Re:How do we distance ourselves from the thieves
on
"Squishy" DRM?
·
· Score: 1
Jesus Christ, for the last time, COPYING IS NOT STEALING. Stealing is when you deprive someone of something. If I stole your car, you would no longer have it to use. That's stealing. Intellectual Property is an idea. It's not physical. You can't steal it. The only way to ever control it is to keep it to yourself. Once you tell someone else, you have no reasonable expectation of control of that idea.
These companies have managed to convince you, and people like you, that trading files is stealing. Everyone KNOWS stealing is wrong. It's ingrained into you from an early age. Label it "stealing" and everyone automatically assumes you're doing something evil.
Generaly the advancement of technology improves people's quality of life. Intellectual Property Laws are stunting innovation and slowing this down. Think about it, these companies are making money in today's market. If there is any kind of major change or breakthrough (such as Napster, for example), whether it be cultural or economical, or whatever, it would change the status quo. That scares the hell out of these companies. They will do whatever they can to maintain the status quo and therefore slow down the benefits new technology gives us. All for the sake of money.
It's not stealing. It's copying an idea. And I say instead of the people adapting to please these companies (by implementing DRM), let these companies adapt to the way people now get their music. Change or die. It's called evolution. And it breeds creatures fittest for survival. If these companies cannot survive, then prolonging their existance artificially simply burdens the people. I say let them crash and burn. Eventually someone will come up with a business model that works.
Personally I find the fact that a lot of crime/theft will go undetetected a perfectly reasonable price to pay for living in a free society (if only).
Frankly, so do I, and I'm suprised more people don't feel this way. For example, there are devices that you can install in cars that give a police officer the power to turn its engine off remotely. One of the applications of this would be to stop car thieves. I would rather take the chance of having my car stolen than to drive around with something like that. That's the price I pay for having that freedom, I guess. And damnit, that's fine with me.
"My own idea for legal reform would be that all punative damages over say $1 million, goes to the government. Since it is only intended to punish the guilty party, why should the lawyers and lawsuit bringers be made rich?"
I've discussed this idea with friends and we all agreed it was a bad one. The government should not benefit from lawsuits like that, that would create a conflict of interest.
IANAL but wasn't the money McDonald's had to pay known as "punitive damages"? I think that's the right term. Anyway, I've been told that when a lot of money is awarded like that, it's not really because the plaintiff deserves it. The point of all that money is to punish the company, and is therefore set depending on how bad it would damage the company. McDonalds make a *lot* of money, so in order to really damage them, the judge had to award a *lot* of money.
I have no idea how accurate this information all is. It's just stuff I think I remember hearing. Take it as you will.
I don't agree with you at all. P2P software is simply a program that allows you to copy files to and from other people's computers. The fact that the files you trade are illegal is your responsibility, not the software's. I find his.sig appropriate and insightful.
"If you don't believe that what you are doing is not immoral, then why hide?"
I believe this is known as a non-sequitor. I ask you this: If I don't believe that what I am doing is not immoral, then why should I make it visible to everyone? Whether or not I choose to hide something that is not illegal is my own call to make, and should have no bearing on whether I'm allowed to do it. If I choose to hide something from you, that's none of your business.
No, it's not that 10 seconds is too long, it's that I should not have to wait at all. I should have full control over that which belongs to me (in this case, the DVD player). I don't care that the manufacturer feels that I shouldn't be allowed to skip past the FBI crap, I'll make that call, not them. What if every time you wanted to start your car you had to wait 10 seconds. Wouldn't that be annoying? I want to watch my DVD, and I want to watch it now, not 10 seconds from now. It's the principle man, the principle.
There are a lot of illegal things that really shouldn't be illegal. Our government has and is going to pass a lot of shitty laws. Just because they outlaw something doesn't mean that it's all of a sudden wrong. It just means that there are people in power who benefit from the law being passed. It's our job as citizens to keep this kind of crap in check, although I admit that's hard to do when the people in power make up the rules on how they're supposed to be kept in check.
Now I'm neither saying that swapping mp3s and warez is wrong or right, I'm just pointing something out, because I hear this argument a lot, and I think it's somewhat irrelevant. Whether copying mp3s is legal or not should not be a factor in deciding if it is right or wrong.
I have a theory about this. Couldn't the government just pass a shitload of laws, to the point where the average person can't possibly remember them all? He'll never be sure if he's breaking a law or not at any one time. This will, effectively, give police more power than they could ever want, because if you think you've broken a law, you're more likely to cooperate and hope that the cop lets you go (well, the average Joe is, anyway).
Is this how you start a police state? Should I be taking notes?
I don't think it's anyone's job to spy on the American people. If it is, then it shouldn't be. The CIA is the only agency that I can think of that does this, and they're supposed to be spying on people outside the country, not inside.
As for privacy, it does exist in public places. If I'm sitting on a park bench talking with my friend, having someone walk by and overhear my conversation is one thing, but planting bugs in the bench or using some kind of listening device to specifically spy on me is a whole nother story.
If I'm not doing anything wrong, why should I be concerned about being spied on? Well, sometimes things that are totaly legal can look illegal to someone else. I might have an inside joke with my friend about, for example, starting a malitia. I know it's just a joke, he knows it's just a joke, but anyone else listening wouldn't know that. The next day some nice men pay a visit to my house. Do you know what that is? That is a POLICE STATE. I should not have to explain everything I do. Jesus man, how can you live with someone watching over your shoulder all the time? If you're so concerned with security, why don't you let them put cameras in your house, and in your bedroom. You're obviously never going to do anything wrong, right? Hope you don't engage in any oral pleasure with your wife, 'cause in some places that's illegal.
No one goes through life without ever breaking a law. At some point or another, you will break a law, whether it will be spitting on the sidewalk or jaywalking. Or maybe even going 55 in a 50 because you have to be somewhere. Give them the power to catch every single crime and the next time you toss a soda can at a garbage can and miss, you'll be fined $2000 for littering.
I think a lot of people are only looking at the short term results of passing laws to give law enforcement more power. "Lets give the police more freedom to spy on us, so that they can catch more terrorists" they say. Well, some day, they're going to pass a law that you don't agree with. And then what are you going to do? Petition to get rid of it? 'Cause that works so well, right? You know in Arizona it's illegal to live with someone of the opposite sex you're not related to if you're not married? Try getting that repealed.
"Theres no loss of freedom because its a freedom you never had to begin with."
Following that line of reasoning, our forefathers never should have left Europe to found America, because freedom of religion was something that they never had, so why would they bother wanting it, right? America is the greatest country in the world, don't get me wrong. But I believe it could be better. Frankly, I see it getting worse.
History has countless examples of people and nations having too much power. It corrupts, it really does. You talk about absolute freedom being anarchy, well, absolute control is slavery. I'd rather raise my kids in anarchy than in slavery.
I would rather die from lack of security than live without freedom. Seriously, if you spend your entire life ruled over by someone else, what kind of life is that? Is it really worth living?
Now, I realise that the issue here is simply surveilance, and while we've lost a lot of our freedom, we still have some left. But this is just one step towards making it worse. While I doubt I will ever see America become a police state within my lifetime, I worry that my children or my children's children will live to see it. The last thing I want to do is bring children into a world not worth living in. So I remain vigilant and do what I can to keep the freedom you and people like you would freely give away.
That's why the whole argument about giving up freedom if it means more security simply doesn't stand. A state of absolute security provides for a life not worth living. I've only got 60 or 70 years more left on this planet. I don't want to spend that time having to answer to some higher power everytime I go to the store to by a questionable book.
First, you pass too many laws for the average person to even understand them all much less remember them. Then, you create a system that allows you to observe every citizen most of the time. This quickly turns into a scenario where you literaly don't know if you are breaking any laws, and virtually allows the police to stop and detain anyone on the street going about their business. Neighbors start disappearing, and rumors abound of a "secret police" that comes to their homes in the middle of the night, and takes them away. And now that we have secret tribunals, anyone suspected of terrorism can pretty much be whiped off the earth without anyone the wiser. Next, you'll be pent up in your home with the door locked wondering if you'll be the next.
Sounds farfetched, but I don't really see us a long way off. We've got so many laws now that lawyers now have to specialize. And God help you if a cop questions you in the street and you don't at least stop to answer him.
The car you drive is on record.
The house you live in is on record.
The gun you own is on record.
The groceries you buy are on record.
The books you own are on record.
The route you take is on record.
The payments you make are on record.
The newspaper you read is on record.
The websites you visit are on record.
It is impossible to live anonymously. There's a reason the people in power made it that way: control.
Maybe, but because of fear more than anything else. I would hate to live in a place where I could say, "Shhhh, they're watching" and be right all the time.
I totaly agree with you. Up until recently (say the past 20 years), a republic form of government seemed like a pretty good idea, and it has worked moderatly well so far. When everyone rode around on horseback, it was hard just to get news from the next city much less the entire nation, so it was nigh impossible to allow everyone to have some say in the way things were governed. That's why we elected people do work on that for everyone else.
However, with the advent of the Internet, it now is possible to allow everyone to have a say in the way things are run. Post the necessary information online, and people can read it and make their own informed decisions, and possibly even vote on it. Now I realise that it's a bit more complex than that, and a system has to be worked out. But the point is that it's now possible.
Unfortunately, I fear that technology will not free us. Not because it cannot, but because the people in power won't allow it. How can you get politicians to pass laws that would make their job obsolete?
I think it's going to take a revolution to change things. And the way things are going, it could happen soon. Like they say, it gets a lot worse before it gets better, and the way I see it, things are getting worse. Just look at all these insane laws that came out of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and they're not done yet. They're trying to go for national ID cards now, and I'm sure there's more that I don't even know about.
So yeah, I think technology could deliver us, but we're going to have to do it ourselves, because the people we appointed to do it won't.
I agree. Jar-Jar wasn't the worst character. That slot is reserved for the shody acting by the kid who played Anakin. He was horrible. He alone ruined the movie for me.
"Any given individual may or may not be stupid, but a group always will be."
I never understood this argument. How can a group be stupid? If every individual in the group happened to be intelligent, would the group still be stupid? And if so, how?
I'm not disagreeing with you or anything, I'm just trying to understand this better. If you consider the group a single entity, then yes, I would call it stupid, because it would be slower to react than an individual. However, in the long run, wouldn't a group actualy make more intelligent and informed decisions given enough time, simply because there is more input?
"The experts, of course, make their living making up arcana that nobody else can understand, developing opaque vocabularies and rituals, and generally placing themselves in a superior position because they think nobody could ever understand what they do."
This is why the whole concept of being ruled my another human being, who is in every way my equal, appalls me. You get this sort of divide between the politicians and the "masses", that "us and them" scenario that shouldn't exist because we're all the same. And once you get that, the people in power are naturally going to take steps to make sure that they stay in power, because they now believe that everyone but them is stupid and can't possibly do their job.
Supposedly America's got a checks and balances system with 3 different branches that's supposed to prevent that sort of power corruption. But what stops the 3 branches from cooperating? It seems to me that the only way that 3 branches seems to at least slow the corruption is by simply having a whole lot more people in power. And the more people you have, the harder it is to have them reach a concensus. If each branch had 3 people in it, the country would be ruled by 9 people, but no one would feel that was fair, because how can 9 people possibly represent the entire nation? So instead, we have hundreds of people, to provide the illusion that there is more representation, but all it really is is a bunch of people that can't agree with each other, but know enough to protect each other mutually.
Hmmmm, the more I think about this, the more problems I see. Ignorance must be bliss, because knowing all this stuff only brings me headaches and frustration.
Indeed. It's not costless to create downsides. This makes it tempting to ignore their role in maintaining cooperation. They're unpleasant, to say the least.
Well, if they have the power to punish someone then aren't they, by default, cooperating? Therefore, maintaining cooperation is the simple task of punishing those who are not cooperating. They cannot ignore their role in punishing defectors, because the defectors are preventing them from cooperating. That is, their desire for cooperation outweighs the cost necessary to punish those who are sabatoging the harmony, therefore they will always punish the defectors. No?
This only works if I have something meaningful to contribute and I refuse to do so. If I can't think of anything meaningful, but try to contribute anyway, and my post ends up being stupid, then I take a karma hit when I get modded down.
I realise you were making a joke, but I thought of something meaninful to contribute to your statement.:)
This means that humans may well be hard-wired with a non-survival instinct! But that cannot be the case because we have been selected for millions of years as the best possible survivors on the planet. So what gives?
Maybe taking the $2 over the $3 is a form of protection. Perhaps they do not want to give the other group the upper hand, in fear that they could somehow use it against them later.
Example: A small human tribe is constantly raided by a group of neanderthals. The humans have only sticks and rocks to defend themselves, which are more or less sufficient, except that occasionaly, one or two of them falls in combat with the neanderthals. Some aliens come down and propose this: They will give half of the tribe guns (with ammo) and the other half spears, so that they can better defend themselves.
The humans quickly agree, for any means to fight off the neanderthals is surely a blessing. The next time the neanderthals attack, the humans massacre them. Not only that, but they go in search of the neanderthal's homes, and kill off their entire tribe. Now the humans have no more enemies. They can start to farm the land, and form an organized society. Leaders must be elected, and rules must be made, so that there is harmony. Half the tribe has guns, the other half has spears. Guess who gets to make the rules.
This is the most insightful post I have read in a long time.
"This is an example of what most elites have nightmares about... the "masses" deciding for themselves what to do, through concensus and free exchange of information. This is the horrible, to-be-avoided-at-all-costs thing that many refer to as "too much democracy"."
Very well put. I agree completely. I often think about the current form of government that we have adopted and wonder how exaclty we got here. The very idea that we should allow ourselves to be ruled by fellow men baffles me. In a society of equals, we have allowed a select few to make rules for the rest of us, trusting that they do the right thing. This, inevitably, because an "us-them" situation in which politians talk about the "masses" as if they are not apart of them. Have you ever said, "People are dumb" in front of anyone? Ever notice how they automatically exclude themselves from the statement? They often agree, even, "Yeah, people are dumb." That's what's happened with people in power. They feel that they are passing laws for the rest of us, and that they are excluded. Like we need to be tended to, otherwise we'll kill ourselves. Looked after like cattle.
Everyone should participate in government. Everyone should have a say in how things are governed. I know the argument of "How could we possibly allow 6 million people to participate" comes up. I don't know how. I don't have all the answers, but I do believe that there is a better way. And we can find it if we tried.
Alright, I'm ranting here so I'll wrap this up. Basically, I believe that it is possible to get everyone to contribute in society. You just have to provide them the means. I believe that people, in general, are smart and responsible. But it's easy to distract them and keep them on the defensive with stupid laws, so that they can't be smart and responsible. When that changes, it will better all of us.
I definately agree with you and have seen examples of this on IRC. A few weeks ago when the FBI busted all those warez servers, traffic died down quite a bit. I read somewhere that they found out the reason for this wasn't necessarily because people were afraid to serve, but because there were only a few people that basically served a lot that everyone else mooched off of, and those were the people that got busted.
On the other hand, though, I think there are other reason for not contributing. Case in point (switching gears somewhat to Morpheus), I have Morpheus running ALL THE TIME on a DSL connection. But when I want to surf the web or download something, all those downloads kill my bandwidth. For this reason, I've set the maximum number of users that can download off of me at one time to 1, and the maximum bandwidth allowed for that to about 3.5kb/s. Now, I'm not using my computer all the time and I don't have a problem with allowing more users and more bandwidth when I'm not, but it's such a hassle to change the settings every time I want to step away from my computer and every time I come back. So, it stays at 1 user at 3.5kb/s.
But, if there was a better program that would, say, allow 10 users at a time and my max bandwidth whenever the screensaver came on, and then brought it back down to 1 user for 3.5kb/s (Morpheus allows resuming, so the cancelled downloads could connect again later) when the screensaver went off (i.e. I'm using the computer), then I would have no problem letting people download to their heart's content.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is, sometimes contributing is beyond the convenient means of some people. Mayhaps a system (in general, not necessarily a warez system) where contributing was easier, or maybe even somewhat, if not mostly, transparent, would see fewer freeloaders and more people contributing.
Go to the message page, and scroll down by holding down the 'Page Down' key. You start to see a kind of diagonal line moving from right to left over the numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
Jesus Christ, for the last time, COPYING IS NOT STEALING. Stealing is when you deprive someone of something. If I stole your car, you would no longer have it to use. That's stealing. Intellectual Property is an idea. It's not physical. You can't steal it. The only way to ever control it is to keep it to yourself. Once you tell someone else, you have no reasonable expectation of control of that idea.
These companies have managed to convince you, and people like you, that trading files is stealing. Everyone KNOWS stealing is wrong. It's ingrained into you from an early age. Label it "stealing" and everyone automatically assumes you're doing something evil.
Generaly the advancement of technology improves people's quality of life. Intellectual Property Laws are stunting innovation and slowing this down. Think about it, these companies are making money in today's market. If there is any kind of major change or breakthrough (such as Napster, for example), whether it be cultural or economical, or whatever, it would change the status quo. That scares the hell out of these companies. They will do whatever they can to maintain the status quo and therefore slow down the benefits new technology gives us. All for the sake of money.
It's not stealing. It's copying an idea. And I say instead of the people adapting to please these companies (by implementing DRM), let these companies adapt to the way people now get their music. Change or die. It's called evolution. And it breeds creatures fittest for survival. If these companies cannot survive, then prolonging their existance artificially simply burdens the people. I say let them crash and burn. Eventually someone will come up with a business model that works.
Amen. Very good points.
Personally I find the fact that a lot of crime/theft will go undetetected a perfectly reasonable price to pay for living in a free society (if only).
Frankly, so do I, and I'm suprised more people don't feel this way. For example, there are devices that you can install in cars that give a police officer the power to turn its engine off remotely. One of the applications of this would be to stop car thieves. I would rather take the chance of having my car stolen than to drive around with something like that. That's the price I pay for having that freedom, I guess. And damnit, that's fine with me.
"My own idea for legal reform would be that all punative damages over say $1 million, goes to the government. Since it is only intended to punish the guilty party, why should the lawyers and lawsuit bringers be made rich?"
I've discussed this idea with friends and we all agreed it was a bad one. The government should not benefit from lawsuits like that, that would create a conflict of interest.
IANAL but wasn't the money McDonald's had to pay known as "punitive damages"? I think that's the right term. Anyway, I've been told that when a lot of money is awarded like that, it's not really because the plaintiff deserves it. The point of all that money is to punish the company, and is therefore set depending on how bad it would damage the company. McDonalds make a *lot* of money, so in order to really damage them, the judge had to award a *lot* of money. I have no idea how accurate this information all is. It's just stuff I think I remember hearing. Take it as you will.
I don't agree with you at all. P2P software is simply a program that allows you to copy files to and from other people's computers. The fact that the files you trade are illegal is your responsibility, not the software's. I find his .sig appropriate and insightful.
The quickest way to get an unfair law repealed is to aggressively enforce it.
Maybe I'm the only one this doesn't make sense to, but how would enforcing a law aggressively get it repealed?
"If you don't believe that what you are doing is not immoral, then why hide?"
I believe this is known as a non-sequitor. I ask you this: If I don't believe that what I am doing is not immoral, then why should I make it visible to everyone? Whether or not I choose to hide something that is not illegal is my own call to make, and should have no bearing on whether I'm allowed to do it. If I choose to hide something from you, that's none of your business.No, it's not that 10 seconds is too long, it's that I should not have to wait at all. I should have full control over that which belongs to me (in this case, the DVD player). I don't care that the manufacturer feels that I shouldn't be allowed to skip past the FBI crap, I'll make that call, not them. What if every time you wanted to start your car you had to wait 10 seconds. Wouldn't that be annoying? I want to watch my DVD, and I want to watch it now, not 10 seconds from now. It's the principle man, the principle.
Cheers!
There are a lot of illegal things that really shouldn't be illegal. Our government has and is going to pass a lot of shitty laws. Just because they outlaw something doesn't mean that it's all of a sudden wrong. It just means that there are people in power who benefit from the law being passed. It's our job as citizens to keep this kind of crap in check, although I admit that's hard to do when the people in power make up the rules on how they're supposed to be kept in check.
Now I'm neither saying that swapping mp3s and warez is wrong or right, I'm just pointing something out, because I hear this argument a lot, and I think it's somewhat irrelevant. Whether copying mp3s is legal or not should not be a factor in deciding if it is right or wrong.
I have a theory about this. Couldn't the government just pass a shitload of laws, to the point where the average person can't possibly remember them all? He'll never be sure if he's breaking a law or not at any one time. This will, effectively, give police more power than they could ever want, because if you think you've broken a law, you're more likely to cooperate and hope that the cop lets you go (well, the average Joe is, anyway).
Is this how you start a police state? Should I be taking notes?
I don't think it's anyone's job to spy on the American people. If it is, then it shouldn't be. The CIA is the only agency that I can think of that does this, and they're supposed to be spying on people outside the country, not inside.
As for privacy, it does exist in public places. If I'm sitting on a park bench talking with my friend, having someone walk by and overhear my conversation is one thing, but planting bugs in the bench or using some kind of listening device to specifically spy on me is a whole nother story.
If I'm not doing anything wrong, why should I be concerned about being spied on? Well, sometimes things that are totaly legal can look illegal to someone else. I might have an inside joke with my friend about, for example, starting a malitia. I know it's just a joke, he knows it's just a joke, but anyone else listening wouldn't know that. The next day some nice men pay a visit to my house. Do you know what that is? That is a POLICE STATE. I should not have to explain everything I do. Jesus man, how can you live with someone watching over your shoulder all the time? If you're so concerned with security, why don't you let them put cameras in your house, and in your bedroom. You're obviously never going to do anything wrong, right? Hope you don't engage in any oral pleasure with your wife, 'cause in some places that's illegal.
No one goes through life without ever breaking a law. At some point or another, you will break a law, whether it will be spitting on the sidewalk or jaywalking. Or maybe even going 55 in a 50 because you have to be somewhere. Give them the power to catch every single crime and the next time you toss a soda can at a garbage can and miss, you'll be fined $2000 for littering.
I think a lot of people are only looking at the short term results of passing laws to give law enforcement more power. "Lets give the police more freedom to spy on us, so that they can catch more terrorists" they say. Well, some day, they're going to pass a law that you don't agree with. And then what are you going to do? Petition to get rid of it? 'Cause that works so well, right? You know in Arizona it's illegal to live with someone of the opposite sex you're not related to if you're not married? Try getting that repealed.
"Theres no loss of freedom because its a freedom you never had to begin with."
Following that line of reasoning, our forefathers never should have left Europe to found America, because freedom of religion was something that they never had, so why would they bother wanting it, right? America is the greatest country in the world, don't get me wrong. But I believe it could be better. Frankly, I see it getting worse.
History has countless examples of people and nations having too much power. It corrupts, it really does. You talk about absolute freedom being anarchy, well, absolute control is slavery. I'd rather raise my kids in anarchy than in slavery.
I pity you.
I would rather die from lack of security than live without freedom. Seriously, if you spend your entire life ruled over by someone else, what kind of life is that? Is it really worth living?
Now, I realise that the issue here is simply surveilance, and while we've lost a lot of our freedom, we still have some left. But this is just one step towards making it worse. While I doubt I will ever see America become a police state within my lifetime, I worry that my children or my children's children will live to see it. The last thing I want to do is bring children into a world not worth living in. So I remain vigilant and do what I can to keep the freedom you and people like you would freely give away.
That's why the whole argument about giving up freedom if it means more security simply doesn't stand. A state of absolute security provides for a life not worth living. I've only got 60 or 70 years more left on this planet. I don't want to spend that time having to answer to some higher power everytime I go to the store to by a questionable book.
First, you pass too many laws for the average person to even understand them all much less remember them. Then, you create a system that allows you to observe every citizen most of the time. This quickly turns into a scenario where you literaly don't know if you are breaking any laws, and virtually allows the police to stop and detain anyone on the street going about their business. Neighbors start disappearing, and rumors abound of a "secret police" that comes to their homes in the middle of the night, and takes them away. And now that we have secret tribunals, anyone suspected of terrorism can pretty much be whiped off the earth without anyone the wiser. Next, you'll be pent up in your home with the door locked wondering if you'll be the next.
Sounds farfetched, but I don't really see us a long way off. We've got so many laws now that lawyers now have to specialize. And God help you if a cop questions you in the street and you don't at least stop to answer him.
The car you drive is on record.
The house you live in is on record.
The gun you own is on record.
The groceries you buy are on record.
The books you own are on record.
The route you take is on record.
The payments you make are on record.
The newspaper you read is on record.
The websites you visit are on record.
It is impossible to live anonymously. There's a reason the people in power made it that way: control.
Maybe, but because of fear more than anything else. I would hate to live in a place where I could say, "Shhhh, they're watching" and be right all the time.
I totaly agree with you. Up until recently (say the past 20 years), a republic form of government seemed like a pretty good idea, and it has worked moderatly well so far. When everyone rode around on horseback, it was hard just to get news from the next city much less the entire nation, so it was nigh impossible to allow everyone to have some say in the way things were governed. That's why we elected people do work on that for everyone else.
However, with the advent of the Internet, it now is possible to allow everyone to have a say in the way things are run. Post the necessary information online, and people can read it and make their own informed decisions, and possibly even vote on it. Now I realise that it's a bit more complex than that, and a system has to be worked out. But the point is that it's now possible.
Unfortunately, I fear that technology will not free us. Not because it cannot, but because the people in power won't allow it. How can you get politicians to pass laws that would make their job obsolete?
I think it's going to take a revolution to change things. And the way things are going, it could happen soon. Like they say, it gets a lot worse before it gets better, and the way I see it, things are getting worse. Just look at all these insane laws that came out of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and they're not done yet. They're trying to go for national ID cards now, and I'm sure there's more that I don't even know about.
So yeah, I think technology could deliver us, but we're going to have to do it ourselves, because the people we appointed to do it won't.
I agree. Jar-Jar wasn't the worst character. That slot is reserved for the shody acting by the kid who played Anakin. He was horrible. He alone ruined the movie for me.
"Any given individual may or may not be stupid, but a group always will be."
I never understood this argument. How can a group be stupid? If every individual in the group happened to be intelligent, would the group still be stupid? And if so, how?
I'm not disagreeing with you or anything, I'm just trying to understand this better. If you consider the group a single entity, then yes, I would call it stupid, because it would be slower to react than an individual. However, in the long run, wouldn't a group actualy make more intelligent and informed decisions given enough time, simply because there is more input?
"The experts, of course, make their living making up arcana that nobody else can understand, developing opaque vocabularies and rituals, and generally placing themselves in a superior position because they think nobody could ever understand what they do."
This is why the whole concept of being ruled my another human being, who is in every way my equal, appalls me. You get this sort of divide between the politicians and the "masses", that "us and them" scenario that shouldn't exist because we're all the same. And once you get that, the people in power are naturally going to take steps to make sure that they stay in power, because they now believe that everyone but them is stupid and can't possibly do their job.
Supposedly America's got a checks and balances system with 3 different branches that's supposed to prevent that sort of power corruption. But what stops the 3 branches from cooperating? It seems to me that the only way that 3 branches seems to at least slow the corruption is by simply having a whole lot more people in power. And the more people you have, the harder it is to have them reach a concensus. If each branch had 3 people in it, the country would be ruled by 9 people, but no one would feel that was fair, because how can 9 people possibly represent the entire nation? So instead, we have hundreds of people, to provide the illusion that there is more representation, but all it really is is a bunch of people that can't agree with each other, but know enough to protect each other mutually.
Hmmmm, the more I think about this, the more problems I see. Ignorance must be bliss, because knowing all this stuff only brings me headaches and frustration.
Indeed. It's not costless to create downsides. This makes it tempting to ignore their role in maintaining cooperation. They're unpleasant, to say the least.
Well, if they have the power to punish someone then aren't they, by default, cooperating? Therefore, maintaining cooperation is the simple task of punishing those who are not cooperating. They cannot ignore their role in punishing defectors, because the defectors are preventing them from cooperating. That is, their desire for cooperation outweighs the cost necessary to punish those who are sabatoging the harmony, therefore they will always punish the defectors. No?
This only works if I have something meaningful to contribute and I refuse to do so. If I can't think of anything meaningful, but try to contribute anyway, and my post ends up being stupid, then I take a karma hit when I get modded down.
:)
I realise you were making a joke, but I thought of something meaninful to contribute to your statement.
This means that humans may well be hard-wired with a non-survival instinct! But that cannot be the case because we have been selected for millions of years as the best possible survivors on the planet. So what gives?
Maybe taking the $2 over the $3 is a form of protection. Perhaps they do not want to give the other group the upper hand, in fear that they could somehow use it against them later.
Example: A small human tribe is constantly raided by a group of neanderthals. The humans have only sticks and rocks to defend themselves, which are more or less sufficient, except that occasionaly, one or two of them falls in combat with the neanderthals. Some aliens come down and propose this: They will give half of the tribe guns (with ammo) and the other half spears, so that they can better defend themselves.
The humans quickly agree, for any means to fight off the neanderthals is surely a blessing. The next time the neanderthals attack, the humans massacre them. Not only that, but they go in search of the neanderthal's homes, and kill off their entire tribe. Now the humans have no more enemies. They can start to farm the land, and form an organized society. Leaders must be elected, and rules must be made, so that there is harmony. Half the tribe has guns, the other half has spears. Guess who gets to make the rules.
This is the most insightful post I have read in a long time.
"This is an example of what most elites have nightmares about... the "masses" deciding for themselves what to do, through concensus and free exchange of information. This is the horrible, to-be-avoided-at-all-costs thing that many refer to as "too much democracy"."
Very well put. I agree completely. I often think about the current form of government that we have adopted and wonder how exaclty we got here. The very idea that we should allow ourselves to be ruled by fellow men baffles me. In a society of equals, we have allowed a select few to make rules for the rest of us, trusting that they do the right thing. This, inevitably, because an "us-them" situation in which politians talk about the "masses" as if they are not apart of them. Have you ever said, "People are dumb" in front of anyone? Ever notice how they automatically exclude themselves from the statement? They often agree, even, "Yeah, people are dumb." That's what's happened with people in power. They feel that they are passing laws for the rest of us, and that they are excluded. Like we need to be tended to, otherwise we'll kill ourselves. Looked after like cattle.
Everyone should participate in government. Everyone should have a say in how things are governed. I know the argument of "How could we possibly allow 6 million people to participate" comes up. I don't know how. I don't have all the answers, but I do believe that there is a better way. And we can find it if we tried.
Alright, I'm ranting here so I'll wrap this up. Basically, I believe that it is possible to get everyone to contribute in society. You just have to provide them the means. I believe that people, in general, are smart and responsible. But it's easy to distract them and keep them on the defensive with stupid laws, so that they can't be smart and responsible. When that changes, it will better all of us.
I definately agree with you and have seen examples of this on IRC. A few weeks ago when the FBI busted all those warez servers, traffic died down quite a bit. I read somewhere that they found out the reason for this wasn't necessarily because people were afraid to serve, but because there were only a few people that basically served a lot that everyone else mooched off of, and those were the people that got busted.
On the other hand, though, I think there are other reason for not contributing. Case in point (switching gears somewhat to Morpheus), I have Morpheus running ALL THE TIME on a DSL connection. But when I want to surf the web or download something, all those downloads kill my bandwidth. For this reason, I've set the maximum number of users that can download off of me at one time to 1, and the maximum bandwidth allowed for that to about 3.5kb/s. Now, I'm not using my computer all the time and I don't have a problem with allowing more users and more bandwidth when I'm not, but it's such a hassle to change the settings every time I want to step away from my computer and every time I come back. So, it stays at 1 user at 3.5kb/s.
But, if there was a better program that would, say, allow 10 users at a time and my max bandwidth whenever the screensaver came on, and then brought it back down to 1 user for 3.5kb/s (Morpheus allows resuming, so the cancelled downloads could connect again later) when the screensaver went off (i.e. I'm using the computer), then I would have no problem letting people download to their heart's content.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is, sometimes contributing is beyond the convenient means of some people. Mayhaps a system (in general, not necessarily a warez system) where contributing was easier, or maybe even somewhat, if not mostly, transparent, would see fewer freeloaders and more people contributing.
Best in a while laugh had.
ROFL!
Go to the message page, and scroll down by holding down the 'Page Down' key. You start to see a kind of diagonal line moving from right to left over the numbers.
"putting banners on webpages... isn't really all that profitable"
and later...
"a lot of websites get paid by banner clicks"
I'm confused. These websites get paid from ad banners that aren't really all that profitable? :)