"Oddly enough, it was mainly the so-called "progressives" on the court who voted to give the Big Bad Corporate World the legal means to get governments to push you out of your homes by promising to deliver better tax revenues with the land."
Not odd at all. Progressives believe individual rights take 2nd to public welfare. So if a "big bad business" generates more tax revenue on your land than you do, than progressives logically feel that the land should be taken to serve the public good. This is the same thinking that brought us the progressive tax system, where rich people pay a greater percentage of their income than poor people.
"The court is neither conservative nor liberal, it is primarily statist and authoritarian, as is most of our government right now.
Many liberals, including my self, were horrified at that ruling. Calling that ruling "liberal" merely shows that you have a deep failure to understand the term."
The decision is clearly an economically liberal decision. Socialists believe that the needs of the public can outweight individual rights. Therefore, if a community needs more tax dollars to benefit the public, they take your land and sell it to someone who can generate more tax dollars for the public good. Classic socialist decision. Economically conservative people believe in strict separation of business and govt., which means no favors for business from govt, as well as no unfair regualtion of business.
"Regarding the court, the Kelo v. New London was a "liberal" decision in that it tended to give a loose constructionist interpretation of the constitution. It was by no means in line with liberal political views. No one liked that decision except for statists and corporatists."
No, the decision was in line with the liberal view that the needs of the collective often outweigh the right of individuals. Just look at Marx.
""The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That in it's [sic] essence, is Fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any controlling private power."
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt, Message proposing the "Standard Oil" Monopoly Investigation, 1938 "
This was just fear mongering by Roosevelt. Standard Oil clearly had no real govt. influence, since the govt. destroyed them without any difficulty. In reality all standard oil did was lower the price of oil considerably for consumers because rockefeller was a genius.
I agree there should be a strict separation of govt. and business, but socialists like Roosevelt think govt. has the rights to dictate how businessmen behave, and you're surprised this power mainfests itself in ways that help businesses unfairly, as well as hurt then unfairly?
" This court is not center left it is neo-con! This is why it went for eminent domain. Neo-cons love corporations."
No. The liberal justices believe the govt. has a right to take your land "for the public good", even if that means giving it to another private citizen to develop something the govt. likes better.
The conservative justices believed this was an abuse of govt. power. Neocons believe in non-interference of govt. in business I believe, not govt. charity to businesses.
The fascist comment isn't that far off, though, but liberals can be fascist too. When you think the state is more important than the individual, as fascists and socialists do, individual rights get trampled.
" Makes you wish we had some Liberals in office... They actually balance budgets!"
Liberals can't balance the budget in CA. Why do you think they would be any better at it in Washington? Because Clinton balanced the budget during the dot-boom pyramid scheme?
from the article: ""If our residents are to be competitive in today's fast-paced, technology-driven global marketplace, our communities will require affordable high-speed, high-capacity access to data and information over the Internet," Rep. John Peterson, R-Penn., co-chairman of the Congressional Rural Caucus, said at a press conference held the day the letter was released. "If the private sector is either unwilling or unable to provide that service at an affordable price, we'll find a way to provide it for ourselves.""
So congress wants to pass a tax to improve broadband service. Weren't most/.ers bitching because Korea and Japan have better broadband access than the US. But now that/.ers have to pay for it, they're bitching about the taxes. Make up your minds already.
"And we live in a plutocracy [reference.com]. Although those whose income is in the top 5% pay 50% of the income tax (collectively), the remainder still pay a higher percentage of their income to make up the remainder.
There are two other things to remember:
The Golden Rule: He|She who has the gold makes the rules."
No, the people in the top tax bracket pay the greatest percentage of their income. The rule you're looking for is "democracy - 2 wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner.". The wealthy are in a minority. They only get favors for donations that politicians can keep under the radar.
" Why should the richest people in America pay taxes [nytimes.com], when they can just hire "personal Websters" to surf the Net for them, and pay their taxes out of their minimum wages [dol.gov]? Or just save that extra markup by outsourcing the Internet work to India? All the government does is stop rich people from making money. Why should they pay for it, when they can pay much less in campaign bribes^Wcontributions, to keep the little people in line, at their own expense?"
Your sarcaastic commnent is bs. In fact the top half of taxpayers pay over 95% of the federal tax burden. Liberals like Wes Clark suggested a family of 4 making $50K or less should pay no taxes. Progressive taxes do hurt everyone, since they make it more difficult for productive people capable of generating wealth honestly to employ people and provide goods and services people want. BTW, there's a difference between revenue and profit. If you generate a million dollars in revenue, but spend $900K, to get it, and you get taxed on 1 million, your $100K profit turns into a massive loss after you pay several hundred thousand in taxes on it.
""I want to talk about FOSS -- free and open source software. Now just to relay my bias, if you had to ask me what's the most important initial in free and open source software, to me, if you want to reach the broadest marketplace in the world there's one price that works for everyone, and that's free... and so the free part is what we've been focused on," said Schwartz."
By using the term 'free and open source', there should be no problem with defining free as 'free as in beer' since the 'open source' part implies free as in speech. The fact that he thinks the free as in beer part is the best part is his opinion, which he is entitled to have.
"$850 million to Microsoft? Pfft! They've probably lost that much on XBox sales and they're still going. Good thing they've got all those insanely profitable divisions and that $40 billion + cash reserve.
Of course IBM could, as the news suggests, hit them again for more money, it's hardly going to dent Microsoft. What they need is restraint or some measures with some teeth in them which raise the bar."
Who mods this crap up? Why don't you buy some stock in MS, and then see if you like arbitrary billion dollar judgements being passed against them based on vague laws that you don't know you've broken until you've been convicted.
" I wouldn't care quite so much if they only took a copy, though."
What if the value of your work became $0 because everyone was simply sharing it for free? People think there's no harm in simply making a copy, without understanding the economic consequences of what they're saying.
"every time I watch a DVD, it reminds me that the penalty for the unauthorized reproduction or distribution of copyrighted works, including those not for commercial gain, are investigated by the FBI and punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. IIRC, that's the same penalty you get for the distribution of CP. Seems like our priorities are screwed up somewhere (one way or the other)."
Taking a not-released movie and putting it on the internet probably cost more in lost revenue than, say, grand theft auto, cost the owner. I don't see 5 years as being too harsh. Maybe CP should be harsher.
"It would be interesting to see how much money this saved the movie industry - errr, I mean cost the rest of us (i.e. taxpayers) to fund this joint venture."
Tax revenue generated by selling movies and music probably outweighs copyright enforcement costs by such a large amount that the cost of enforcement is a good investment for the US govt.
Most people never even heard of an mp3 player before Apple started making them. From the article: "That was crucial because Rio doesn't advertise. The Carbon had to be its own salesman." Apple sells because people see ads for it on tv. Word of mouth can't start until you get some critical mass using your product.
"What would have been a better punishment for Microsoft would have been forcing them to open up their APIs and documentation, publish their source code, or split the company up into competing units, or revoke their license to do business."
Actually, how would the EU accomplish this, invade America? I think MS would abandon Europe's business before agreeing to split up their company or publish source. You might get an agreement on APIs?
"Fascist is when individuals/corporations control government to the detriment of the general population which is the current situation in the US."
They're really the same in practical terms. If govt. and industry are comingled, that's another way of saying govt. runs industry (or as you put it industry runs govt.). When govt. and industry comingle, those with govt. connections get their businesses and their special favors for their businesses, and those without suffer. So it's really the same as socialism, where govt. runs industry.
"The EU's decision, let's face it, was really fucking stupid and will do no good for anyone. Perhaps, instead, they should've done something more crippling, like take out Media Player in EVERY version and force people to download it. But no, that would hurt Microsoft more than not at all."
How the fuck would that benfit consumers? Im sick of morons getting modded up for anti-MS FUD. Oh my God, the world's going to collapse because MS can bundle a media player with their OS.
"Don't give distributors and consumers a choice. This is about unbundling Windows Media technology from Windows. If this is to be effective, it has to be mandatory.
Customers can still download all the media player software they want either from Microsoft, Real or QuickTime or whatever other sites.
Christian"
While we're at it, lets make Linux illegal. Clearly giving away software to get people hooked is an antitrust violation. It amazing how people who claim to believe in freedom turn into fascists the minute they get a little power against someone they don't like.
"What would have been a better punishment for Microsoft would have been forcing them to open up their APIs and documentation, publish their source code, or split the company up into competing units, or revoke their license to do business."
" It's not about CHOOSING which version of Windows you prefer. It's about The users HAVING TO CHOOSE which software they download.
And if they complain "hey, this doesn't include media player!", you can answer: "It's illegal for monopoly". Then they'll be FORCED to choose and download a product. Yes, sounds sad, but Microsoft FORCED them not to choose in the same way.
The XP N idea won't work if the old version is still available. Doh."
That is the dumbest thing I've heard in awhile. Lack of bundling only helps MS competitors and hurts consumers. If someone else can provide a media player that actually is significantly better than the MS one, people would download it. If not, then why hassle them? Unless you have an agenda to make life miserable for MS, which is what I suspect is your real motive. Given this is/., probably so. What's amusing is that/. supposedly doesn't like trolls or flamebait, but has MS icons on the front page that clearly contradict this philosophy.
From the article:
"Some 330 million tracks were purchased online last year from online stores such as Apple Computer Inc.'s iTunes. But around 5 billion were downloaded from free file-sharing networks, he said."
So maybe 35% of downloaders are legal, but they don't download as much, if so, since less than 1 in 10 downloads is legal
Slashdot Mirror
"Oddly enough, it was mainly the so-called "progressives" on the court who voted to give the Big Bad Corporate World the legal means to get governments to push you out of your homes by promising to deliver better tax revenues with the land."
Not odd at all. Progressives believe individual rights take 2nd to public welfare. So if a "big bad business" generates more tax revenue on your land than you do, than progressives logically feel that the land should be taken to serve the public good. This is the same thinking that brought us the progressive tax system, where rich people pay a greater percentage of their income than poor people.
"The court is neither conservative nor liberal, it is primarily statist and authoritarian, as is most of our government right now.
Many liberals, including my self, were horrified at that ruling. Calling that ruling "liberal" merely shows that you have a deep failure to understand the term."
The decision is clearly an economically liberal decision. Socialists believe that the needs of the public can outweight individual rights. Therefore, if a community needs more tax dollars to benefit the public, they take your land and sell it to someone who can generate more tax dollars for the public good. Classic socialist decision. Economically conservative people believe in strict separation of business and govt., which means no favors for business from govt, as well as no unfair regualtion of business.
"Regarding the court, the Kelo v. New London was a "liberal" decision in that it tended to give a loose constructionist interpretation of the constitution. It was by no means in line with liberal political views. No one liked that decision except for statists and corporatists."
No, the decision was in line with the liberal view that the needs of the collective often outweigh the right of individuals. Just look at Marx.
""The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That in it's [sic] essence, is Fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any controlling private power."
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt, Message proposing the "Standard Oil" Monopoly Investigation, 1938
"
This was just fear mongering by Roosevelt. Standard Oil clearly had no real govt. influence, since the govt. destroyed them without any difficulty. In reality all standard oil did was lower the price of oil considerably for consumers because rockefeller was a genius.
I agree there should be a strict separation of govt. and business, but socialists like Roosevelt think govt. has the rights to dictate how businessmen behave, and you're surprised this power mainfests itself in ways that help businesses unfairly, as well as hurt then unfairly?
" This court is not center left it is neo-con!
This is why it went for eminent domain.
Neo-cons love corporations."
No. The liberal justices believe the govt. has a right to take your land "for the public good", even if that means giving it to another private citizen to develop something the govt. likes better.
The conservative justices believed this was an abuse of govt. power. Neocons believe in non-interference of govt. in business I believe, not govt. charity to businesses.
The fascist comment isn't that far off, though, but liberals can be fascist too. When you think the state is more important than the individual, as fascists and socialists do, individual rights get trampled.
" Makes you wish we had some Liberals in office... They actually balance budgets!"
Liberals can't balance the budget in CA. Why do you think they would be any better at it in Washington? Because Clinton balanced the budget during the dot-boom pyramid scheme?
from the article:
/.ers bitching because Korea and Japan have better broadband access than the US. But now that /.ers have to pay for it, they're bitching about the taxes. Make up your minds already.
""If our residents are to be competitive in today's fast-paced, technology-driven global marketplace, our communities will require affordable high-speed, high-capacity access to data and information over the Internet," Rep. John Peterson, R-Penn., co-chairman of the Congressional Rural Caucus, said at a press conference held the day the letter was released. "If the private sector is either unwilling or unable to provide that service at an affordable price, we'll find a way to provide it for ourselves.""
So congress wants to pass a tax to improve broadband service. Weren't most
"And we live in a plutocracy [reference.com]. Although those whose income is in the top 5% pay 50% of the income tax (collectively), the remainder still pay a higher percentage of their income to make up the remainder.
There are two other things to remember:
The Golden Rule: He|She who has the gold makes the rules."
No, the people in the top tax bracket pay the greatest percentage of their income. The rule you're looking for is "democracy - 2 wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner.". The wealthy are in a minority. They only get favors for donations that politicians can keep under the radar.
" Why should the richest people in America pay taxes [nytimes.com], when they can just hire "personal Websters" to surf the Net for them, and pay their taxes out of their minimum wages [dol.gov]? Or just save that extra markup by outsourcing the Internet work to India? All the government does is stop rich people from making money. Why should they pay for it, when they can pay much less in campaign bribes^Wcontributions, to keep the little people in line, at their own expense?"
Your sarcaastic commnent is bs. In fact the top half of taxpayers pay over 95% of the federal tax burden. Liberals like Wes Clark suggested a family of 4 making $50K or less should pay no taxes. Progressive taxes do hurt everyone, since they make it more difficult for productive people capable of generating wealth honestly to employ people and provide goods and services people want.
BTW, there's a difference between revenue and profit. If you generate a million dollars in revenue, but spend $900K, to get it, and you get taxed on 1 million, your $100K profit turns into a massive loss after you pay several hundred thousand in taxes on it.
""I want to talk about FOSS -- free and open source software. Now just to relay my bias, if you had to ask me what's the most important initial in free and open source software, to me, if you want to reach the broadest marketplace in the world there's one price that works for everyone, and that's free... and so the free part is what we've been focused on," said Schwartz."
By using the term 'free and open source', there should be no problem with defining free as 'free as in beer' since the 'open source' part implies free as in speech. The fact that he thinks the free as in beer part is the best part is his opinion, which he is entitled to have.
"Microsoft will agree that OS/2 was murdered in the dark, if IBM agrees to install $75 million dollars worth of Windows products.
And this helps which company, again?"
Nice red herring. What about the other 3 quarters of a billion dollars MS has to pay IBM simply becuase MS beat them in a free market.
"$850 million to Microsoft? Pfft! They've probably lost that much on XBox sales and they're still going. Good thing they've got all those insanely profitable divisions and that $40 billion + cash reserve.
Of course IBM could, as the news suggests, hit them again for more money, it's hardly going to dent Microsoft. What they need is restraint or some measures with some teeth in them which raise the bar."
Who mods this crap up? Why don't you buy some stock in MS, and then see if you like arbitrary billion dollar judgements being passed against them based on vague laws that you don't know you've broken until you've been convicted.
" I wouldn't care quite so much if they only took a copy, though."
What if the value of your work became $0 because everyone was simply sharing it for free? People think there's no harm in simply making a copy, without understanding the economic consequences of what they're saying.
"every time I watch a DVD, it reminds me that the penalty for the unauthorized reproduction or distribution of copyrighted works, including those not for commercial gain, are investigated by the FBI and punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. IIRC, that's the same penalty you get for the distribution of CP. Seems like our priorities are screwed up somewhere (one way or the other)."
Taking a not-released movie and putting it on the internet probably cost more in lost revenue than, say, grand theft auto, cost the owner. I don't see 5 years as being too harsh. Maybe CP should be harsher.
"It would be interesting to see how much money this saved the movie industry - errr, I mean cost the rest of us (i.e. taxpayers) to fund this joint venture."
Tax revenue generated by selling movies and music probably outweighs copyright enforcement costs by such a large amount that the cost of enforcement is a good investment for the US govt.
Most people never even heard of an mp3 player before Apple started making them. From the article:
"That was crucial because Rio doesn't advertise. The Carbon had to be its own salesman."
Apple sells because people see ads for it on tv. Word of mouth can't start until you get some critical mass using your product.
"What would have been a better punishment for Microsoft would have been forcing them to open up their APIs and documentation, publish their source code, or split the company up into competing units, or revoke their license to do business."
Actually, how would the EU accomplish this, invade America? I think MS would abandon Europe's business before agreeing to split up their company or publish source. You might get an agreement on APIs?
"Fascist is when individuals/corporations control government to the detriment of the general population which is the current situation in the US."
They're really the same in practical terms. If govt. and industry are comingled, that's another way of saying govt. runs industry (or as you put it industry runs govt.). When govt. and industry comingle, those with govt. connections get their businesses and their special favors for their businesses, and those without suffer. So it's really the same as socialism, where govt. runs industry.
"The EU's decision, let's face it, was really fucking stupid and will do no good for anyone. Perhaps, instead, they should've done something more crippling, like take out Media Player in EVERY version and force people to download it. But no, that would hurt Microsoft more than not at all."
How the fuck would that benfit consumers? Im sick of morons getting modded up for anti-MS FUD. Oh my God, the world's going to collapse because MS can bundle a media player with their OS.
"Don't give distributors and consumers a choice. This is about unbundling Windows Media technology from Windows. If this is to be effective, it has to be mandatory.
Customers can still download all the media player software they want either from Microsoft, Real or QuickTime or whatever other sites.
Christian"
While we're at it, lets make Linux illegal. Clearly giving away software to get people hooked is an antitrust violation. It amazing how people who claim to believe in freedom turn into fascists the minute they get a little power against someone they don't like.
From the article:
"It's a militant act for a customer to buy the new version," he said.
"What would have been a better punishment for Microsoft would have been forcing them to open up their APIs and documentation, publish their source code, or split the company up into competing units, or revoke their license to do business."
Fascist.
" It's not about CHOOSING which version of Windows you prefer.
/., probably so. What's amusing is that /. supposedly doesn't like trolls or flamebait, but has MS icons on the front page that clearly contradict this philosophy.
It's about The users HAVING TO CHOOSE which software they download.
And if they complain "hey, this doesn't include media player!", you can answer: "It's illegal for monopoly". Then they'll be FORCED to choose and download a product. Yes, sounds sad, but Microsoft FORCED them not to choose in the same way.
The XP N idea won't work if the old version is still available. Doh."
That is the dumbest thing I've heard in awhile. Lack of bundling only helps MS competitors and hurts consumers. If someone else can provide a media player that actually is significantly better than the MS one, people would download it. If not, then why hassle them? Unless you have an agenda to make life miserable for MS, which is what I suspect is your real motive. Given this is
From the article:
"Some 330 million tracks were purchased online last year from online stores such as Apple Computer Inc.'s iTunes. But around 5 billion were downloaded from free file-sharing networks, he said."
So maybe 35% of downloaders are legal, but they don't download as much, if so, since less than 1 in 10 downloads is legal
" A constitutional amendment to ban this "imminent domain" shit instead of an anti-flagburning amendment would fix this."
It already exists. It's in the 5th amendment.