I have no problem with the gas tax because it only taxes people who drive. The only significant emissions from modern cars are Water Vapor and Carbon Dioxide. Everything else is trace amounts, and the last emissions inspection my car went through showed undetectable levels of the major toxins they test for.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, and probably a million times more. If you do the calculations (I am not going to go through them again here just for the sake of time), you'll find that 6 billion people breathing emit more CO2 in ONE YEAR than has the combustion of fossil fuels, since 1900, in total.
I just propose a gas tax to even things out a bit. If you want to make things fair, tax people who drive (as most of us do). It matters not to me if your H2 becomes a boat anchor.
I have no problem with reasonable taxes, but pushing cigarettes up to more than $5.00 a pack is ridiculous. And to do it because you've been spending irresponsibly makes it even worse. States can't be surprised that people are buying their cigarettes elsewhere.
Personally, I'll be leaving Michigan for good some time in the next 18 months and cigarette taxes play a large roll in my decision. So now they won't have my income tax, my property tax or a body to fill a skilled position (doesn't matter, the job will be off-shored soone enough).
The cigarette tax also unfairly discriminates against smokers who have no health problems. I've been smoking for 25 years and I'm the picture of health. My lung are clear and my pulmonary scores are perfect. Why should I pay taxes because some else doesn't have the genetic makeup to handle it? Same argument you're using.
It's unfortunate that obesity is protected as a disability because most likely it is a self-inflicted condition (as lung cancer usually is).
Let's go back to my second suggestion... $7.00 gallons of gas. Spread the tax around.
Personally I'm tired of being targeted by state lawmakers. If there are economic problems they turn to me, the smoker. They say it's because I cause health care costs to skyrocket. I say bullshit. I say that obesity is a bigger problem and you need to put a $2.00 tax on a bottle of Mountain Dew and a $5.00 tax on a Big Mac so these fat fucks can pay for their part of rising health care costs.
While we're at it, I want to see $5.00 per gallon state tax on gasoline.
I buy my smokes overseas. Fuck the State of Michigan and fuck Jenny Granholm in the ass. I'm not going to keep paying for your fiscal irresponsibility.
Even tho I don't much care for microsoft, I hate seeing them get picked on so much jsut because they have money. It isn't right.
No one picks on Microsoft simply because they have money. Microsoft bashing is about bad software, predatory business practices, poor business ethics, and the attempt of one company to own the entire of technology.
Maybe the RIAA can hire all of the soon-to-be-unemployed telemarketers to sniff out all of the file sharers and serve subpoenas for them. Same kind of pond scum anyway.
If the cops are worried about violence being directed towards them, they need look no further than a mirror to figure out why. As I told a cop trying to solicit money from me for bulletproof vests, "If you all would learn to treat private citizens as human beings, you wouldn't have to worry about being shot at." Needless to say, he was unimpressed.
I have a car. You're hitchhiking. It's my choice whether or not to pick you up; if I do, ass, gas, or grass baby, nobody rides for free. You don't like it, buy a car. Go do something original rather than leeching off of someone else and then bitching when they say they don't like it. If you had ever created anything original and meaningful in your life, you wouldn't need to frustrate yourself by making inane arguments and evading the obvious question: Who owns my IP? Me. Period. If you don't like my morals or ethics or attitude concerning it, tough. Bottom line, it's still mine.
That has nothing to do with my arguments; it's a personal attack.
If the shoe fits... besides, you're taking it out of context. The real point was that the attitude you've displayed tells me that something has happened in your life where you think you're entitled to something for nothing. That's what this entire debate is about. You say - *I want something for nothing, in the name of the public interest*. I say - *There are no free rides*.
if you don't want to support my monopoly, don't buy my product
I still pay for the enforcers - the police and the courts.
I fail to see any relevance in that argument whatsoever. You pay for firefighters and garbagemen too. It has nothing to do with my pending monopoly.
Your opinion of what is good for society or what is right does not make it fact.
That's why this is a debate. You're supposed to explain why you disagree, not attack your opponent.
I've explained myself repeatedly and clearly and have been attacked by you for my troubles. I didn't cry like a schoolgirl about it, why are you?
this argument centers around your children's rights to your IP
Allow me to state very clearly again: It is my IP. It is my brainchild. If someone else had the idea, they should have beat me to the punch. My argument actually has little to do with my children's rights to my IP and everything to do with my freedom to choose what becomes of my IP. I can will my home, my land, my cars, why not my IP? It's about choice. It's about not being forced to give away freely something that is mine. Plain and simple. I want the choice. I want protection under the law. And, I don't need everyone and there brother making those choices for me or feeling they're entitled to my IP simply because they're too cheap to pay fair market value for it.
whose response to my claiming that this course was not good for society was ad hominem.
I didn't evade your points except where they were ridiculous and didn't deserve an answer. Just because I nailed you for inflammatory comments for grins doesn't make it ad hominem.
The obligation of those creating IP to you begins and ends at your ability to pay for it.
But you're willing to create an obligation on me to protect your monopoly.
Damn skippy. Besides, if you don't want to support my monopoly, don't buy my product (don't steal it either), it's a free country (mostly).
You're so wrapped up in "what's good for me" that you're more then willing to ignore "what's good for society" and "what's right".
That's rich. Your opinion of what is good for society or what is right does not make it fact. You're discounting my rights to my IP (and to profit exclusively from it) in the name of social interest, what a bunch of liberal hooey! Makes me ashamed that I'm a liberal. The violation of my rights to my IP are not superceded by the "public good" any more than your right to live in your home with whom you choose would be superceded by making your home a flop-house in the name of the "public good".
In large part, we're programmers, and tend to write a bunch of English prose in the process.
That may have been true at one time, like, back in the day. These days there are less of us (programmers and admins) and more skidiots and wannabe's. There are more slashdolts out there than slashdotters, period. All you have to do is look at the lack of intelligence in most debates.
I certainly don't consider posting on/. to be art, and it's certainly no proof of talent.
The quote: I hate this notion that people who come up with IP rather than any other form of work are somehow more special than everyone else. was not mine. I LARTed the poster directly for his obvious troll.
Judging by the tone of your multiple posts, I'd guess you're under 30, making under $30K a year with no family to support or a burn out who realizes his career is going down the tubes. Either way, your comments reek of someone who feels that everyone owes them something because you've been burned in the past. IP isn't owed to you. The obligation of those creating IP to you begins and ends at your ability to pay for it. If you have a better idea and the skill to pull it off, have at it and more power to you - you should have done it first.
My comments are real world, not based on some hippie peace-love bullshit.
please pay up for every public domain think you've ever bought
Pay up for every public domain thing I've ever bought? Ummmm...I have. Unlike most of the current/. crowd, I'm an idiot who believes in paying for what I use. Red Hat gets my money. Open Office gets donations. And I don't steal MP3's from the 'net (another subject entirely).
because William Shakespeare's publishers need their cut
My point exactly, look who's getting paid. If they are making money, why not me or my heirs?
realize all this money is going to people who didn't work a cent in their life for it
Well, the publishers certainly didn't work for it either, from a standpoint of creativity. The publisher has just facilitated the availability of the work, at a hefty profit. You can argue my children (and maybe one day grandchildren) didn't work for any of this, but you've obviously never lived with a creative sort. People who are close to artistic types pay a heavy toll, because of the nature of the "artist" - passionate, tempermental, and frequently closed off during the creative process. They certainly pay a price to have an artist parent/grandparent.
So, you're bellyaching about copyright extentions secured by Congress on one side of things and then telling me that terms are too long and I have no right to expect to keep my copyright for an extended period of time?
Congress says I can keep my copyright for a long, long time, so again, who are all of you to want to place limits of 10 and 20 years on my work? I have an idea, why don't you go out and do something original instead of knocking off protected works? Why don't you actually buy something instead of stealing it? You only want it in the public domain so you don't have to pay for it OR so that you can profit from it and cut me out.
Assuming it ever is profitable. Even if it is why should your descendents, who had nothing to do with creating it, have these rights.
If (and that is a big if) it is profitable, why should Billy Jim Joe Bob be able to profit from it? My concern is that if a work is perpetually profitable, that I, or someone in my interest get a piece of it.
Would you be happy paying a fee to the people who built your house? Or even their great^X grandchildren
Apples and oranges. I'm not asking you to pay a monthly fee to own a copy of something I've written.
A house is not perpetually profitable, although it may (or may not, depending on the neighborhood and economic climate) increase in value over time, it doesn't generate revenue daily. Besides, you agree to a flat price on a home, book deals pay by performance and perpetually, that's the way contracts are structured. If a builder can find someone to pay for a home for 50 years or better, more power to them...I believe the term is called renting.
I hate this notion that people who come up with IP rather than any other form of work are somehow more special than everyone else.
Spoken like a typical slashdolt whose greatest intellectual contribution is posting anonymous trolls on/. (and ruining what used to be a pretty cool site).
Shut up and go back to stealing music, pirating 'doze software and hacking blogs.
Would we have the works of Plato? How about Newtons Principa? Would copies of Tom Sawyer be affordable? Would they even exist?
Of course they would exist and they'd be affordable. You're all missing the point. I should be able to profit (as well as my children) for as long as the book remains profitable. Sorry, I don't like the idea that after say, 20 years, someone can snatch my work up, do a fantastic job of marketing on it and make a killing while I struggle to make ends meet.
works of today will be lost FOREVER to all future generations because the author doesn't want it distributed
I don't think the future generations would be missing out on much if Stephen King wasn't readily available 50 years from now, but I digress. Explain to me how 50 million copies of Stephen King's works will suddenly disappear from the planet if he said, "If I can't profit from this, no one can." There exists a place called book stores, you may have heard of them. They also have used book stores, where you can buy books on the cheap. Books will exist 50 years from now and if you really want to buy them, you will be able to find them.
As far as the intrest of society is concerned, I think it's well served by publishing these works in and of themselves. No other contribution is needed.
I will qualify all of these remarks by saying that I do contribute freely to the public domain right now. I do release short stories on the 'net knowing full well that someone else may copy them or use them for profit. I'll never see a penny. Fine. No problem, I knew that when I released them. My problem is not with who owns the work after a period of time, but whether or not I get a piece of the action. If you're profiting off of my sweat, so should I.
To answer another comment: I have no problem with my children or grandchildren "riding on my coattails". Further, I would expect that I should be allowed to as well. Here's the revised version of the story. I finished, sold and copyrighted my first novel in 1986. It was published and then the publishing house went tango-uniform. It was a shitty ordeal. I made a grand total of $60 on the work and got my work back - free and clear - to publish with someone else. I put it in a box and it sits there even as I write this. Now, I'm working on another novel. Say I finish it and have it published by 2006. It becomes the "Great American Novel" and I make a pretty penny. Suddenly - under a 20 year copyright provision - my first novel is out of my hands and everyone and their brother is making a profit. Bullshit. It's my coattail and I should be able to ride it as long as the market will bear. Now, I ask you, where is my incentive to release this first novel if I can't profit from it? The orginal run only sold about 1500 copies before the publishing house went bankrupt, so it is effectively unknown. In the off chance I do write the "Great American Novel", it's very unlikely that anyone will put two and two together, so I would very likely sit on the first novel if it were considered public domain and allow it to disappear (further) into obscurity.
I look at it like this, if someone is making money from my intellectual property, I should be compensated (as well as my kids and grandkids) as long as there is a buck to be made. Greedy? Short-sighted? Call it what you will, but as long as someone is making a buck, it might as well be me.
Well, that's fair. Maybe we should extend this thinking to everything we create. Say, ten years after you build your house, I move in. You've benefited from it for years, now it's public domain and we should all get to live there if we choose.
Speaking as one who has literally put thousands of hours into writing a book, I have to ask where you get off telling me that there should be a hard cap on the limit of my copyright. Don't I have the right to profit for the rest of my life from my work? What about my children? What about my grandchildren?
I don't care how long Disney holds on to the mouse. Just because you place no value on your work doesn't mean that the rest of us don't place value on ours.
I honestly don't believe that this will work simply because telemarketers are getting more and more agressive already and will break other rules in order to conceal their identity.
For the past two months, my wife and I have literally been terrorized by someone soliciting something. They call our home phone hourly from the hours of 5:00pm to 10:00pm, 7 days a week AND hammer her cell phone as many as 20 times a day. They are always in search of my wife (no, she doesn't have any outstanding bills). She bailed and changed her cell number despite the fact I begged her to work with me to get these bastards. Now they only call my home number and hang up whenever I answer. The always refuse to identify themselves until I verify (or my wife verifies) that I'm the person they're looking for (they want my wife's last four), of course, we've continually refused. These ass-clowns only give first names, claiming under the law that's all they're required to do. They refuse to identify their organization. Refuse to verify or decline whether they have prior business with my wife, and finally, they refuse to say where they got our number. I have repeatedly told them to put my number on their do not call list, and they laugh and often get abusive. It's gotten to the point where I sexually harrass them when they call, until they hang up. Of course, as I've said, they won't talk to me now.
I'm filing a complaint with my local police department this week (as instructed by SBC who refuses to help me without police intervention - bastards). I'm sure that this won't be the end of this, or telemarketers. I'm dumping my land line once this is over and blocking all unknown numbers coming in on my cellphone (I think there's a service from my provider). Fuck it, I'm white listing everyone and everything. The only phone number I'll put down on any ap going forward will be my local police department.
Slashdot Mirror
I have no problem with reasonable taxes, but pushing cigarettes up to more than $5.00 a pack is ridiculous. And to do it because you've been spending irresponsibly makes it even worse. States can't be surprised that people are buying their cigarettes elsewhere.
Personally, I'll be leaving Michigan for good some time in the next 18 months and cigarette taxes play a large roll in my decision. So now they won't have my income tax, my property tax or a body to fill a skilled position (doesn't matter, the job will be off-shored soone enough).
It's unfortunate that obesity is protected as a disability because most likely it is a self-inflicted condition (as lung cancer usually is).
Let's go back to my second suggestion... $7.00 gallons of gas. Spread the tax around.
While we're at it, I want to see $5.00 per gallon state tax on gasoline.
I buy my smokes overseas. Fuck the State of Michigan and fuck Jenny Granholm in the ass. I'm not going to keep paying for your fiscal irresponsibility.
No way...
Damn terroris^H^H^H zealots.
No one picks on Microsoft simply because they have money. Microsoft bashing is about bad software, predatory business practices, poor business ethics, and the attempt of one company to own the entire of technology.
-
Must be one of those Israeli models...
SCO: The word "infringle" is in the comments of System V source. You are infringing upon our IP by using it. $700 please.
In United States cell phones control your motion!
"You'll just have to trust us. Even though you can't play the movie, it was really, really, really good." - MPAA
If the shoe fits... besides, you're taking it out of context. The real point was that the attitude you've displayed tells me that something has happened in your life where you think you're entitled to something for nothing. That's what this entire debate is about. You say - *I want something for nothing, in the name of the public interest*. I say - *There are no free rides*.
if you don't want to support my monopoly, don't buy my product
I still pay for the enforcers - the police and the courts.
I fail to see any relevance in that argument whatsoever. You pay for firefighters and garbagemen too. It has nothing to do with my pending monopoly.
Your opinion of what is good for society or what is right does not make it fact.
That's why this is a debate. You're supposed to explain why you disagree, not attack your opponent.
I've explained myself repeatedly and clearly and have been attacked by you for my troubles. I didn't cry like a schoolgirl about it, why are you?
this argument centers around your children's rights to your IP
Allow me to state very clearly again: It is my IP. It is my brainchild. If someone else had the idea, they should have beat me to the punch. My argument actually has little to do with my children's rights to my IP and everything to do with my freedom to choose what becomes of my IP. I can will my home, my land, my cars, why not my IP? It's about choice. It's about not being forced to give away freely something that is mine. Plain and simple. I want the choice. I want protection under the law. And, I don't need everyone and there brother making those choices for me or feeling they're entitled to my IP simply because they're too cheap to pay fair market value for it.
Is that simple and clear enough?
I didn't evade your points except where they were ridiculous and didn't deserve an answer. Just because I nailed you for inflammatory comments for grins doesn't make it ad hominem.
The obligation of those creating IP to you begins and ends at your ability to pay for it.
But you're willing to create an obligation on me to protect your monopoly.
Damn skippy. Besides, if you don't want to support my monopoly, don't buy my product (don't steal it either), it's a free country (mostly).
You're so wrapped up in "what's good for me" that you're more then willing to ignore "what's good for society" and "what's right".
That's rich. Your opinion of what is good for society or what is right does not make it fact. You're discounting my rights to my IP (and to profit exclusively from it) in the name of social interest, what a bunch of liberal hooey! Makes me ashamed that I'm a liberal. The violation of my rights to my IP are not superceded by the "public good" any more than your right to live in your home with whom you choose would be superceded by making your home a flop-house in the name of the "public good".
That may have been true at one time, like, back in the day. These days there are less of us (programmers and admins) and more skidiots and wannabe's. There are more slashdolts out there than slashdotters, period. All you have to do is look at the lack of intelligence in most debates.
I certainly don't consider posting on /. to be art, and it's certainly no proof of talent.
The quote: I hate this notion that people who come up with IP rather than any other form of work are somehow more special than everyone else. was not mine. I LARTed the poster directly for his obvious troll.
Judging by the tone of your multiple posts, I'd guess you're under 30, making under $30K a year with no family to support or a burn out who realizes his career is going down the tubes. Either way, your comments reek of someone who feels that everyone owes them something because you've been burned in the past. IP isn't owed to you. The obligation of those creating IP to you begins and ends at your ability to pay for it. If you have a better idea and the skill to pull it off, have at it and more power to you - you should have done it first.
My comments are real world, not based on some hippie peace-love bullshit.
Pay up for every public domain thing I've ever bought? Ummmm...I have. Unlike most of the current /. crowd, I'm an idiot who believes in paying for what I use. Red Hat gets my money. Open Office gets donations. And I don't steal MP3's from the 'net (another subject entirely).
because William Shakespeare's publishers need their cut
My point exactly, look who's getting paid. If they are making money, why not me or my heirs?
realize all this money is going to people who didn't work a cent in their life for it
Well, the publishers certainly didn't work for it either, from a standpoint of creativity. The publisher has just facilitated the availability of the work, at a hefty profit. You can argue my children (and maybe one day grandchildren) didn't work for any of this, but you've obviously never lived with a creative sort. People who are close to artistic types pay a heavy toll, because of the nature of the "artist" - passionate, tempermental, and frequently closed off during the creative process. They certainly pay a price to have an artist parent/grandparent.
Congress says I can keep my copyright for a long, long time, so again, who are all of you to want to place limits of 10 and 20 years on my work? I have an idea, why don't you go out and do something original instead of knocking off protected works? Why don't you actually buy something instead of stealing it? You only want it in the public domain so you don't have to pay for it OR so that you can profit from it and cut me out.
If (and that is a big if) it is profitable, why should Billy Jim Joe Bob be able to profit from it? My concern is that if a work is perpetually profitable, that I, or someone in my interest get a piece of it.
Would you be happy paying a fee to the people who built your house? Or even their great^X grandchildren
Apples and oranges. I'm not asking you to pay a monthly fee to own a copy of something I've written.
A house is not perpetually profitable, although it may (or may not, depending on the neighborhood and economic climate) increase in value over time, it doesn't generate revenue daily. Besides, you agree to a flat price on a home, book deals pay by performance and perpetually, that's the way contracts are structured. If a builder can find someone to pay for a home for 50 years or better, more power to them...I believe the term is called renting.
Spoken like a typical slashdolt whose greatest intellectual contribution is posting anonymous trolls on /. (and ruining what used to be a pretty cool site).
Shut up and go back to stealing music, pirating 'doze software and hacking blogs.
Of course they would exist and they'd be affordable. You're all missing the point. I should be able to profit (as well as my children) for as long as the book remains profitable. Sorry, I don't like the idea that after say, 20 years, someone can snatch my work up, do a fantastic job of marketing on it and make a killing while I struggle to make ends meet.
works of today will be lost FOREVER to all future generations because the author doesn't want it distributed
I don't think the future generations would be missing out on much if Stephen King wasn't readily available 50 years from now, but I digress. Explain to me how 50 million copies of Stephen King's works will suddenly disappear from the planet if he said, "If I can't profit from this, no one can." There exists a place called book stores, you may have heard of them. They also have used book stores, where you can buy books on the cheap. Books will exist 50 years from now and if you really want to buy them, you will be able to find them.
As far as the intrest of society is concerned, I think it's well served by publishing these works in and of themselves. No other contribution is needed.
I will qualify all of these remarks by saying that I do contribute freely to the public domain right now. I do release short stories on the 'net knowing full well that someone else may copy them or use them for profit. I'll never see a penny. Fine. No problem, I knew that when I released them. My problem is not with who owns the work after a period of time, but whether or not I get a piece of the action. If you're profiting off of my sweat, so should I.
To answer another comment: I have no problem with my children or grandchildren "riding on my coattails". Further, I would expect that I should be allowed to as well. Here's the revised version of the story. I finished, sold and copyrighted my first novel in 1986. It was published and then the publishing house went tango-uniform. It was a shitty ordeal. I made a grand total of $60 on the work and got my work back - free and clear - to publish with someone else. I put it in a box and it sits there even as I write this. Now, I'm working on another novel. Say I finish it and have it published by 2006. It becomes the "Great American Novel" and I make a pretty penny. Suddenly - under a 20 year copyright provision - my first novel is out of my hands and everyone and their brother is making a profit. Bullshit. It's my coattail and I should be able to ride it as long as the market will bear. Now, I ask you, where is my incentive to release this first novel if I can't profit from it? The orginal run only sold about 1500 copies before the publishing house went bankrupt, so it is effectively unknown. In the off chance I do write the "Great American Novel", it's very unlikely that anyone will put two and two together, so I would very likely sit on the first novel if it were considered public domain and allow it to disappear (further) into obscurity.
I look at it like this, if someone is making money from my intellectual property, I should be compensated (as well as my kids and grandkids) as long as there is a buck to be made. Greedy? Short-sighted? Call it what you will, but as long as someone is making a buck, it might as well be me.
I don't care how long Disney holds on to the mouse. Just because you place no value on your work doesn't mean that the rest of us don't place value on ours.
I honestly don't believe that this will work simply because telemarketers are getting more and more agressive already and will break other rules in order to conceal their identity.
For the past two months, my wife and I have literally been terrorized by someone soliciting something. They call our home phone hourly from the hours of 5:00pm to 10:00pm, 7 days a week AND hammer her cell phone as many as 20 times a day. They are always in search of my wife (no, she doesn't have any outstanding bills). She bailed and changed her cell number despite the fact I begged her to work with me to get these bastards. Now they only call my home number and hang up whenever I answer. The always refuse to identify themselves until I verify (or my wife verifies) that I'm the person they're looking for (they want my wife's last four), of course, we've continually refused. These ass-clowns only give first names, claiming under the law that's all they're required to do. They refuse to identify their organization. Refuse to verify or decline whether they have prior business with my wife, and finally, they refuse to say where they got our number. I have repeatedly told them to put my number on their do not call list, and they laugh and often get abusive. It's gotten to the point where I sexually harrass them when they call, until they hang up. Of course, as I've said, they won't talk to me now.
I'm filing a complaint with my local police department this week (as instructed by SBC who refuses to help me without police intervention - bastards). I'm sure that this won't be the end of this, or telemarketers. I'm dumping my land line once this is over and blocking all unknown numbers coming in on my cellphone (I think there's a service from my provider). Fuck it, I'm white listing everyone and everything. The only phone number I'll put down on any ap going forward will be my local police department.