If you want to live in a governmentless society you're not going to find one. From the simplest family groups to the largest nations there is always someone telling the rest how to use the resources available.
So, my money is a 'resource' to be allocated and redistributed? How would that 'resource' be there, if it wasn't for me?
Anyway, I'm not advocating a governmentless society - nor am I advocating an absence of law or clean water. Read my posts again. What I am advocating is the idea that paying for such with compulsory taxation is theft.
As to the moral equivelance I don't see that at all. Giving hand outs to multi-nationals with massive bank balances in no way is the same as helping people who cannot afford to put food on their table.
I know you don't see it, otherwise you wouldn't support it. The equivalence is that it's compulsorily funded - theft is theft. No matter whether a mugger spends his ill-gotten gains on a donation to charity, or a new car stereo, mugging is still wrong. Why don't you see the parallel here?
I sure as hell would not want to live in a society that let those less fortunate fall by the wayside.
And that's your privilege. But what do you think gives you the right to pay for such largesse with other peoples money, taken from them by force? Furthermore, do you not see how asserting your right to redistribute other peoples money by force is morally equivalent to companies doing likewise, regardless of the outcome?
Flamebait? It's not flamebait - it's common sense. Substitute whinging bludging person with whinging bludging media company, and you get media levies instead of social welfare.
As long as people consider it the right of Government to steal from others through compulsory taxation, this is the kind of thing we'll be seeing. The only difference between this and compulsorily-funded social welfare is that the money is going to private companies, rather than private individuals.
On the topic of lobbying and other sundry immoralities... how many of these cities have been speaking with representatives from companies that manufacture and operate taxis, buses, trains and automobiles? I doubt the Segway manufacturers were the only people talking about laws pertaining to Segway transport.
Not necessarily - not all words have to be represented by letters in an acronym; but you're right, in that case it should have been 'Incorrectly identified Flying Object'. And if I'm a silly fuck, you're a pedant:-)
Explanation for the hard-of-thinking: UFO == Unidentified Flying Object.
Thus, they are by definition UFOs, until we can correctly identify them. Making the jump from UFO to Alien Spacecraft is a bit much, however. 'UFO Magazines' like the one cited should actually be called 'IFO Magazines' - Incorrectly Identified Flying Objects:-)
how we should obtain a balance between users and authors
The author owns his property, the users use it under whatever terms he dictates. This is balance - the right to private property ownership, the right to dispense with ones property in a manner of ones choosing, without coercion.
Property ownership isn't time limited, so why should copyrights be so? I suspect that what you're proposing is more along the lines of a 'balance' between producers and looters. No thanks.
I don't think the ~$20 million went to anywhere productive.
Okay, so worst case it made no net difference to the Russian space program. Even if you consider their past administrative balls-ups reason to disregard a $20M gain, Tito still gained a holiday.
The difference is that this venture actually tries to do something productive.
Excuse me? I thought that Tito purchased an orbital holiday for ~ $20 million.
Now, I can imagine how much I'd enjoy an orbital holiday. It'd be a lot of fun: an exciting new sensation that I'd be unlikely (in the present climate) to experience ever again. I imagine Tito felt the same.
So, how was this purchase not productive? Tito gained (an orbital holiday), the Russians gained (money for the space project). I suspect your criticism of it as being unproductive is in part due to the fact that it was unashamedly self-interested (good on him for it!), and in part because you couldn't afford it yourself.
I must have missed something here. Are you a slave? Is your boss forcing you to work for him? No? It's your choice? He's paying you a sum on which you agreed?
It doesn't sound like he's making money at your expense, it sounds like he's making money and you're both gaining.
Fair enough - but do the TOS prohibit mods required to uncap? I must admit, I have assumed that the TOS either mentioned the cap or prohibited the mods; if not, then what the hell are they doing going after their users like that?
"Granted, those who were indicted were stealing, but having their posessions siezed by FBI agents is overkill because we don't mind stealing, unless it's stealing from us, or from people we like, or stealing GPLd code."
This is theft, pure and simple. I don't know why the FBI is involved, but arrests by armed officers and confiscation of evidence seems entirely reasonable to me.
You don't, but the folks for whom you voted (assuming you vote) certainly do.
So what you're saying is that if a group of people vote someone into power, that someone can violate my rights simply because he / she was voted into power? Reminds me of a quote (Franklin, IIRC, but I might well be wrong, not being American):
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
This means that you would be okay with institutionalized racism ("I don't want to have to sell to them zipperheads!"), sexism ("I don't feel like selling to those stupid bitches!"), etc.
No, I wouldn't be okay with it. But I don't think I have the right to force them to do otherwise.
Sigh. The point is that the State should enforce laws against initiation of force - in this case, your murdering me would be a violation of that law, as would your forcing me to write programs under contract to a neo-NAZI organisation, or forcing me to modify my website for accesibility to the blind.
Erm, no I wouldn't, because it isn't - the principle is that no-one has the right to force a person to trade with someone whom that person doesn't want to trade.
ISN'T THIS WHAT A LARGE GROUP OF SLASHDOT READERS WANT!?!
Not at all - the State forcing companies to use non-MS standards is no better than the State forcing companies to use MS 'standards'. Don't get me wrong - I use W3C standards on my own site, which is entirely XHMTL + CSS, but I don't think it's the States right to force me to do so.
Southwest, however, has the cheapest fares in the area and already makes provisions in their business for blind passengers.
Which is their choice, and it's a commendable one.
Why is he a parasite? Why should incompetence of this magnitude be allowed, considering it's not exactly difficult? I just see it as an "incompetence tax"!
He is a parasite because he demands that others support him - note demands, not asks. I'd have no problem with him writing to the company and asking that they accomodate him. He became a parasite when he first called his lawyer, when he first decided that it was morally acceptable to force others to give to him.
Does the ADA personally put you out? How much? It makes the world of difference for blind and disabled people.
At the expense of the rights of others, and that's my whole point.
What do you want, an anarchy?
No I don't - and hopefully this will answer the other points you've made. I want a State that recognises the rights of the individual - and doesn't make the assumption that it's moral or permissible to apply force to individuals to coerce them into interacting with others against their will.
This is quite different from an anarchy - laws against the initiation of force and fraud must be upheld by State without bias, unlike in this case, where the State has decided that blind people are more important than sighted people. That's all it boils down to - the State has decided that it has the right to enforce the desires of a blind person over a sighted person, because the blind person is blind and the sighted person is sighted.
Because if you knew what the fuck you were doing WRT HTML, it would work for disabled people with zero effort. But since you don't, and are too stupid to learn better, it's now a "big deal".
My website is pure XHTML + CSS - I know what I'm doing w.r.t. website design. It's only a big deal in the case of this website because the designer chose not to accomodate blind people, and because at least one of his customers is blind, a parasite, and has access to a lawyer.
He shouldn't be the target of peoples misgivings about the ADA.
Yes he should - because he's using the law to destroy the rights of others to his own advantage. That's not moral, even if it is legal. He is a parasite in every sense of the word, and should be mocked, condemned, and shunned for it.
Put yourself in the blind guys shoes for a minute - consider how lucky you are.
So, does that give the State the right to consider his interests more imporant than my rights?
Or were people instead talking about COMMERCIAL sites? Commercial entities are not people, and, in general, don't make choices. It is very hard to hurt a legal document's feelings.
Are you saying that the rights of an individual are suddenly less important when dealing with others by way of trade? Or that the rights of individuals are less important when they form groups of their own volitions (e.g. companies, or clubs)? Your argument smacks of collectivism - that a business, because it interacts with society, should somehow be controlled and directed by society rather than by its owners. Finally, what the hell does hurting of feelings have to do with anything? Human rights didn't guarantee the right not to be offended, last time I checked.
Of course they have a reason to complain - they can't use the website provided by the company. The company has the right to do what they will with the complain - either ignore it, or act on it.
Slashdot Mirror
So, my money is a 'resource' to be allocated and redistributed? How would that 'resource' be there, if it wasn't for me?
Anyway, I'm not advocating a governmentless society - nor am I advocating an absence of law or clean water. Read my posts again. What I am advocating is the idea that paying for such with compulsory taxation is theft.
I know you don't see it, otherwise you wouldn't support it. The equivalence is that it's compulsorily funded - theft is theft. No matter whether a mugger spends his ill-gotten gains on a donation to charity, or a new car stereo, mugging is still wrong. Why don't you see the parallel here?
And that's your privilege. But what do you think gives you the right to pay for such largesse with other peoples money, taken from them by force? Furthermore, do you not see how asserting your right to redistribute other peoples money by force is morally equivalent to companies doing likewise, regardless of the outcome?
Flamebait? It's not flamebait - it's common sense. Substitute whinging bludging person with whinging bludging media company, and you get media levies instead of social welfare.
As long as people consider it the right of Government to steal from others through compulsory taxation, this is the kind of thing we'll be seeing. The only difference between this and compulsorily-funded social welfare is that the money is going to private companies, rather than private individuals.
On the topic of lobbying and other sundry immoralities ... how many of these cities have been speaking with representatives from companies that manufacture and operate taxis, buses, trains and automobiles? I doubt the Segway manufacturers were the only people talking about laws pertaining to Segway transport.
Not necessarily - not all words have to be represented by letters in an acronym; but you're right, in that case it should have been 'Incorrectly identified Flying Object'. And if I'm a silly fuck, you're a pedant :-)
Explanation for the hard-of-thinking: UFO == Unidentified Flying Object.
Thus, they are by definition UFOs, until we can correctly identify them. Making the jump from UFO to Alien Spacecraft is a bit much, however. 'UFO Magazines' like the one cited should actually be called 'IFO Magazines' - Incorrectly Identified Flying Objects :-)
The real question is 'is compulsory taxation moral'? I, and many others, argue that it isn't.
The author owns his property, the users use it under whatever terms he dictates. This is balance - the right to private property ownership, the right to dispense with ones property in a manner of ones choosing, without coercion.
Property ownership isn't time limited, so why should copyrights be so? I suspect that what you're proposing is more along the lines of a 'balance' between producers and looters. No thanks.
Okay, so worst case it made no net difference to the Russian space program. Even if you consider their past administrative balls-ups reason to disregard a $20M gain, Tito still gained a holiday.
Excuse me? I thought that Tito purchased an orbital holiday for ~ $20 million.
Now, I can imagine how much I'd enjoy an orbital holiday. It'd be a lot of fun: an exciting new sensation that I'd be unlikely (in the present climate) to experience ever again. I imagine Tito felt the same.
So, how was this purchase not productive? Tito gained (an orbital holiday), the Russians gained (money for the space project). I suspect your criticism of it as being unproductive is in part due to the fact that it was unashamedly self-interested (good on him for it!), and in part because you couldn't afford it yourself.
I must have missed something here. Are you a slave? Is your boss forcing you to work for him? No? It's your choice? He's paying you a sum on which you agreed?
It doesn't sound like he's making money at your expense, it sounds like he's making money and you're both gaining.
Fair enough - but do the TOS prohibit mods required to uncap? I must admit, I have assumed that the TOS either mentioned the cap or prohibited the mods; if not, then what the hell are they doing going after their users like that?
This is theft, pure and simple. I don't know why the FBI is involved, but arrests by armed officers and confiscation of evidence seems entirely reasonable to me.
So what you're saying is that if a group of people vote someone into power, that someone can violate my rights simply because he / she was voted into power? Reminds me of a quote (Franklin, IIRC, but I might well be wrong, not being American):
Kinda says it all, really.
No, I wouldn't be okay with it. But I don't think I have the right to force them to do otherwise.
Sigh. The point is that the State should enforce laws against initiation of force - in this case, your murdering me would be a violation of that law, as would your forcing me to write programs under contract to a neo-NAZI organisation, or forcing me to modify my website for accesibility to the blind.
Erm, no I wouldn't, because it isn't - the principle is that no-one has the right to force a person to trade with someone whom that person doesn't want to trade.
Not at all - the State forcing companies to use non-MS standards is no better than the State forcing companies to use MS 'standards'. Don't get me wrong - I use W3C standards on my own site, which is entirely XHMTL + CSS, but I don't think it's the States right to force me to do so.
Which is their choice, and it's a commendable one.
Exactly, so the second you have the State applying force on their behalf, where is the equality?
He is a parasite because he demands that others support him - note demands, not asks. I'd have no problem with him writing to the company and asking that they accomodate him. He became a parasite when he first called his lawyer, when he first decided that it was morally acceptable to force others to give to him.
At the expense of the rights of others, and that's my whole point.
No I don't - and hopefully this will answer the other points you've made. I want a State that recognises the rights of the individual - and doesn't make the assumption that it's moral or permissible to apply force to individuals to coerce them into interacting with others against their will.
This is quite different from an anarchy - laws against the initiation of force and fraud must be upheld by State without bias, unlike in this case, where the State has decided that blind people are more important than sighted people. That's all it boils down to - the State has decided that it has the right to enforce the desires of a blind person over a sighted person, because the blind person is blind and the sighted person is sighted.
My website is pure XHTML + CSS - I know what I'm doing w.r.t. website design. It's only a big deal in the case of this website because the designer chose not to accomodate blind people, and because at least one of his customers is blind, a parasite, and has access to a lawyer.
He shouldn't be the target of peoples misgivings about the ADA.
Yes he should - because he's using the law to destroy the rights of others to his own advantage. That's not moral, even if it is legal. He is a parasite in every sense of the word, and should be mocked, condemned, and shunned for it.
So, does that give the State the right to consider his interests more imporant than my rights?
Are you saying that the rights of an individual are suddenly less important when dealing with others by way of trade? Or that the rights of individuals are less important when they form groups of their own volitions (e.g. companies, or clubs)? Your argument smacks of collectivism - that a business, because it interacts with society, should somehow be controlled and directed by society rather than by its owners. Finally, what the hell does hurting of feelings have to do with anything? Human rights didn't guarantee the right not to be offended, last time I checked.
Of course they have a reason to complain - they can't use the website provided by the company. The company has the right to do what they will with the complain - either ignore it, or act on it.