once everyone just copies everything for each other for free, there won't be reason to make trilogies like Lord of the Rings because it won't even make enough money to cover initial expenses.
And then people would be forced to actually read the book. The horror!
It's also private property in a store, yet it is still illegal to shoplift.
Not if you have permission of the store owner.
Getting thrown out of a movie theatre is not the kind of consequence that will stop people from doing something. Hell, it won;t even keep people quiet during a movie.
So would you support a law against talking during a movie?
So Ohio passes a law making sure that at least there are less pirate movies. What is wrong with that?
Lots. For one thing it decreases the supply of pirate movies. For another, it makes things illegal which were previously legal. Finally, it encourages state government to spend money enforcing it all.
On a related note, has anyone else noticed the watermarks they've been putting into movies lately (presumably to try to catch pirates)? My friend pointed out the patterns of pink dots which were appearing throughout "Master and Commander" (a terrible movie), and I couldn't help but notice them for the rest of the movie. Granted, if the movie hadn't been so boring maybe I wouldn't have noticed them, but still, they were quite annoying.
How many people do you see on Motorways observing sensible stopping distances and how many people do you see doing 90Mph + tail-gating cars in front of them ?
That's irrelevant. I don't have a problem with tailgating laws.
If someone is doing 70Mph in a built up residential area with school crossings etc dotted around the place would you think that was acceptable behaviour ?
Prbably not. It would depend on the circumstances, though.
I have spoken to some policemen about this kind of thing and most of them tell me that they don't have any problem with the situation you are describing above, their concern is to make sure people behave responsibly on the road and not harass people over points of law.
I've been pulled over by a number of policemen so I can tell you for a fact that this is not the case where I drive (NY/NJ/CT area). Every time I've been pulled over it's been when there was no other traffic around. It's very difficult for police to get an accurate reading of a car when it's in traffic, and when the car in front of you hits its brakes there's a good chance there's a cop ahead and you should slow down.
If there was no speed limit and you were doing 85 when there was a lot more traffic on the road then it would be hard for the police to stop you unless you did actually hit anyone.
So what? There's nothing wrong with doing 85 whether you're in traffic or not. As long as you maintain an adequate following distance, how is doing 85 going to cause an accident? It's not.
If the law is enforced sensibly it will help police educate road users about what is expected of them when they are driving a car, if it's not enforced sensibly then that's a problem with the way the police operate rather than anything else.
I think people just resent being told what to do because everyone almost automatically considers themselves to be "probably the safest driver on the road" so when they are eating their breakfast, grooming their dog, practicing their golf swings etc whilst driving they are sure that they are "doing it responsibly and safely"
Guess what. When I'm doing 85 in a 65 at 3 in the morning I am the safest drive on the road (at least the part of it I'm driving on), because I'm the only driver on that part of the road. A law which gets a true criminal 95% of the time but convicts the innocent 5% of the time is a bad law. That's the problem.
How often are you in a traffic backup with a cop car right behind you? Sure, it's a stupid law, but it's not like it's going to be enforced all that strictly. Just another excuse to pull people over and a tax to help cover the costs of motor vehicle accidents.
I too agree that it is overly broad: a passenger navigating should be able to use GPSdrive (more effecient and really no different than using a map), and anyone should be able to use a cell phone provided they are using a handsfree set with voice-tagged numbers.
The real issue is that the law hasn't looked at the technology close enough, or drawn the line finely enough, between legitimate, enabling technology (e.g. getting directions on a handsfree phone while driving, or having a navigating passenger use a computer to avoid getting lost) and stupid, moronic, negligent use of technology (browsing the web while driving, watching tv whilee driving, manually tuning the radio while driving, fiddling with one's cell phone while driving, or driving one handed while holding the cell phone up to one's ear).
Or maybe you just haven't looked at the law closely enough (if at all). GPS and mapping applications are explicitly exempted.
What happens when Slashdot runs an article linking to a New York Times story and 50,000 people all sign up for the free registration? We all have to wait 24 hours before the computer can manage to send the emails out?
You mean the definition the IRS uses to determine if a business gained or lost captial in a year? Yeah, that's wacky way to describe it...
Well, you made the statement that "Without inequalities in the market, there would be no oppertunity for profit." That statement is completely ludicrous if you take "profit" to mean the definition used by the IRS. So I assumed you meant economic profit.
Maybe someone stole it from you, and you need to get it back. That's why I always keep a few documents with my information locked in a safe. Gotta back up my identity in case someone steals it, after all.
OK, so if we're going to use that definition of profit, then you were clearly wrong when you said that "Without inequalities in the market, there would be no oppertunity for profit." I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assumed you meant economic profit, not net profit.
Should wealthy people pay more as a percentage of their worth than poor people?
No. They should pay the same as a percentage of their worth as poor people. But that's a big difference from paying the same as a percentage of their income as poor people.
Without inequalities in the market, there would be no oppertunity for profit, and no motivation for anyone to do anything.
Those two aren't the same. Without inequalities in the market there would be no opportunity for profit, but that doesn't mean there would be no opportunity to make money. You'd make money based on the work you do, not based on your status in the marketplace.
Slashdot Mirror
once everyone just copies everything for each other for free, there won't be reason to make trilogies like Lord of the Rings because it won't even make enough money to cover initial expenses.
And then people would be forced to actually read the book. The horror!
Isn't recording in cinemas already illegal?
Only if you're recording the actual film, don't have permission from the copyright holder, and are not making the recording for fair use purposes.
This law goes a bit further. You can't record your friend's reactions to the movie (without audio). You can't make fair use recordings. Etc.
It's also private property in a store, yet it is still illegal to shoplift.
Not if you have permission of the store owner.
Getting thrown out of a movie theatre is not the kind of consequence that will stop people from doing something. Hell, it won;t even keep people quiet during a movie.
So would you support a law against talking during a movie?
So Ohio passes a law making sure that at least there are less pirate movies. What is wrong with that?
Lots. For one thing it decreases the supply of pirate movies. For another, it makes things illegal which were previously legal. Finally, it encourages state government to spend money enforcing it all.
On a related note, has anyone else noticed the watermarks they've been putting into movies lately (presumably to try to catch pirates)? My friend pointed out the patterns of pink dots which were appearing throughout "Master and Commander" (a terrible movie), and I couldn't help but notice them for the rest of the movie. Granted, if the movie hadn't been so boring maybe I wouldn't have noticed them, but still, they were quite annoying.
If your passenger is using a map program on a laptop to navigate, you are breaking the law.
Arguably, you're probably right. Most prosecutors probably wouldn't be so technical, however.
Umm, all rights can be taken away. Would you call the right to life a privilege?
How many people do you see on Motorways observing sensible stopping distances and how many people do you see doing 90Mph + tail-gating cars in front of them ?
That's irrelevant. I don't have a problem with tailgating laws.
If someone is doing 70Mph in a built up residential area with school crossings etc dotted around the place would you think that was acceptable behaviour ?
Prbably not. It would depend on the circumstances, though.
I have spoken to some policemen about this kind of thing and most of them tell me that they don't have any problem with the situation you are describing above, their concern is to make sure people behave responsibly on the road and not harass people over points of law.
I've been pulled over by a number of policemen so I can tell you for a fact that this is not the case where I drive (NY/NJ/CT area). Every time I've been pulled over it's been when there was no other traffic around. It's very difficult for police to get an accurate reading of a car when it's in traffic, and when the car in front of you hits its brakes there's a good chance there's a cop ahead and you should slow down.
If there was no speed limit and you were doing 85 when there was a lot more traffic on the road then it would be hard for the police to stop you unless you did actually hit anyone.
So what? There's nothing wrong with doing 85 whether you're in traffic or not. As long as you maintain an adequate following distance, how is doing 85 going to cause an accident? It's not.
If the law is enforced sensibly it will help police educate road users about what is expected of them when they are driving a car, if it's not enforced sensibly then that's a problem with the way the police operate rather than anything else.
Speed limits are not sensible. Period.
Driving is a privilege based on skill and responsibility, and it's made clear in all 50 states.
Actually, driving is a right. Using public roads is also a right, it's just a right which can be taken away.
I think people just resent being told what to do because everyone almost automatically considers themselves to be "probably the safest driver on the road" so when they are eating their breakfast, grooming their dog, practicing their golf swings etc whilst driving they are sure that they are "doing it responsibly and safely"
Guess what. When I'm doing 85 in a 65 at 3 in the morning I am the safest drive on the road (at least the part of it I'm driving on), because I'm the only driver on that part of the road. A law which gets a true criminal 95% of the time but convicts the innocent 5% of the time is a bad law. That's the problem.
How often are you in a traffic backup with a cop car right behind you? Sure, it's a stupid law, but it's not like it's going to be enforced all that strictly. Just another excuse to pull people over and a tax to help cover the costs of motor vehicle accidents.
I too agree that it is overly broad: a passenger navigating should be able to use GPSdrive (more effecient and really no different than using a map), and anyone should be able to use a cell phone provided they are using a handsfree set with voice-tagged numbers.
The real issue is that the law hasn't looked at the technology close enough, or drawn the line finely enough, between legitimate, enabling technology (e.g. getting directions on a handsfree phone while driving, or having a navigating passenger use a computer to avoid getting lost) and stupid, moronic, negligent use of technology (browsing the web while driving, watching tv whilee driving, manually tuning the radio while driving, fiddling with one's cell phone while driving, or driving one handed while holding the cell phone up to one's ear).
Or maybe you just haven't looked at the law closely enough (if at all). GPS and mapping applications are explicitly exempted.
How do you think roundabouts with no other traffic control would go over in the US?
The one down the street from my house seems to go over just fine.
What happens when Slashdot runs an article linking to a New York Times story and 50,000 people all sign up for the free registration? We all have to wait 24 hours before the computer can manage to send the emails out?
Ugh. DDOS galore.
You mean the definition the IRS uses to determine if a business gained or lost captial in a year? Yeah, that's wacky way to describe it...
Well, you made the statement that "Without inequalities in the market, there would be no oppertunity for profit." That statement is completely ludicrous if you take "profit" to mean the definition used by the IRS. So I assumed you meant economic profit.
About a month ago, a freaking cell phone provider asked me for an SSN just to get an account with them? WTF?
A cell phone account is a line of credit.
Maybe someone stole it from you, and you need to get it back. That's why I always keep a few documents with my information locked in a safe. Gotta back up my identity in case someone steals it, after all.
Each form had the person's name, date of birth, Social Security number -- all the information necessary for taking out a line of credit.
Interesting. William Henry Gates, III, 539-60-5125, October 28, 1955. Now, how do I take out that line of credit?
OK, so if we're going to use that definition of profit, then you were clearly wrong when you said that "Without inequalities in the market, there would be no oppertunity for profit." I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assumed you meant economic profit, not net profit.
Creating competitive advantages for yourself and your company is the entire point of a business!
Not at all. Many small businesses are service based. You don't have to have a competitive advantage to make money performing a service.
Nobody works 10 hours a day for 40 years so they can break even.
The lower class does.
If you can't make a profit doing something than (from a business standpoint) it's not worth doing.
Well, it depends what you mean by profit. I run a business doing taxes for people. I make money off it, but I consider that a salary, not profit.
Should wealthy people pay more as a percentage of their worth than poor people?
No. They should pay the same as a percentage of their worth as poor people. But that's a big difference from paying the same as a percentage of their income as poor people.
If money was genuinely no object, what gaming goodies would you buy for yourself and your friends this holiday season?
If money was genuinely no object? I'd buy Microsoft.
Without inequalities in the market, there would be no oppertunity for profit, and no motivation for anyone to do anything.
Those two aren't the same. Without inequalities in the market there would be no opportunity for profit, but that doesn't mean there would be no opportunity to make money. You'd make money based on the work you do, not based on your status in the marketplace.
Probably not.