our lives and do this and that, it becomes necessary for businesses and groups to lobby the government to turn the tide of regulation their way. They are out to protect their interests, as are most groups and people. The real cure to the campaign system is to return to a government with less power. It's almost like a law of physics: power will currupt, period. The more power a government weilds, the more it will open itself up for corruption.
If we pass more laws (and you'll note that existing campaign laws are broken often), we'll simply be adding to the problem. Regardless of whether you like it or not, money is speech. To say that I can only give a certain amount of money to a politician whom I agree with, limits my free speech (IMHO). Apparantly, the Supreme Court mostly agrees with me. To say the answer is to give the government more power over the arena of political debate is like pouring gasoline on a fire to quench it.
I've seen a variety of reasons people thing Netflix rocks. I just have to say I love it because I can preselect movies. Nothing more frustrating than my wife and I spending an hour at Blockbuster remembering the list of movies that we had come up with. This way, we simply add the movie whenever we think of it.
We're in Phoenix, AZ and you can usually get a movie, watch it and send it back within 6-7 days . Very rarely do we not have a movie to watch.
I think the point is that the picture and sound quality on these tapes surpass that of DVD. It sounds like, for now, they intend it to stay the niche market it is.
The amount of data that can be put on a DVD, combined with the actual compression standard, is not enough to put the kind of quality they are putting on to these tapes.
Looking at most of the responses, so far it looks like we have another "Read the article..."
I believe someone mentioned in another post, but they worked in a few Konami games on the NES. My only experience was with Contra.
I realized that after I had posted. But regardless, the point is still the same. This is a pre-trial settlment. They have not been found guilty of anything yet in this civil case, so this talk of "punishment" for their "crimes" is jumping the gun a bit....
How the hell did this get scored at 2? Did the poster even read the article? This has absolutely nothing to do with merging with another company!
READ the article.Nobody is missing the point except the idiots who keep asking why Microsoft gets to pick its own punishment. It's not! This is a settlement. Must we define what a settlement is?
They went to court, they lost, they appealed and then they went to settlment talks. The government could refuse to settle and move on to trial. If Microsoft lost at that point and did not appeal or lost on appeal, they wouldn't get any say in their punishment. Well, they would get to plead their case for punishment A or B, but it's not as if they have to agree to their punishment.
Is it possible to have an intelligent discussion on anything related to Microsoft?
Why is it that posts that ask why Microsoft gets to "decides its own punishment", which is obviously false, get modded up, but others that explain the reality of the sitation don't?
I know my credit card company allows me to setup a temporary credit card number for an online purchase. This way, when I want to purchase something online, I can setup a completely seperate credit card number WITH a purchase limit on it that is only good for X number of days.
Of course, I'm too lazy to do that, so I just use my credit card.
(disregarding the potential for abuse, that is)
Like making your brain open source? ;-)
That's pretty interesting. I wonder how someone like myself, who can only see out of one eye due to a birth defect, might react to being able to suddenly see out of both eyes.
Maybe I would be able to play baseball. The only time I've ever hitten a baseball with a bat was on accident when it was coming towards my head and I ducked with the bat over my head.
MOVE.
Ha ha... :-)
The social security laws put into what in effect was a contract. They put in their share, they have every right to expect the government to do their part.
I couldn't agree more. The people who have put money into social security should expect to see it back.
This is likely where we diverge.
Most like this is where we diverge :-). I most definately do see your points about historically rich and historically poor people. However, I hear so many success stories of those who grew up in poverty or near-poverty (like myself) who go on to do better things. I don't think I'm very extraordinary in my accomplishments.
I think with the availablity of scholarships and financial aid from both private and public arenas, people have no excuse for not attending college, or at least not getting an education that will lift them out of their situation. I know I had to work extremely hard, forgoing the fun normally associated with people in their college age years to get to the point where I am at today. And I don't see the barriers for others that you do.
This is not at all meant to say that sexism and racism are not prevalent today. However, I think most of the barriers and limitations on people are within themselves and not without.
Oh yes, the great myth that the rich deserve it because they worked so hard for it. Ah, the stories of Bush growing up poor and...no, wait, he was born rich... er...
It's quite easy to go and talk about the various rich people who were born rich. Can we talk about those who were born in poor conditions (such as myself) and have managed to work my up to a level of what many might consider pretty well off? Can we talk about the many rich children who end up living a poor adult life? It's intellectually unfair to point to those who are rich because they were born rich and say that all of the rich are like that.
And give me a break with Bill Gates. He may have been born rich by your standards, but the wealth he has today is nothing compared to that. He created that wealth by his work over the last 25 years. You may have problems with his company and their methods of making money (which I would even agree with on many points), but that still doesn't mean that he hasn't worked in his life to earn his wealth.
Ah, well, at least we can safely say that the people who work the hardest are the best paid, and the ones who's job is the most important are the best paid...oh wait...hitting a ball with a stick and then running around a field gets you millions, while taking care of kids leaves you dirt poor...my mistake.
Because the market results in what many might consider unfair salaries, doesn't mean it's evil. In order to fully address this point, I would have to talk about the various issues I have with public education and I don't want to do that right now.
Yeah, those lazy russians never worked hard ever! Never invented anything! I mean, its not as if they were the first in space or anything, not like they were the first to land a probe on the moon or anything like that. They didn't come up with a better way to do open heart surgery [upenn.edu] or anything...
So you think you can come up with two examples and make your point? That's pretty lame. Let's go ahead and have an entire discussion devoted to a comparison of innovations in any area made by the United States in the last 100 years and compare it to the former USSR. Do you honestly think you would win that one? Give me a break.
I did not say the Russians were a lazy people. I'm saying, what is the incentive to work harder, faster and better come from if you are'nt going to be able to reap the rewards?
Please, stop being a blind tool of your leader's propaganda and try to understand the difference between socialism and totalitarism.
I will attempt to do just that. I realize that there is a difference between Canada and the former USSR. When I reacted to the comment on socialism being evil, I was reacting mainly with totalitarian, communistic governments, which is unfair.