Depending on the sw you run, a computer can be harmful to learning. It's kind of like giving a 1st grader a pocket calculator. They don't learn the basics of arithmetic if they can simply punch up the answer on their calculators. Similarly, laptops can be detrimental, even in college, if students are running mathematica instead of learning how to actually solve calculus problems.
People keep saying this, but in the end, if you're downloading a hundred songs, 0 is a hell of a lot better price than $99, particularly if you're a teenager. This is not the 1st music service online, and none of them get significant use in comparison with kazaa/limewire, etc. All your reasons are secondary to cost for the average person, who's in no hurry to get the song, and thinks 128bit mp3 is good enough.
"The employer of the scientists, AquaPharm Bio-Discovery Limited, the story notes 'is keeping the identity of its MRSA-killing bacteria a closely guarded secret, and taken out patents on how they can be cultivated and used.'"
Without the employer of the scientists, there would be no antibiotic, since these scientists need a paycheck. Without the ability to patent drugs there would be no employer since there would be no incentive to spend money developing drugs. Therefore, without patents, there would be no anitbiotic for staph infections. QED.
If a lot of people want motherboards that support legacy PCI, when PCIexpress is around, someone will build a motherboard that supports it. It's simple economics. PCs aren't like Macs, where there's only one hardware supplier.
There's something wrong with something when both business leaders AND union leaders agree it's wrong. Communism doesn't solve poverty. It merely reduces the incentive to work, creating more poverty.
"What kind of gov't praises the overthrow of a democratically elected leader?"
A govt. that suppresses freedon, even by the consent of the majority, is wrong. Communism is immoral because it takes away the freedom to own the product of your work. Chavez believes this is moral, and he should be overthrown. BTW, he's practically rewriting the constitution and locking up strike leaders. Apparently you don't have the freedom to strike in Venezuela now.
Reverse engineering IP has nothing to do with copyright. I don't understand how a law designed to protect copyright is protecting IP. Is the DMCA overly broad, or being misinterpreted? It shouldn't be illegal to modify or sell reverse engineered hardware that isn't patented. I thought the DMCA only applied when the mods allowed access to encrypted copyrighted material? The DMCA seems overly broad, even by the standards of the copyright protection advocates.
Again, the point of the junk FAX laws is preventing an advertizer from wasting a target's resources in terms of paper and ink. They govt. seems less likely to consider bandwidth and disk space in the same light. So unless the govt. changes their mind, it will be difficult to equate spam with junk faxes. This stunt will get shot down if it becomes popular.
"The eventual goal of moves like this would be to push non-Bells out of VoIP so they can then have yet another monopoly."
This doesn't make sense. If VoIP is taxed, Bells would have to pay the tax as well. What they don't like is unfair regulation on telephony, while VoIP is unregulated.
"I received this email using a dial up phone line connection and printed the message."
It seems to me the junk FAX doesn't apply unless you automatically print out all your e-mail. Otherwise, you're not using paper and ink for an unsolicited ad. Voluntarily printing out an e-mail just to take the spammer to court sounds like it oversteps the bounds of the law since at this point you chose to use the printer, not the spammer. I'm surprised any judge would convict. It probably will be overturned if it becoomes a big problem for spammers. People have been trying unsuccessfully to use the junk FAX laws to prosecute spammers for years now.
Power has never been deregulated in CA in recent history for any appreciable amount of time. The final cost a consumer pays has always been set by the govt. It's regulation, not deregulation that causeed the CA power crisis. Regulation removed incentive to build power plants in CA, even though increased demand was obvious, because the profit wasn't enough to offset risk. The Govts. answer was to depend on buying power from other states. These states gouged CA, knowing they would have no alternative because they didn't have enough power of their own. Deregulation would cause a short term rise in prices, but ultimately lower prices as more competitors enter markets to compete aginst gouging monopolies.
I helped design some chips last year that brought in over a million in revenue in just prototypes, and we're still in the red. I didn't make a great deal of money in salary, and that's reasonable. I'm not risking millions of dollars on our venture. Similarly, the artists are a risk. They don't deserve a huge return when they're taking little risk. No one's twisting their arms for those record contracts they're bitching about it. Before the contract offer was made, they were begging for the opportunity.
"as per the article, only 128 of some 30,000 records released in 2002 were so privileged"
How much money did the record companies actually make when they probably lost money on 29,872 albums? Record labels take all the risks on new bands. They deserve the money. Once you have a gold record, you are in a better position to negotiate a better contract for your second album. What's the complaint anyway? The band accepted the contract voluntarily? No one forced them.
"But the point here is, why should performers think they're entitled to make hundreds of thousands, or millions of dollars a year? Because of their "ART"? Give me a break."
You've missed the point. They're work is considered more valuable than yours because people are willing to pay them more. It is immoral to undermine the value of their work though theft, however, and even more immoral to justify it by claiming it's not worth anything at the same time you're stealing it. In free societies, people have the right to free trade. Piracy is an infringement on free trade since the producer is forced to accept $0 for his efforts and left powerless to negotiate what he considers a fair price. To do so undermines the basic right of an individual to own the product of his labor.
They should be rewarded to the extent that people feel their efforts are worth. Thats the basis of free trade and capitalism. Apparently, society thinks musicians work is of greater value than yours. They've voted with their dollars, which is to say they're more willing to trade their own productive work for music than than for whatever you contribute to society. Worth of labor is dictated by whatever society is willing trade for it. Society is a collection of individuals. If they thought your work was worth more than $100K a year, someone would pay you more. So apparently your work is not as beneficial to society as that of successful musicians, as decided by the amount people are willing to pay you for your contributions.
Communism is an over-reaction to feudalism, which is based on an aristocracy that owns land taken by force instead of earning it. Both systems are repressive. You may be right in that the leaders in China are using the ideology of Communism to mask a feudalistic system. That way they still control all the wealth with the added benefit that they claim their motives are altruistic. America definitely has many socialistic practices, such as the tax system, welfare, social security, and public roads, as you've mentioned. Unfortunately, as long as Democrats are being elected, these things will not change.
Slashdot Mirror
Depending on the sw you run, a computer can be harmful to learning. It's kind of like giving a 1st grader a pocket calculator. They don't learn the basics of arithmetic if they can simply punch up the answer on their calculators. Similarly, laptops can be detrimental, even in college, if students are running mathematica instead of learning how to actually solve calculus problems.
Companies are developing technogy to transmit 40Gb/s over fiber per wavelength.
Are they available on aKazaa for free yet?
Actually, only got the 1st "it's" right.
it's is short for it is.
its is possessive for it.
the parent used "it's" correctly, I believe
"If an album cost $4 online, and they'll let you do whatever you like with the music, why would you steal?"
Because my friend already downloaded it, and said he'd give it to me for $2.
People keep saying this, but in the end, if you're downloading a hundred songs, 0 is a hell of a lot better price than $99, particularly if you're a teenager. This is not the 1st music service online, and none of them get significant use in comparison with kazaa/limewire, etc. All your reasons are secondary to cost for the average person, who's in no hurry to get the song, and thinks 128bit mp3 is good enough.
"I thought this might spur some good discussion on this board, including jabs at Dell and MS, which I always enjoy reading"
If you read the article, you'll notice Dell is saying Linux on Intel is killing traditional unix on Sun/HP/IBM etc.
"The employer of the scientists, AquaPharm Bio-Discovery Limited, the story notes 'is keeping the identity of its MRSA-killing bacteria a closely guarded secret, and taken out patents on how they can be cultivated and used.'"
Without the employer of the scientists, there would be no antibiotic, since these scientists need a paycheck. Without the ability to patent drugs there would be no employer since there would be no incentive to spend money developing drugs. Therefore, without patents, there would be no anitbiotic for staph infections. QED.
If a lot of people want motherboards that support legacy PCI, when PCIexpress is around, someone will build a motherboard that supports it. It's simple economics. PCs aren't like Macs, where there's only one hardware supplier.
There's something wrong with something when both business leaders AND union leaders agree it's wrong. Communism doesn't solve poverty. It merely reduces the incentive to work, creating more poverty.
"What kind of gov't praises the overthrow of a democratically elected leader?"
A govt. that suppresses freedon, even by the consent of the majority, is wrong. Communism is immoral because it takes away the freedom to own the product of your work. Chavez believes this is moral, and he should be overthrown. BTW, he's practically rewriting the constitution and locking up strike leaders. Apparently you don't have the freedom to strike in Venezuela now.
Reverse engineering IP has nothing to do with copyright. I don't understand how a law designed to protect copyright is protecting IP. Is the DMCA overly broad, or being misinterpreted? It shouldn't be illegal to modify or sell reverse engineered hardware that isn't patented. I thought the DMCA only applied when the mods allowed access to encrypted copyrighted material? The DMCA seems overly broad, even by the standards of the copyright protection advocates.
Again, the point of the junk FAX laws is preventing an advertizer from wasting a target's resources in terms of paper and ink. They govt. seems less likely to consider bandwidth and disk space in the same light. So unless the govt. changes their mind, it will be difficult to equate spam with junk faxes. This stunt will get shot down if it becomes popular.
"The eventual goal of moves like this would be to push non-Bells out of VoIP so they can then have yet another monopoly."
This doesn't make sense. If VoIP is taxed, Bells would have to pay the tax as well. What they don't like is unfair regulation on telephony, while VoIP is unregulated.
"Before the "deregulation" of telephone services, much of the infrastructure was built on taxpayer dollars."
I've seen this assertion more than once on slashdot. Are people trying to rewrite history? When did the US govt. fund telephony?
"I received this email using a dial up phone line connection and printed the message."
It seems to me the junk FAX doesn't apply unless you automatically print out all your e-mail. Otherwise, you're not using paper and ink for an unsolicited ad. Voluntarily printing out an e-mail just to take the spammer to court sounds like it oversteps the bounds of the law since at this point you chose to use the printer, not the spammer. I'm surprised any judge would convict. It probably will be overturned if it becoomes a big problem for spammers. People have been trying unsuccessfully to use the junk FAX laws to prosecute spammers for years now.
Funny how your links don't show your assertion is true.
"It's going to be sad when the only way to get information about your own country is to ready another country's newspapers."
If by this you mean news with a liberal slant, subscribe to the LA Times or the SF Chronicle. Plenty of liberal bias there.
Power has never been deregulated in CA in recent history for any appreciable amount of time. The final cost a consumer pays has always been set by the govt. It's regulation, not deregulation that causeed the CA power crisis. Regulation removed incentive to build power plants in CA, even though increased demand was obvious, because the profit wasn't enough to offset risk. The Govts. answer was to depend on buying power from other states. These states gouged CA, knowing they would have no alternative because they didn't have enough power of their own. Deregulation would cause a short term rise in prices, but ultimately lower prices as more competitors enter markets to compete aginst gouging monopolies.
I helped design some chips last year that brought in over a million in revenue in just prototypes, and we're still in the red. I didn't make a great deal of money in salary, and that's reasonable. I'm not risking millions of dollars on our venture. Similarly, the artists are a risk. They don't deserve a huge return when they're taking little risk. No one's twisting their arms for those record contracts they're bitching about it. Before the contract offer was made, they were begging for the opportunity.
"as per the article, only 128 of some 30,000 records released in 2002 were so privileged"
How much money did the record companies actually make when they probably lost money on 29,872 albums? Record labels take all the risks on new bands. They deserve the money. Once you have a gold record, you are in a better position to negotiate a better contract for your second album. What's the complaint anyway? The band accepted the contract voluntarily? No one forced them.
"But the point here is, why should performers think they're entitled to make hundreds of thousands, or millions of dollars a year? Because of their "ART"? Give me a break."
You've missed the point. They're work is considered more valuable than yours because people are willing to pay them more. It is immoral to undermine the value of their work though theft, however, and even more immoral to justify it by claiming it's not worth anything at the same time you're stealing it. In free societies, people have the right to free trade. Piracy is an infringement on free trade since the producer is forced to accept $0 for his efforts and left powerless to negotiate what he considers a fair price. To do so undermines the basic right of an individual to own the product of his labor.
They should be rewarded to the extent that people feel their efforts are worth. Thats the basis of free trade and capitalism. Apparently, society thinks musicians work is of greater value than yours. They've voted with their dollars, which is to say they're more willing to trade their own productive work for music than than for whatever you contribute to society. Worth of labor is dictated by whatever society is willing trade for it. Society is a collection of individuals. If they thought your work was worth more than $100K a year, someone would pay you more. So apparently your work is not as beneficial to society as that of successful musicians, as decided by the amount people are willing to pay you for your contributions.
Communism is an over-reaction to feudalism, which is based on an aristocracy that owns land taken by force instead of earning it. Both systems are repressive. You may be right in that the leaders in China are using the ideology of Communism to mask a feudalistic system. That way they still control all the wealth with the added benefit that they claim their motives are altruistic. America definitely has many socialistic practices, such as the tax system, welfare, social security, and public roads, as you've mentioned. Unfortunately, as long as Democrats are being elected, these things will not change.