First, I'm not a communist. I simply believe in freewill. Capitalism is actually better for freewill in general than communism.
I agree with you that much of our modern economy is based on these laws, and much of what happens would not happen without these laws. Without greed law to allow license agreements, Bill Gates would probably be on the streets begging for change.
The thing I don't agree with is throwing people in prison for sharing intellectual property. The reason I call it greed law is because laws are used to scare people in to spending money on things. If you spend money on something, it should be because it is a superior product, not because we are forced to buy it.
I think we should make it illegal to copy Linux, becuase otherwise, groovy software wouldn't get made. Yeah right. OK.
I think this whole "deep linking" issue is lame. More stupid greed law. As a user, you have no legal obligation to look at banner ads. You can filter them out completely if you want. The only justification for this drivel is "lost revenue", i.e. Greed.
Even if you were obligated to look at their banner ads, you're not obligated to think about what's in them. When you get right down to it, this is about freedom of thought. Words and images are nothing more than man made tools to influence thought. The only logical excuse for controlling them is either greed or a power trip. Both are evil.
Also, the web is a dynamic, evolving flow of information that must be free to work like it's supposed to. You do not need permission to link to something. A link, technically, is just the location of a page with a hyperlink tag. So which part is illegal? Is telling someone the inner page of a site illegal? Can't be. Telling someone something is free speech? Is the hyperlink tag illegal? Can't be. It's part of a public protocol. Is it the blue underlined text that's illegal? Can't be. Too stupid.
If all the component parts of something are legal, than combining them should not be illegal. 3 rights don't make a wrong. Nuf said.
Thanks for your perspective, lawful neutral sheeply one.
This is greed law, pure and simple. Laws that have no excuse for being created other than simple greed, or protection of greed. Freedom is more important than greed. Nuf said.
And also, if they think they are going to stop copies from moving around, they are sorely uninformed. Security is simply an intelligence competition between the two people or teams involved. Nothing more, nothing less. Who knows computers better, hackers or lawyers? And if the lawyers know computers better, why the hell are they lawyers? Greed?
When it comes right down to it, this is a blatant violation of free speech. You are allowed to tip off your friends. Free speech does not imply that you have to be on the government's side. Guck the Fovernment. Anyhow...
Whoever wrote this article had a logic error here. First, there is not any open source OS's that are susceptible to macro viruses, especially Outlook/Word macro viruses. Second, macros are inherently open source, because they are interpreted. But this has absolutely nothing to do with "open source" from the classical definition.
I've got a weird feeling the guy who wrote this article really doesn't know what he's talking about. Just a hunch.
I, personally, would always choose freedom over order here's why:
1. The government isn't protecting you. They just clean up the mess when the crazy part's over.
2. When the government crashes, the underground will still be completely intact.
3. The human race started free. We are the only species on the planet to surrender our freewill to legaslative control. This is not necessarily because we're smart. That's just what we've been taught.
I say, let the government get more and more and more oppressive. Bend it back and forth, see what breaks off. Let's go to the end of the road and see what's there. I'm not scared, just paying attention.
"to maintain an information-based advantage over our enemies"
In the "anti-terrorist" legislation, the American public was defined as an enemy of the government. So which "enemies" is the government talking about? Just something to think about.
This WAS a government created by the people, for the people. The original intent of the government was to protect the people from foreign interference, so we could remain free. The reason we get so pissed off when our rights are whittled away is because there's some of us who actually remember what it's supposed to be like.
With unbreakable encryption as a standard part of a product, we gain a thing called free communication, which could have the capability to take the government out of the communications loop. This could make the people more powerful, and the government less powerful. Governments are inherently power freaks, or they wouldn't be who they are. From there, it becomes fairly simple to predict the direction of most legislation.
However, there's nothing stopping someone outside the US from making a mainstream product that has strong encryption. That's what the US industry doesn't like. It's half about greed, half about privacy. I'm in favor of the privacy end, but I think privacy should be free, so the greed end is irrelevant.
Before we talk about guns, I need to go clean my Mini 14.
This is called "linear interpolation". It has absolutely no relevance to what the scores would actually be. Some of the benchmarks are more relative of the AGP, the RAM, etc. When the PIII-600 actually comes out, you can watch it lose.
The name Winbond has absolutely nothing to do with any particular OS, which I don't need to name. They were making IO boards about 10 years ago. I think at some point they got bought out by AMI.
Slashdot Mirror
First, I'm not a communist. I simply believe in freewill. Capitalism is actually better for freewill in general than communism.
I agree with you that much of our modern economy is based on these laws, and much of what happens would not happen without these laws. Without greed law to allow license agreements, Bill Gates would probably be on the streets begging for change.
The thing I don't agree with is throwing people in prison for sharing intellectual property. The reason I call it greed law is because laws are used to scare people in to spending money on things. If you spend money on something, it should be because it is a superior product, not because we are forced to buy it.
I think we should make it illegal to copy Linux, becuase otherwise, groovy software wouldn't get made. Yeah right. OK.
I think this whole "deep linking" issue is lame. More stupid greed law. As a user, you have no legal obligation to look at banner ads. You can filter them out completely if you want. The only justification for this drivel is "lost revenue", i.e. Greed.
Even if you were obligated to look at their banner ads, you're not obligated to think about what's in them. When you get right down to it, this is about freedom of thought. Words and images are nothing more than man made tools to influence thought. The only logical excuse for controlling them is either greed or a power trip. Both are evil.
Also, the web is a dynamic, evolving flow of information that must be free to work like it's supposed to. You do not need permission to link to something. A link, technically, is just the location of a page with a hyperlink tag. So which part is illegal? Is telling someone the inner page of a site illegal? Can't be. Telling someone something is free speech? Is the hyperlink tag illegal? Can't be. It's part of a public protocol. Is it the blue underlined text that's illegal? Can't be. Too stupid.
If all the component parts of something are legal, than combining them should not be illegal. 3 rights don't make a wrong. Nuf said.
This rant sounds like the work of egotist, not a geek.
Different nerds have different specialties - there's programmer nerds, microprocessor nerds, network nerds, sysadmin nerds, webmaster nerds...
Just because someone doesn't know your particular specialty doesn't make them a wannabe. Do they wannabe like you? Probably not.
Sorry about the flame. Just think your post was pure drivel.
Thanks for your perspective, lawful neutral sheeply one.
This is greed law, pure and simple. Laws that have no excuse for being created other than simple greed, or protection of greed. Freedom is more important than greed. Nuf said.
And also, if they think they are going to stop copies from moving around, they are sorely uninformed. Security is simply an intelligence competition between the two people or teams involved. Nothing more, nothing less. Who knows computers better, hackers or lawyers? And if the lawyers know computers better, why the hell are they lawyers? Greed?
Greed, Greed, Greed, blah, blah, blah, filler, filler, filler, Greed, Greed, Greed.
When it comes right down to it, this is a blatant violation of free speech. You are allowed to tip off your friends. Free speech does not imply that you have to be on the government's side. Guck the Fovernment. Anyhow...
Whoever wrote this article had a logic error here. First, there is not any open source OS's that are susceptible to macro viruses, especially Outlook/Word macro viruses. Second, macros are inherently open source, because they are interpreted. But this has absolutely nothing to do with "open source" from the classical definition.
I've got a weird feeling the guy who wrote this article really doesn't know what he's talking about. Just a hunch.
I, personally, would always choose freedom over order here's why:
1. The government isn't protecting you. They just clean up the mess when the crazy part's over.
2. When the government crashes, the underground will still be completely intact.
3. The human race started free. We are the only species on the planet to surrender our freewill to legaslative control. This is not necessarily because we're smart. That's just what we've been taught.
I say, let the government get more and more and more oppressive. Bend it back and forth, see what breaks off. Let's go to the end of the road and see what's there. I'm not scared, just paying attention.
"to maintain an information-based advantage over our enemies"
In the "anti-terrorist" legislation, the American public was defined as an enemy of the government. So which "enemies" is the government talking about? Just something to think about.
This WAS a government created by the people, for the people. The original intent of the government was to protect the people from foreign interference, so we could remain free. The reason we get so pissed off when our rights are whittled away is because there's some of us who actually remember what it's supposed to be like.
With unbreakable encryption as a standard part of a product, we gain a thing called free communication, which could have the capability to take the government out of the communications loop. This could make the people more powerful, and the government less powerful. Governments are inherently power freaks, or they wouldn't be who they are. From there, it becomes fairly simple to predict the direction of most legislation.
However, there's nothing stopping someone outside the US from making a mainstream product that has strong encryption. That's what the US industry doesn't like. It's half about greed, half about privacy. I'm in favor of the privacy end, but I think privacy should be free, so the greed end is irrelevant.
Before we talk about guns, I need to go clean my Mini 14.
This is called "linear interpolation". It has absolutely no relevance to what the scores would actually be. Some of the benchmarks are more relative of the AGP, the RAM, etc. When the PIII-600 actually comes out, you can watch it lose.
The name Winbond has absolutely nothing to do with any particular OS, which I don't need to name. They were making IO boards about 10 years ago. I think at some point they got bought out by AMI.