That isn't exploitation, it's simply that the developers aren't as valuable as they would like to be, because there are plenty more ready to take their place (the aforementioned oversupply).
Meanwhile we were promised plenty of time for bills to be posted on the Internet for our feedback before votes. That sure went by the wayside fast. Now we get 2,000 pages of laws, which "must be passed so that we can find out what's in them", passed by the ruling class from on high. Sounds an awful lot like what you described.
Re:If It Didn't Run Linux it would be a $400 PC
on
Building a $200 Linux PC
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
What's the point of not pirating if you're going to violate the license anyway?
Actually the Atom, when bundled with the Nvidia ION, is capable of being a high-def Myth box. I've set up a number of the $200 Acer Aspire Revos for this purpose. Was even able to get a Windows refund too (although I haven't actually received the check yet, so I don't know how much of one).
Article I, section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution grants U.S. Congress the power to establish post offices and post roads. The Federal Government has interpreted this clause as granting a de facto Congressional monopoly over the delivery of mail. According to the government, no other system for delivering mail - public or private - can be established absent Congress's consent. Congress has delegated to the Postal Service the power to decide whether others may compete with it, and the Postal Service has carved out an exception to its monopoly for extremely urgent letters.
The only reason he has the links at all is so he gets money. That's entirely expected and okay.
Most clicks are completely useless, and online advertisers are okay with that too. I bet they'd be glad to have somebody actually see their site rather than not click, or they wouldn't bother to advertise.
Are you sure this is against Google's terms of service?
Are you also sure that violating Google's terms of service is, on its face, fraud?
In order to make your point, you need to prove that the bottom 80% has less because the top 1% has more. You won't be able to, because it isn't true.
In the meantime, I direct your attention to this table, which shows you exactly how "exploited" the "poor" are.
Obviously what we suffer from here is a tyranny of the majority. If we end up with that bottom number, the amount of taxes that the bottom 50% pays, at zero, then we're sunk, because there will never be any pressure to lower taxes.
So "freedom" means taking from the rich and giving to the poor until everybody has exactly the same stuff.
Money = power, there's no getting around that, so this is what you're talking about. Exceptions, of course, for the Dear Leaders who have the great responsibility of making sure that everything is doled out "fairly", for their own definitions of "fairly" of course, which would never be self-serving. For some reason, people who seek power over others via government are always altruistic and generous, even though they're spending other people's money, while those who make free transactions with others for their labor are exploitative. Sure.
Thanks but no thanks, I'll pass on your version of "freedom"; mine includes the ability to pursue happiness as I see fit, not as you do.
Even if you consider carbon dioxide to be pollution, you have to compare that against the process of manufacturing and disposing of a Big Honkin' Battery. Which is a messy deal.
I see your point, and if it had been some random rant about just about anything else, sure. But we now have a "Pay Czar" here in the US of A, and this poor deluded soul's dreams are all too close to coming true.
Ah, so as long as you have the power to pull out a gun and get in between a private transaction between two people, then suddenly you're okay with power.
Look, this country was built on the exact opposite of the tripe that you're spewing. Just know that freedom works, and your socialist utopia ALWAYS FAILS.
You can say whatever you want, but that doesn't make it your business. It's popular these days, and wrong, to presume that everybody should have a say in how CEOs are paid.
Obviously you view the world through the Marxist lens of "class", whatever that really means, so there isn't much hope.
I do appreciate the lessons in civil discourse from a poster who refers to an entire swath of society as "twits" and "assholes" though. Thanks!
Someday when you join the real world and own a business, you are welcome to employ whatever means you like to compensate your CEOs and graphics designers.
In the meantime, it's none of your business how others choose to.
in an environment where the government is not powerful, meanwhile, there is nothing to stop corporations from kicking down your door and pointing guns at you.
Government doesn't have to control every aspect of my life in order to prevent this. It's possible to have a government powerful enough to prosecute an assault case, but not powerful enough to control every aspect of our lives.
Also, there's one other thing preventing this corporate door-knocking-down: me, and my Remington 870.
length of workday? minimum wage? you think these laws are abusive?
Yes, they are. Especially and entirely at the federal level. If two people agree on terms of employment, that should be it.
ALL OF WHOM ARE WORSE ABUSERS THAN YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT. you really believe otherwise?
Yes I do. The worst abuser of people has always been their own government.
you WANT a powerful central government to protect your rights. why the fuck you believe a weak government somehow works out for your freedom is some sort of massive state of propaganda on your part and true ignorance and true stupidity
How about this: don't tell me what I want and don't want. The federal government of the US is unique in that its powers are specifically prescribed: it is not defined in terms of "do anything except this", it is defined in terms of "you may only deal with these things".
Throw a dart at a map and you're sure to land someplace where they agree with your incorrect philosophy of government. Why don't you go live there rather than trying to mess up what we've got here?
Slashdot Mirror
That isn't exploitation, it's simply that the developers aren't as valuable as they would like to be, because there are plenty more ready to take their place (the aforementioned oversupply).
Meanwhile we were promised plenty of time for bills to be posted on the Internet for our feedback before votes. That sure went by the wayside fast. Now we get 2,000 pages of laws, which "must be passed so that we can find out what's in them", passed by the ruling class from on high. Sounds an awful lot like what you described.
What's the point of not pirating if you're going to violate the license anyway?
Actually the Atom, when bundled with the Nvidia ION, is capable of being a high-def Myth box. I've set up a number of the $200 Acer Aspire Revos for this purpose. Was even able to get a Windows refund too (although I haven't actually received the check yet, so I don't know how much of one).
Fine.
Private Express Statutes
Understanding the Private Express Statutes
You're right, of course; I guess the key phrase in the Wiki summary is:
"The Federal Government has interpreted this clause as granting a de facto Congressional monopoly over the delivery of mail."
But unfortunately, that interpretation being wrong doesn't change anything.
Taxing too much has never stopped them before. :-)
Easy, you just mandate an extra $5/month charge to every ISP bill. I'm sure the politicians believe it's their right to do so.
According to Wikipedia:
Article I, section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution grants U.S. Congress the power to establish post offices and post roads. The Federal Government has interpreted this clause as granting a de facto Congressional monopoly over the delivery of mail. According to the government, no other system for delivering mail - public or private - can be established absent Congress's consent. Congress has delegated to the Postal Service the power to decide whether others may compete with it, and the Postal Service has carved out an exception to its monopoly for extremely urgent letters.
The only reason he has the links at all is so he gets money. That's entirely expected and okay.
Most clicks are completely useless, and online advertisers are okay with that too. I bet they'd be glad to have somebody actually see their site rather than not click, or they wouldn't bother to advertise.
Are you sure this is against Google's terms of service?
Are you also sure that violating Google's terms of service is, on its face, fraud?
I'm not sure of either of those two things.
He's encouraging people to click on the links. Isn't that what the advertisers want?
You don't have to have the device installed at all, you know. You're the one who needs a service from them.
In order to make your point, you need to prove that the bottom 80% has less because the top 1% has more. You won't be able to, because it isn't true.
In the meantime, I direct your attention to this table, which shows you exactly how "exploited" the "poor" are.
Obviously what we suffer from here is a tyranny of the majority. If we end up with that bottom number, the amount of taxes that the bottom 50% pays, at zero, then we're sunk, because there will never be any pressure to lower taxes.
...and that means that the manufacture and disposal slash recycling are processes that use no nasty chemicals? I really doubt it.
But sure, as long as you can say the word "recycling" that means everything's okay, regardless of how efficient or clean the process is.
And I'm sure there will never be a time at which you'll say that that debt to society has been repaid, and those powers recalled.
So "freedom" means taking from the rich and giving to the poor until everybody has exactly the same stuff.
Money = power, there's no getting around that, so this is what you're talking about. Exceptions, of course, for the Dear Leaders who have the great responsibility of making sure that everything is doled out "fairly", for their own definitions of "fairly" of course, which would never be self-serving. For some reason, people who seek power over others via government are always altruistic and generous, even though they're spending other people's money, while those who make free transactions with others for their labor are exploitative. Sure.
Thanks but no thanks, I'll pass on your version of "freedom"; mine includes the ability to pursue happiness as I see fit, not as you do.
I'm not sure it pollutes less.
Even if you consider carbon dioxide to be pollution, you have to compare that against the process of manufacturing and disposing of a Big Honkin' Battery. Which is a messy deal.
I see your point, and if it had been some random rant about just about anything else, sure. But we now have a "Pay Czar" here in the US of A, and this poor deluded soul's dreams are all too close to coming true.
Ah, so as long as you have the power to pull out a gun and get in between a private transaction between two people, then suddenly you're okay with power.
Look, this country was built on the exact opposite of the tripe that you're spewing. Just know that freedom works, and your socialist utopia ALWAYS FAILS.
/. led me to believe that first one didn't go through. Sorry.
Ah yes, unionization! That'll keep the work here in the US of A. Look at the great things they did for the car industry here! Oh, wait.
Yes, unions will fix it! Just like they saved the American car industry. Oh, wait.
You can say whatever you want, but that doesn't make it your business. It's popular these days, and wrong, to presume that everybody should have a say in how CEOs are paid.
Obviously you view the world through the Marxist lens of "class", whatever that really means, so there isn't much hope.
I do appreciate the lessons in civil discourse from a poster who refers to an entire swath of society as "twits" and "assholes" though. Thanks!
Someday when you join the real world and own a business, you are welcome to employ whatever means you like to compensate your CEOs and graphics designers.
In the meantime, it's none of your business how others choose to.
in an environment where the government is not powerful, meanwhile, there is nothing to stop corporations from kicking down your door and pointing guns at you.
Government doesn't have to control every aspect of my life in order to prevent this. It's possible to have a government powerful enough to prosecute an assault case, but not powerful enough to control every aspect of our lives.
Also, there's one other thing preventing this corporate door-knocking-down: me, and my Remington 870.
length of workday? minimum wage? you think these laws are abusive?
Yes, they are. Especially and entirely at the federal level. If two people agree on terms of employment, that should be it.
ALL OF WHOM ARE WORSE ABUSERS THAN YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT. you really believe otherwise?
Yes I do. The worst abuser of people has always been their own government.
you WANT a powerful central government to protect your rights. why the fuck you believe a weak government somehow works out for your freedom is some sort of massive state of propaganda on your part and true ignorance and true stupidity
How about this: don't tell me what I want and don't want. The federal government of the US is unique in that its powers are specifically prescribed: it is not defined in terms of "do anything except this", it is defined in terms of "you may only deal with these things".
Throw a dart at a map and you're sure to land someplace where they agree with your incorrect philosophy of government. Why don't you go live there rather than trying to mess up what we've got here?