Exactly. People shop/work/do business with Wal-mart because it makes sense for them. If dealing with Apple makes more sense for Disney than dealing with Wal-mart then they will do it. Wal-mart doesn't even have a monopoly. The way Wal-mart forces competitors out of business is via competition. People say, oh, but their prices are low when they open and then go up! Exactly, which business that is still around doesn't do that?
You don't attract people with high prices.
Generally the US lobbies for things in the US interest. Many people confuse democracies with republican government. The reason the US doesn't like Chavez is because he threatens their interests and is not interested in a free society. Democracy says nothing about freedom. Tyranny of the majority anyone? If the choice comes between a democratically elected leader who wants to kill you or a dictator who doesn't I'll take the dictator any day of the week.
*GASP* manipulating the market. Oh noes!
In a market free of regulation when one company tries to jack up the prices other companies simply sell their excess. Who cares if Enron was shutting down their generators. They don't have a monopoly and they weren't colluding with competitors to raise prices. If it wasn't for regulation the market would simply restablish equilibrium. Generally unless a real condition of oversupply exists it isn't in the companies best interest to reduce production.
The problem is that the banks aren't taking appropriate steps to identify the customer before handing over the customer's money. Banks are legislated/insured to only release money to the authorized account holder. When the customer takes reasonable steps to protect their information and follows the banks security procedures they are not responsible for loss.
By putting in place technology that doesn't sufficiently protect the reasonable person from fraud the banks bring the liabilty to themselves. The reason you put money into the bank and pay fees is to prevent unauthorized persons from accessing your money and to provide insurance against such a loss. It is the banks job to put in-place controls and cover the losses that arise from insufficient controls. It is a balancing act between what the consumer wants to put up with in security and what they want to pay for service. It is the banks job to find the equilibrium between the cost of increased controls and the cost of fraud. After all it is the bank not the consumer who is offering the service of withdrawl over the internet.
A good step in the right direction might be two factor authentication.
Sorry, but one screw up is not going to contaminate the entire world's food supply. Do you seriously believe that?
Honestly, if people don't want GM food let them speak for themselves.
Children have less rights, and even as an adult your rights in the US are curtailed by age. Being President and being able to drink just to name two common examples.
The problem is that even if we assume that a terrorist has no other distinguishing features from a normal person and that searching them always yields them getting caught that even if you random sample 50% of people. 50% of terrorists still get through.
The funny thing is that microwave ovens are extremely narrow band. They are tuned to the resonance frequency of water. Shift it up a few Mhz and it suddenly becomes a lot less effective at heating.
It's a problem called free-list errosion. Windows will swap out apps to make room for buffer cache. So when WoW reads a 2GB file, all your programs end up swapped out to disk.
That's the great thing about capitalism. If you don't like it you can always walk with your wallet. No one said Universal is going to get rid of CDs. Don't like ads on TV? Buy the season DVD.
Incase you haven't noticed not a lot of money goes to the artist. If artists want more money they just need to switch labels / start their own. Whats that getting a bad deal from indie labels? Well, then what hte records companies are offering artists is the BEST deal.
You'd give up the information age to stop soemone from spanking their kid?
You sir are a moron.
Also, how would Google giving up the information stop child abuse? If it is for a criminal investigation then the abuse has already occured. Thus, Google giving up the information in no way would reduce child abuse.
In my opinion whenever a anyone makes the gov't cross their Is and dot their Ts is a good thing. We don't know that the charges are legit or anything else about the case. That is the point of the justice system. What Brazil needs to do is supeona Google USA, and present a compelling case for giving up the information. The gov't simply asserting something is true does not make it so.
The world isn't black and white, it's full of shades of gray.
Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
It's not hard to go through the proper channels to supeona information regarding criminal prosecution. Google Brazil is a separate entity from Google USA. Google Brazil CAN'T be forced to give up the information because it doesn't have it. It's like if I moved to Brazil and they supeona'd me for information my father had. It isn't mine to give up, not to mention I don't have it.
Umm... the 7 year thing comes from the Mosaic code, not magnetic backup media. Something about all debts being forgiven after 7 years.
It has nothing to do with magnetic storage and has been part of British Common law for centuries.
Yes that is EXACTLY what a monopoly is. Who cares how they are to make money. How are lobbyists to make money with out a corrupt Congress? Not being able to make money is not a reason for gov't intrusion into the market. Hey, I can't make money unless the gov't gets rid of my competition. Quit being a cry baby and start competing. If someone is stealing someones product and reselling it that is known as fencing and is a legitimate crime. Copying is not, then you start competiting on ability to make the product.
Sure they do, they can sell their work. It's not my fault if their work is worth nothing with out monopoly.
People deserve to make money from their work in a free market. They do not deserve to make money by extortion via government granted monopoly.
Something being illegal does not make it wrong. The two are not interchangeable. Theft is wrong, copying someone else is not. According to your logic everytime I make my own hamburger instead of buying one from McDonalds I am depriving some snot nosed kid of a living. Do burger flippers not deserve to make money from their works? Of course they do, but if you can do it better, faster, cheaper, etc too bad for them.
Yes. IP is gov't intrusion into the free market. There is nothing wrong with using another persons work and making money off it. What is wrong is depriving them of their work. ie. Ernst Hemingway just finished the sole copy of a novel and I steal it depriving him of selling it. Me making a COPY of his novel is not wrong, because it does not deprive him of his novel.
If Bob does a whole bunch of research and finds out that painting your fence blue will increase the value of your house by X and I see Bob paint his fence blue, there is nothing wrong with me painting my fence blue.
Copyright is government intrusion into a free market. The only people who make money from distribution are *gasp* the distributors. If you eliminate copyright you have free competition for distribution. There are lots of ways artists can make money with out needing to ask the government for a monopoly. That artists need copyright is as silly as thinking that bakeries need the government to give them a zone in which no one else can compete. There is no such thing as intellectual property, the intellect is unlimited. No one loses anything by me using your idea. You still have the use of your idea thus I have no deprived you of use of it. (Otherwise known as stealing).
From my understanding the US prision population is comprised mainly of drug offenders, not people who were stealing TVs to pay medical bills. Here is what I'd do if I couldn't pay my insane medical bill. Divorce my wife, put all assets in her name, all debts in mine. A year or two later, after racking up more credit to pay off the existing credit, declare bankruptcy. (You want to give the appearance that you didn't do exactly what everyone knows you just did.
Welcome to slashdot, where when you sell records and cling to outdated pricing models we flame you but when you are tech support clinging to outdated pricing models (wage expectations) then you need the gov't to help you.
Both are government interference in trade but we think because its us getting the benefit of law making that its ok.
Nevermind the millions who aren't tech support who just want cheap computers like we want cheap music, video, etc.
The funny thing is all of your ideas ARE anti-capitalist. No one is accusing you of being anti-capitalist, you are simply proposing solutions that are anti-capitalist.
Whether capitalism benefits or does not benefit us doesn't make your ideas any more or less capitalist. Just because people will turn to welfare if insurance doesnt exist, doesn't make welfare any less socialist. Welfare is simply one aspect of socialism in the American government. It doesn't make any sense to try and avoid socialism through more socialism. If the law that made tarrifs eliminated welfare then maybe you would have a point.
At least most capitalists have the balls to call their ideas capitalism rather than trying to label socialism capitalism. Just say it, you like socialist policies. I don't in general, but it's a free country so no one is going to put you in the gulag or send you to be reeducated cutting sugar cane if you want to change a law.
I don't need to "flame" you for being anti-capitalist its clear to anyone who can read and knows what capitalism means knows that the state using taxation to redistribute wealth is as anti-capitalist as it comes. Exactly which of your ideas aren't anti-capitalist?
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. People shop/work/do business with Wal-mart because it makes sense for them. If dealing with Apple makes more sense for Disney than dealing with Wal-mart then they will do it. Wal-mart doesn't even have a monopoly. The way Wal-mart forces competitors out of business is via competition. People say, oh, but their prices are low when they open and then go up! Exactly, which business that is still around doesn't do that? You don't attract people with high prices.
Generally the US lobbies for things in the US interest. Many people confuse democracies with republican government. The reason the US doesn't like Chavez is because he threatens their interests and is not interested in a free society. Democracy says nothing about freedom. Tyranny of the majority anyone? If the choice comes between a democratically elected leader who wants to kill you or a dictator who doesn't I'll take the dictator any day of the week.
Yeah, heaven forbid the US government lobbies other nations for things beneficial to its citizens.
*GASP* manipulating the market. Oh noes! In a market free of regulation when one company tries to jack up the prices other companies simply sell their excess. Who cares if Enron was shutting down their generators. They don't have a monopoly and they weren't colluding with competitors to raise prices. If it wasn't for regulation the market would simply restablish equilibrium. Generally unless a real condition of oversupply exists it isn't in the companies best interest to reduce production.
The problem is that the banks aren't taking appropriate steps to identify the customer before handing over the customer's money. Banks are legislated/insured to only release money to the authorized account holder. When the customer takes reasonable steps to protect their information and follows the banks security procedures they are not responsible for loss.
By putting in place technology that doesn't sufficiently protect the reasonable person from fraud the banks bring the liabilty to themselves. The reason you put money into the bank and pay fees is to prevent unauthorized persons from accessing your money and to provide insurance against such a loss. It is the banks job to put in-place controls and cover the losses that arise from insufficient controls. It is a balancing act between what the consumer wants to put up with in security and what they want to pay for service. It is the banks job to find the equilibrium between the cost of increased controls and the cost of fraud. After all it is the bank not the consumer who is offering the service of withdrawl over the internet.
A good step in the right direction might be two factor authentication.
Sorry, but one screw up is not going to contaminate the entire world's food supply. Do you seriously believe that? Honestly, if people don't want GM food let them speak for themselves.
Children have less rights, and even as an adult your rights in the US are curtailed by age. Being President and being able to drink just to name two common examples.
The problem is that even if we assume that a terrorist has no other distinguishing features from a normal person and that searching them always yields them getting caught that even if you random sample 50% of people. 50% of terrorists still get through.
The funny thing is that microwave ovens are extremely narrow band. They are tuned to the resonance frequency of water. Shift it up a few Mhz and it suddenly becomes a lot less effective at heating.
It's a problem called free-list errosion. Windows will swap out apps to make room for buffer cache. So when WoW reads a 2GB file, all your programs end up swapped out to disk.
That's the great thing about capitalism. If you don't like it you can always walk with your wallet. No one said Universal is going to get rid of CDs. Don't like ads on TV? Buy the season DVD.
Incase you haven't noticed not a lot of money goes to the artist. If artists want more money they just need to switch labels / start their own. Whats that getting a bad deal from indie labels? Well, then what hte records companies are offering artists is the BEST deal.
You'd give up the information age to stop soemone from spanking their kid?
You sir are a moron.
Also, how would Google giving up the information stop child abuse? If it is for a criminal investigation then the abuse has already occured. Thus, Google giving up the information in no way would reduce child abuse.
In my opinion whenever a anyone makes the gov't cross their Is and dot their Ts is a good thing. We don't know that the charges are legit or anything else about the case. That is the point of the justice system. What Brazil needs to do is supeona Google USA, and present a compelling case for giving up the information. The gov't simply asserting something is true does not make it so.
The world isn't black and white, it's full of shades of gray.
Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
It's not hard to go through the proper channels to supeona information regarding criminal prosecution. Google Brazil is a separate entity from Google USA. Google Brazil CAN'T be forced to give up the information because it doesn't have it. It's like if I moved to Brazil and they supeona'd me for information my father had. It isn't mine to give up, not to mention I don't have it.
Actually, the whole rating system is by honour. In most place you can sell an M rated game to whoever you want.
They should have been made of Rearden metal and this would not have happend.
Umm... the 7 year thing comes from the Mosaic code, not magnetic backup media. Something about all debts being forgiven after 7 years. It has nothing to do with magnetic storage and has been part of British Common law for centuries.
Yes that is EXACTLY what a monopoly is. Who cares how they are to make money. How are lobbyists to make money with out a corrupt Congress? Not being able to make money is not a reason for gov't intrusion into the market. Hey, I can't make money unless the gov't gets rid of my competition. Quit being a cry baby and start competing. If someone is stealing someones product and reselling it that is known as fencing and is a legitimate crime. Copying is not, then you start competiting on ability to make the product.
Sure they do, they can sell their work. It's not my fault if their work is worth nothing with out monopoly. People deserve to make money from their work in a free market. They do not deserve to make money by extortion via government granted monopoly. Something being illegal does not make it wrong. The two are not interchangeable. Theft is wrong, copying someone else is not. According to your logic everytime I make my own hamburger instead of buying one from McDonalds I am depriving some snot nosed kid of a living. Do burger flippers not deserve to make money from their works? Of course they do, but if you can do it better, faster, cheaper, etc too bad for them.
Yes. IP is gov't intrusion into the free market. There is nothing wrong with using another persons work and making money off it. What is wrong is depriving them of their work. ie. Ernst Hemingway just finished the sole copy of a novel and I steal it depriving him of selling it. Me making a COPY of his novel is not wrong, because it does not deprive him of his novel. If Bob does a whole bunch of research and finds out that painting your fence blue will increase the value of your house by X and I see Bob paint his fence blue, there is nothing wrong with me painting my fence blue.
Copyright is government intrusion into a free market. The only people who make money from distribution are *gasp* the distributors. If you eliminate copyright you have free competition for distribution. There are lots of ways artists can make money with out needing to ask the government for a monopoly. That artists need copyright is as silly as thinking that bakeries need the government to give them a zone in which no one else can compete. There is no such thing as intellectual property, the intellect is unlimited. No one loses anything by me using your idea. You still have the use of your idea thus I have no deprived you of use of it. (Otherwise known as stealing).
From my understanding the US prision population is comprised mainly of drug offenders, not people who were stealing TVs to pay medical bills. Here is what I'd do if I couldn't pay my insane medical bill. Divorce my wife, put all assets in her name, all debts in mine. A year or two later, after racking up more credit to pay off the existing credit, declare bankruptcy. (You want to give the appearance that you didn't do exactly what everyone knows you just did.
The press should have no greater freedom than anyone else. Rather, we should all enjoy the same freedom reporters do.
Welcome to slashdot, where when you sell records and cling to outdated pricing models we flame you but when you are tech support clinging to outdated pricing models (wage expectations) then you need the gov't to help you.
Both are government interference in trade but we think because its us getting the benefit of law making that its ok.
Nevermind the millions who aren't tech support who just want cheap computers like we want cheap music, video, etc.
The funny thing is all of your ideas ARE anti-capitalist. No one is accusing you of being anti-capitalist, you are simply proposing solutions that are anti-capitalist.
Whether capitalism benefits or does not benefit us doesn't make your ideas any more or less capitalist. Just because people will turn to welfare if insurance doesnt exist, doesn't make welfare any less socialist. Welfare is simply one aspect of socialism in the American government. It doesn't make any sense to try and avoid socialism through more socialism. If the law that made tarrifs eliminated welfare then maybe you would have a point.
At least most capitalists have the balls to call their ideas capitalism rather than trying to label socialism capitalism. Just say it, you like socialist policies. I don't in general, but it's a free country so no one is going to put you in the gulag or send you to be reeducated cutting sugar cane if you want to change a law.
I don't need to "flame" you for being anti-capitalist its clear to anyone who can read and knows what capitalism means knows that the state using taxation to redistribute wealth is as anti-capitalist as it comes. Exactly which of your ideas aren't anti-capitalist?
I've heard it comes bundled with Duke Nukem Forever.