Just for the sake of argument...
Here's a question for all you people with an economic background: If there is a finite demand for a product, and a supply that's sufficient to satisfy any degree of demand, how much is the product worth?
Why, whatever the RIAA-SS SAYS it's worth, of course!...what's wrong with this picture? Anyone?
Re:the tech side CANNOT be stopped - fight the TCP
on
Stopping Palladium?
·
· Score: 1
Seriously? They're really trying to impose a more serious punishment for resisting metaphorical rape than committing literal rape?
One good idea here is to stop voting Big Business's Bitches (GOP) into office after office. You can argue that the democrats aren't much better, and it's true that some certainly aren't, but in this kind of fight any difference is significant.
Good point. Unfortunately, that comparison has about as much validity as phlogiston chemistry. In both cases we're protesting an attempt to impose controls where they not only don't belong but do far more harm than good.
If you're so uninvolved in your kids' lives that you have to depend on software to keep them from accessing "harmful" content (or are dumb enough to believe that most of it is even damaging in the first place--I'm living proof it isn't ^_^), you have a much bigger problem than just issues with open source.
I disagree with blaming this entirely on parents. I see the situation as being analogous to the following:
There is a zoo where a dangerous animal, say, a tiger, is trapped in a traditional iron-bar cage. Little kids who come to the zoo love to taunt the tiger: throwing things at it, poking it with sticks, etc. Their parents and the zookeepers occasionally tell them to stop, or that it's not nice, but they don't *do* anything to stop it, and the kids know they won't. One day the tiger hurls itself at the cage in anger and pain, smashes into the door, breaks the padlock right off of it, jumps out through the now-open door, and mauls a few kids before the zookeepers manage to put it down. The kids' parents then sue the Discovery Channel, claiming its depictions of predatory animals hunting and killing caused the attack.
There is no excuse for murder, and I am not trying to make any. But I think that the root cause of the problem here is the horrifying way that kids and teenagers treat each other. Conventional words like "teasing" fall far, far short of capturing the hurt and alienation that derives from the unceasing condescension, mocking, and mindless, hateful intolerance of most kids and adolescents. After the Columbine shooting, I truthfully had other students come over and ask me whether they would be the first to die "when" I "shot up the school," and thus I speak from experience; unlike the vast majority who dismiss such bullying as trivial or even healthy (WTMF?) peer interaction, I actually have some idea of how it *feels* to be on the receiving end of it. I have generally found that others' comments are more an annoyance than any source of lowered self-esteem or actual hurt, but I know that others are not so lucky. While I would never take a human life except in defense of myself or others, I can certainly understand how those who have experienced what I have, or worse, would turn to thoughts of bloodshed and retribution. It is entirely reasonable, but flagrantly unrealistic, to expect kids and teens to stop being such complete bastards to one another. It is apparently as unrealistic to expect school administrators to get off their lazy asses and *do* something *effective* about the way students treat each other, and for parents to actually pay some attention to their kids' behavior toward others. Either of these steps, however, would drastically reduce the likelihood of school shootings by eliminating the motive. But then again, I guess, as they say, boys (and girls) will be little babies. And school administrators will continue to shirk the responsibility, of making school a safe and tolerable place to learn for ALL students, that goes with their jobs.
Let me put this simply: you are an idiot.
The objection here is not based on anything we have to hide. It is a matter of principle. However you choose to read the legalese, the BSA's actions are highly inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution and United States law, and are unreasonable and insulting. More simply, even if it is possible to twist the interpretation of the laws so that they SEEM to show the organization's actions as legal, those actions are wrong.
To state that the ethicality or defensibility of an organization's actions is irrelevant as long as they're "allowed" to perform them is itself indefensible. Under the rules of their order, the Nazis were "allowed" to massacre the Jews. Was the holocaust therefore right, or its morality irrelevant?
The BSA is a private party, yes? So it's not like the police searching through the refrigerator, etc. It's like the *grocery store* sending thugs over to search your refrigerator.
Ever since I read 1984 I've been afraid that major corporations might try to create a similar order, founded on distorted capitalist rather than socialist principles. It's nice to know I'm not crazy, even if this is on a small scale, but goddamn....
Actually, I've found that XP works pretty decently for games. I have a few problems with older stuff, like Quake and Build Engine games, but a decent amount of memory, a good 3D card, and a memory freeing program help enormously. }:) And in most other areas, it's a significant step up from ME, but then again, so is a horse's ass. Once you get rid of the loser-friendly wizard features and cutesy graphical shit, it's certainly more stable than ME. Of course, I have XP Pro, so...
Slashdot Mirror
Just for the sake of argument... Here's a question for all you people with an economic background: If there is a finite demand for a product, and a supply that's sufficient to satisfy any degree of demand, how much is the product worth? Why, whatever the RIAA-SS SAYS it's worth, of course! ...what's wrong with this picture? Anyone?
Seriously? They're really trying to impose a more serious punishment for resisting metaphorical rape than committing literal rape? One good idea here is to stop voting Big Business's Bitches (GOP) into office after office. You can argue that the democrats aren't much better, and it's true that some certainly aren't, but in this kind of fight any difference is significant.
Good point. Unfortunately, that comparison has about as much validity as phlogiston chemistry. In both cases we're protesting an attempt to impose controls where they not only don't belong but do far more harm than good.
If you're so uninvolved in your kids' lives that you have to depend on software to keep them from accessing "harmful" content (or are dumb enough to believe that most of it is even damaging in the first place--I'm living proof it isn't ^_^), you have a much bigger problem than just issues with open source.
I disagree with blaming this entirely on parents. I see the situation as being analogous to the following:
There is a zoo where a dangerous animal, say, a tiger, is trapped in a traditional iron-bar cage. Little kids who come to the zoo love to taunt the tiger: throwing things at it, poking it with sticks, etc. Their parents and the zookeepers occasionally tell them to stop, or that it's not nice, but they don't *do* anything to stop it, and the kids know they won't. One day the tiger hurls itself at the cage in anger and pain, smashes into the door, breaks the padlock right off of it, jumps out through the now-open door, and mauls a few kids before the zookeepers manage to put it down. The kids' parents then sue the Discovery Channel, claiming its depictions of predatory animals hunting and killing caused the attack.
There is no excuse for murder, and I am not trying to make any. But I think that the root cause of the problem here is the horrifying way that kids and teenagers treat each other. Conventional words like "teasing" fall far, far short of capturing the hurt and alienation that derives from the unceasing condescension, mocking, and mindless, hateful intolerance of most kids and adolescents. After the Columbine shooting, I truthfully had other students come over and ask me whether they would be the first to die "when" I "shot up the school," and thus I speak from experience; unlike the vast majority who dismiss such bullying as trivial or even healthy (WTMF?) peer interaction, I actually have some idea of how it *feels* to be on the receiving end of it. I have generally found that others' comments are more an annoyance than any source of lowered self-esteem or actual hurt, but I know that others are not so lucky. While I would never take a human life except in defense of myself or others, I can certainly understand how those who have experienced what I have, or worse, would turn to thoughts of bloodshed and retribution. It is entirely reasonable, but flagrantly unrealistic, to expect kids and teens to stop being such complete bastards to one another. It is apparently as unrealistic to expect school administrators to get off their lazy asses and *do* something *effective* about the way students treat each other, and for parents to actually pay some attention to their kids' behavior toward others. Either of these steps, however, would drastically reduce the likelihood of school shootings by eliminating the motive. But then again, I guess, as they say, boys (and girls) will be little babies. And school administrators will continue to shirk the responsibility, of making school a safe and tolerable place to learn for ALL students, that goes with their jobs.
Let me put this simply: you are an idiot. The objection here is not based on anything we have to hide. It is a matter of principle. However you choose to read the legalese, the BSA's actions are highly inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution and United States law, and are unreasonable and insulting. More simply, even if it is possible to twist the interpretation of the laws so that they SEEM to show the organization's actions as legal, those actions are wrong. To state that the ethicality or defensibility of an organization's actions is irrelevant as long as they're "allowed" to perform them is itself indefensible. Under the rules of their order, the Nazis were "allowed" to massacre the Jews. Was the holocaust therefore right, or its morality irrelevant?
The BSA is a private party, yes? So it's not like the police searching through the refrigerator, etc. It's like the *grocery store* sending thugs over to search your refrigerator. Ever since I read 1984 I've been afraid that major corporations might try to create a similar order, founded on distorted capitalist rather than socialist principles. It's nice to know I'm not crazy, even if this is on a small scale, but goddamn....
Actually, I've found that XP works pretty decently for games. I have a few problems with older stuff, like Quake and Build Engine games, but a decent amount of memory, a good 3D card, and a memory freeing program help enormously. }:) And in most other areas, it's a significant step up from ME, but then again, so is a horse's ass. Once you get rid of the loser-friendly wizard features and cutesy graphical shit, it's certainly more stable than ME. Of course, I have XP Pro, so...