Can you imagine *any* of our current politicians writing (not ghost writing, but actually writing) at the level of Jefferson, Franklin, or Adams? If by "our" you mean "American", then Al Gore is the only one who comes to mind. Although if Al Franklin ever did ran and got elected, his writting (at least in quality if not in insight) is on par with the classics. There is, of course, Ron Paul who has Jefferson's insight and yet pounds it with Hemingway's simple clarity.
Oh, plainly! Why, unsupported assertions that critical thinking Because I often find myself teaching at a university and so I know what an average child's been taught today. The assertion is not unsupported. It is more of an "informed opinion". Of course, someone who hasn't learned critical thinking would argue that even an informed opinion is just an opinion.
Most of you will be too young to remember "computer literacy" classes which strove to teach students how to use computers. Too young to remember? Ha! I made some money 2 Summers ago by teaching one of those. Are you calling me old? Oh, my God, I am old... goes away sobbing.
I must question both its timing and its spirit. "The west gets what it deserves"? Is that how NYTimes wants to portray Russia? Why don't they just go ahead an (in light of Putin's recent visit to Iran) say straight out "Oceania has always been at war with East Asia"?
so cisco can screw a country if they want, but we can't screw you with our bonds Not paying for government which provides no government services to you is hardly "screwing" a country. Brazil did not in any way assist Cisco to develop manufacture or transport its products. Why should Cisco subsidize Brazilian government? Not paying back the people who lended you money is theft -- plain and simple. I am sure your opinion of Americans will go down quite a bit in the near future. After all, any Americans who'll do business with you will (rightfully) treat you like known thieves. And anyone who deals with known thieves must be sleazy to begin with.
It just shows the ignorance of your people.
If we are so ignorant, kindly put your money where your mouth is and stop using our products and services. You can start with not using the Internet anymore.
I don't know why I bother with you anyway. I guess the old adage is right. Do not feed the troll. I should have left your "fuck you" comment stand on its own merit. I won't make this mistake again. Everyone who's read this chain already knows who you are. So any responses you put up will be taken in the right contest. Feel free to insult the best of people -- the ones who produce that which makes life worth living -- as much as you want. I am out.
I actually would not oppose an embrace and extend company in a router market. The problem with MS monopoly is that it stifles innovation. But in the router market innovation is hardly the order of the day -- ease and cost of use is. I know there are alternatives to Cisco. But with routers it really is the total cost of ownership that is the only thing that matters. With operating systems, office solutions, certainly games and development environments, it is important to have choices so as to be able to pick the best tool for a job (or just the most comfortable to your working style). But routers are utilities that people just want to "work". Sure you can even roll your own on a Linux box, but it means paying 20%-50% more in admin costs and constantly hunting for specialized admins. Who needs it?
Riiiiiiight. You think it's some nameless bureaucracy of IMF that you screwed? I actually know people who bought your bonds. So you screwed them out of 25% + interest on the rest of the premium after you "negotiations"? The take-it-or-leave it kind? I am sure your production is up quite a bit after stealing a few dozen billion. At the back of some people's pensions... but hey they are not really people, right? They are just US capitalists. Ok, dude. I was joking before, but given that the morons like you are still running some of the South American countries. I wish Cisco would flip Brazil a big one. No, dude, no one owes anyone a job. Ever. Anywhere. EVER! If Cisco was helping the poor bastards who were trying to hold Brazilian networks on a shoestring to keep down their costs, I say give a medal! You say it's not enough they went the extra mile to keep their customers happy. They also had to make some bunch of joe shmoes who happen to live close to their customers happy. Ummm. no! Keep on hating. Hate from people like you and them should only make Cisco proud. Would certainly make me proud.
I should have known you for a troll from the start. But hey, takes one to know one. So I how could I? Why a troll? You just started a router flame war. Ok. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=CSCO vs http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=JNPR. Cisco's revenue is 14 times Juniper's. Ie, the world spends 14 times as much on Cisco products as it does on Juniper's. I'll stand by my original statement. And, you with your dam, your "you are a criminal if you don't do things for me" philosophy and your hate of those who have proven to be better rather bragged to be better... you, sir, kindly be then one STFU.
Says Brazil. Aaah.... You know it's so rare an occasion when the moral of Atlas Shrugged is so apropos that I generally have to dismiss Objectivism as a workable philosophy of life. But here it actually works. If Cisco has any balls, they'll simply withdraw from Brazil. Never ship any routers there again. Since their routers are so good they are essentially the only ones usable, that will, in fact, push Brazil into 20th century. This is one of those rare examples when the Atlas can shrug with impunity. Yeah, yeah, I know there are other solutions, but their overall cost is so much more than Cisco that no one even bothers. I do hope Slashdot keeps following this story. Because more likely than not, the Brazil will blink in this one.
I think you are missing the point. Americans provided expertise both in Cisco and the dam case. Expertise that Brazil could not muster on its own. The fact that they didn't much for you is irrelevant. They don't owe you a damn thing. If you don't want want them to do business, stay in the stone age and don't let them.
getting moded Troll. What the hell, I am not one for xenophobia, but national pride is almost as bad. So I'll throw my name in the troll hat. Please, wait until the rest of all Brazilian routers are confiscated before making the rest of your jokes. I mean are those jokes that good that they can't wait a day or two?
Hmm... I read the Wikipedia link you provided. Thank you. Apparently it was jointly built by an American and Italian companies. How would you like your crow served, sir? Boiled, I guess?
However one would still argue that a fine of $212,000 is excessive and use facts like "no one was hurt" or "it occurred at 3 am when no cars were around", to bolster their case. Well, if we accept the premise that it is a fine, then completely different standards apply. With any fine that is meant to discourage activity, the amount of the fine should be roughly (1/p)*(estimated damage of the activity), where p is the probability of getting caught. So if people get caught downloading only 1 in 10000 times, then the fine for downloading would have to be 10000 * (loss of revenue for copyright holder). But if people get caught speeding about 1 in 10 times that they speed, then the fine should be 10* (whatever societal damage is caused by speeding). Of course, these estimates are very imprecise. But it is the claim that most activity online is anonymous that bolsters the case for higher multiples on the fines for copyright infringement committed online.
I know, I know RIAA is "evil". But here's the problem with the principle. Either copyrights establish a property right -- where the copyright holders own something, or it establishes a right to temporarily control behavior. In the first case (the one which we all oppose), the damages would in fact be only what the sale price of the song would be. But The Constitution gives The Congress power to establish copyrights only for the purposes of promoting useful sciences and arts. It does not give it the power to establish rights of ownership of intangible ideas (which is what copyrights and patents are). Why should we welcome the large judgment? Because it is clear indication that copyright violation is not stealing. It's a different type of crime. If one were to steal, one would only owe the victim compensation for the property lost (maybe times some single digit number as a punitive damage). In other words, this is not a tort. If we all settle on the fact that copyrights are temporary permits to restrict copying, then there is nothing wrong with an overly large fine on those who would break the restriction. Anyone who followed the case would remember that the minimum fine for each instance of copyright violation was $750. That alone recognizes the fact that copyright holders do not own intellectual property, but only own a temporary distribution right. And that's a good thing (tm).
Noob!! THIS IS SLASHDOT. Expect the unexpected, or unexpectedly expected, expected but not really but really duh! expect the hello?!! unexpected, or the From the spelling of "noob", I'll just guess the debate is about to get into Alliance vs Horde territory.
By that argument, every service industry in the world also completely breaks economics. I would love to know how you plan to repeatedly provide a service without using tangible resources for it. Someone time is a tangible resource. You can't touch them per se, but they do exist in the real world (as opposed to Plato's world of ideas). The time and effort inolved in creating a copyrighted work does not need to be spend again and again everytime someone else creates a copy of the work. The time and effort is, however, needed to provide a service again and again. So the analogy is faulty.
What if everyone decides they only want to try, and never to contribute to the cost of producing the music in the first place? There would be no music. But if noone wants to pay for something, it's very likely not worth having around. You do know that your argument falls on its face because music existed before copyrights did, right? So did scientific progress, literature, etc. Because your hypothetical "all" cannot materialize. It never has and never will. You want to push this into an abstraction that you set your mind on. Again, just because you are comfortable with one abstraction, doesn't mean that it's the only one which fits the situation.
You can argue, very reasonably, that if copyright is an economic instrument and the value it is generating for the artist is far greater than what would be necessary for them to produce and distribute the work then the balance of the copyright bargain should be adjusted, but this isn't an argument against the principle, it's an argument against the specifics. The crux of my argument was, in fact, that the estblishment as it stands has set the price point where many people can reasonably argue it shouldn't be. I am not, by the way, saying that I support that argument. I am simply saying that it can be reasonably made. And, yes, I was, in fact, arguing against the specifics. You (well, your previous arguement) put the specifics squarely at the one end of the price spectrum -- the one where intellectual property was to be considered the same as tangible property. My argument was that it completely breaks economics because it introduces into the economy a property which can be duplicated essentially without any consumption of resources. That's why the extremes do not work in the copyright arguments -- because either extreme point (no copyrights or IP as tangible property) lead to absurdities. You just happened to explore the absurdities of one end of that spectrum. I felt necessery to point out the absurdities of the other end.
the only reason you can get it for free is because those others are paying for it, then it is a logical fallacy to argue that because you can have it for free, no-one needs to pay for it. Not exactly. This is only true if we "need" to have it at all. If we just kindda, sorta want it and don't really need it, then those who feel the imperetive to have it can pay for it and those who don't feel that imperetive don't have to pay for it. This is where the "all" argument breaks down again. Because there is plenty of people who listen to music not because they feel it essential part of their life but because they are willing to give it a try. So the "all" extrma point does not exist here even as a hypothetical.
Now, you can call that whatever you like, but it's still taking advantage. Nope not really. But since you are using the "you can call it what you like" argument, I have to concede that the subtletely of the language will stay lost on you.
disagree. There is a direct parallel between civil disobedience and military action. Obviously the consequences are different, and usually more serious in one case than the other, but nevertheless the same underlying principle applies Some underlying principles are the same. Just because one abstraction applies doesn't mean it's the only one.
Of course it's not. The default is that something you can't control afterwards (the no copyright case) is worth whatever a single patron is prepared to pay for it, as indeed happened for hundreds of years. If you introduce an alternative economic mechanism through which the costs can be shared, then the product is worth whatever the sum of the individual contributions would be. In either case, if the value of the work at market rates is less than what the work costs to do, allowing for a profit the artist is prepared to accept, then the work won't get done. Naturally, this is wrong. Since it doesn't even explore the current economic model in which the government guarantees producers of content near-perpetual ownership of distribution rights. A system in which "the costs can be shared" as you put it is the one that exists for some blank media in the US but it is certainly not the prevailing system of compensating content producers. But my point was that there are gradations to how much compensation the content producers would be able to achieve through the market forces. These gradations are established by the government through establishing lengths of copyrights, patents, etc. This is why what you said is an absolute rubbish. There isn't 2 possible systems. There are many. Depending on which position the government takes, the market place will establish the price point for the compensation for the value of a particular content. Therefore, the establishment is the ruling force in setting the price on the creative work and the market place is a secondary force in this process.
That is an economic nonsense, and the number of people who repeat it on Slashdot does not change this. We can readily demonstrate this by the fact that if everyone ignored copyrights in this way and the artists received no compensation at all, then the actions of the artists most certainly would change. Your argument holds only as long as a substantial number of people do honour copyright, at which point those who do not are simply freeloaders taking advantage of those who do.
Naturally, this is wrong. You fail to understand the subtlety of the argument. Your argument amounts to "one votes with one's wallet" type of argument. And these arguments always fail when taken to the extreme of "what if everyone did it". The phrase "taking advantage" implies taking proactive steps to secure a situation in which the actions of the counter-party have greater utility than the utility exchanged for them. The pro-active part is where your argument breaks down. Your language implies an intent to force to perform a certain amount work -- the intent which is very likely not there. That's why an individual who (for whatever reason) is not honoring copyright is not "taking advantage" of a content producer, but is rather "not compensating a content-distribution-rights-owner at the level the content-distribution-rights-owner is demanding" -- a much more neutral phrase.
In light of the answer to the previous quote, not honoring the compensation demands made by a content-distribution-rights-owner may very well be an act of everyday civil disobedience (sort of like driving above the speed limit) rather than an act of freeloading (sort of like taking apples from pay-what-you-will basket and not paying).
personally I think the millions of people in the world who work to produce non-physical products should be compensated fairly for their efforts and allowed to pay their rent too, without others taking advantage of them.
The problem with it is that deciding on what is fairly here is impossible through market-place forces. The only reason their right to compensation exists is because it is sanctioned by the government (which is owned by all people). So it is the establishment's policy together with the market forces (but neither the policy nor the market forces alone) that decide their level of "fair" compensation.
The very concept of "ownership" breaks down when talking about exchange of tangibles for something that the original owner does not lose after selling it to someone else (such as a license to use and idea, copyrighted artwork, etc.). The reason it breaks down is because there is no exchange that occurs. The original owner still has whatever he "gave" after giving it. To discuss it in terms that were invented and perfected for the purpose of discussing transfer of possession of tangibles is at the very least misleading.
without others taking advantage of them. Not complying with a copyright is only "taking advantage" when copyrights are drafted in a fair way. What that happens to be is subject to a great deal of debate. BUT!!!! One cannot be "taking advantage" of another if ones actions do not cause the other to change that other's actions. So not honoring a copyright most definitely does not amount to taking advantage of the copyright holder -- it does not require or involve any interaction with the copyright holder (so it cannot be causing the copyright holder to change his/her actions). And no, you cannot claim that it cause copyright holder to stop producing because you simply don't know that copying is an action alternative to purchasing. It could very well be an action alternative to ignoring the copyrighted work altogether.
The scenario you suggest crosses more lines than the one I suggested. It not only crosses the line of appreciation for when a last resort is justified but it also crosses the lines of what type of last resort is acceptable in a civil society. Civil disobedience is generally an acceptable form of behavior in a civil society and as such does not deserve to be compared to military action.
Because we are not talking about taking out a spam shop. After he learns how to take out an ISP for the purposes of stopping spam he will use the same expertise to take out ISP that enable his opposition. I just don't see how an expertly tyrant is better than an incompetent one.
Actually, that Wikipedia entry says that Franklin himself stated that he was not the author of the quote. A simple google search for "gain security" jefferson as in http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22gain+security%22+jefferson&btnG=Search, produces enough results to guarantee that even if Jefferson was not the author, his authorship is the meme of the land.
Slashdot Mirror
Is plainly not taught anymore. Most people don't even remember how logic was taught for the past 2000 years.... geometry.
I must question both its timing and its spirit. "The west gets what it deserves"? Is that how NYTimes wants to portray Russia? Why don't they just go ahead an (in light of Putin's recent visit to Iran) say straight out "Oceania has always been at war with East Asia"?
If we are so ignorant, kindly put your money where your mouth is and stop using our products and services. You can start with not using the Internet anymore.
I don't know why I bother with you anyway. I guess the old adage is right. Do not feed the troll. I should have left your "fuck you" comment stand on its own merit. I won't make this mistake again. Everyone who's read this chain already knows who you are. So any responses you put up will be taken in the right contest. Feel free to insult the best of people -- the ones who produce that which makes life worth living -- as much as you want. I am out.I actually would not oppose an embrace and extend company in a router market. The problem with MS monopoly is that it stifles innovation. But in the router market innovation is hardly the order of the day -- ease and cost of use is. I know there are alternatives to Cisco. But with routers it really is the total cost of ownership that is the only thing that matters. With operating systems, office solutions, certainly games and development environments, it is important to have choices so as to be able to pick the best tool for a job (or just the most comfortable to your working style). But routers are utilities that people just want to "work". Sure you can even roll your own on a Linux box, but it means paying 20%-50% more in admin costs and constantly hunting for specialized admins. Who needs it?
Riiiiiiight. You think it's some nameless bureaucracy of IMF that you screwed? I actually know people who bought your bonds. So you screwed them out of 25% + interest on the rest of the premium after you "negotiations"? The take-it-or-leave it kind? I am sure your production is up quite a bit after stealing a few dozen billion. At the back of some people's pensions... but hey they are not really people, right? They are just US capitalists. Ok, dude. I was joking before, but given that the morons like you are still running some of the South American countries. I wish Cisco would flip Brazil a big one. No, dude, no one owes anyone a job. Ever. Anywhere. EVER! If Cisco was helping the poor bastards who were trying to hold Brazilian networks on a shoestring to keep down their costs, I say give a medal! You say it's not enough they went the extra mile to keep their customers happy. They also had to make some bunch of joe shmoes who happen to live close to their customers happy. Ummm. no! Keep on hating. Hate from people like you and them should only make Cisco proud. Would certainly make me proud.
I should have known you for a troll from the start. But hey, takes one to know one. So I how could I? Why a troll? You just started a router flame war. Ok. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=CSCO vs http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=JNPR. Cisco's revenue is 14 times Juniper's. Ie, the world spends 14 times as much on Cisco products as it does on Juniper's. I'll stand by my original statement. And, you with your dam, your "you are a criminal if you don't do things for me" philosophy and your hate of those who have proven to be better rather bragged to be better... you, sir, kindly be then one STFU.
Says Brazil. Aaah.... You know it's so rare an occasion when the moral of Atlas Shrugged is so apropos that I generally have to dismiss Objectivism as a workable philosophy of life. But here it actually works. If Cisco has any balls, they'll simply withdraw from Brazil. Never ship any routers there again. Since their routers are so good they are essentially the only ones usable, that will, in fact, push Brazil into 20th century. This is one of those rare examples when the Atlas can shrug with impunity. Yeah, yeah, I know there are other solutions, but their overall cost is so much more than Cisco that no one even bothers. I do hope Slashdot keeps following this story. Because more likely than not, the Brazil will blink in this one.
I think you are missing the point. Americans provided expertise both in Cisco and the dam case. Expertise that Brazil could not muster on its own. The fact that they didn't much for you is irrelevant. They don't owe you a damn thing. If you don't want want them to do business, stay in the stone age and don't let them.
getting moded Troll. What the hell, I am not one for xenophobia, but national pride is almost as bad. So I'll throw my name in the troll hat. Please, wait until the rest of all Brazilian routers are confiscated before making the rest of your jokes. I mean are those jokes that good that they can't wait a day or two?
Hmm... I read the Wikipedia link you provided. Thank you. Apparently it was jointly built by an American and Italian companies. How would you like your crow served, sir? Boiled, I guess?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_eat_boiled_crowI know, I know RIAA is "evil". But here's the problem with the principle. Either copyrights establish a property right -- where the copyright holders own something, or it establishes a right to temporarily control behavior. In the first case (the one which we all oppose), the damages would in fact be only what the sale price of the song would be. But The Constitution gives The Congress power to establish copyrights only for the purposes of promoting useful sciences and arts. It does not give it the power to establish rights of ownership of intangible ideas (which is what copyrights and patents are). Why should we welcome the large judgment? Because it is clear indication that copyright violation is not stealing. It's a different type of crime. If one were to steal, one would only owe the victim compensation for the property lost (maybe times some single digit number as a punitive damage). In other words, this is not a tort. If we all settle on the fact that copyrights are temporary permits to restrict copying, then there is nothing wrong with an overly large fine on those who would break the restriction. Anyone who followed the case would remember that the minimum fine for each instance of copyright violation was $750. That alone recognizes the fact that copyright holders do not own intellectual property, but only own a temporary distribution right. And that's a good thing (tm).
Naturally, this is wrong. You fail to understand the subtlety of the argument. Your argument amounts to "one votes with one's wallet" type of argument. And these arguments always fail when taken to the extreme of "what if everyone did it". The phrase "taking advantage" implies taking proactive steps to secure a situation in which the actions of the counter-party have greater utility than the utility exchanged for them. The pro-active part is where your argument breaks down. Your language implies an intent to force to perform a certain amount work -- the intent which is very likely not there. That's why an individual who (for whatever reason) is not honoring copyright is not "taking advantage" of a content producer, but is rather "not compensating a content-distribution-rights-owner at the level the content-distribution-rights-owner is demanding" -- a much more neutral phrase.
In light of the answer to the previous quote, not honoring the compensation demands made by a content-distribution-rights-owner may very well be an act of everyday civil disobedience (sort of like driving above the speed limit) rather than an act of freeloading (sort of like taking apples from pay-what-you-will basket and not paying).
The problem with it is that deciding on what is fairly here is impossible through market-place forces. The only reason their right to compensation exists is because it is sanctioned by the government (which is owned by all people). So it is the establishment's policy together with the market forces (but neither the policy nor the market forces alone) that decide their level of "fair" compensation.
The very concept of "ownership" breaks down when talking about exchange of tangibles for something that the original owner does not lose after selling it to someone else (such as a license to use and idea, copyrighted artwork, etc.). The reason it breaks down is because there is no exchange that occurs. The original owner still has whatever he "gave" after giving it. To discuss it in terms that were invented and perfected for the purpose of discussing transfer of possession of tangibles is at the very least misleading.
without others taking advantage of them. Not complying with a copyright is only "taking advantage" when copyrights are drafted in a fair way. What that happens to be is subject to a great deal of debate. BUT!!!! One cannot be "taking advantage" of another if ones actions do not cause the other to change that other's actions. So not honoring a copyright most definitely does not amount to taking advantage of the copyright holder -- it does not require or involve any interaction with the copyright holder (so it cannot be causing the copyright holder to change his/her actions). And no, you cannot claim that it cause copyright holder to stop producing because you simply don't know that copying is an action alternative to purchasing. It could very well be an action alternative to ignoring the copyrighted work altogether.The scenario you suggest crosses more lines than the one I suggested. It not only crosses the line of appreciation for when a last resort is justified but it also crosses the lines of what type of last resort is acceptable in a civil society. Civil disobedience is generally an acceptable form of behavior in a civil society and as such does not deserve to be compared to military action.
Because we are not talking about taking out a spam shop. After he learns how to take out an ISP for the purposes of stopping spam he will use the same expertise to take out ISP that enable his opposition. I just don't see how an expertly tyrant is better than an incompetent one.
Actually, that Wikipedia entry says that Franklin himself stated that he was not the author of the quote. A simple google search for "gain security" jefferson as in http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22gain+security%22+jefferson&btnG=Search, produces enough results to guarantee that even if Jefferson was not the author, his authorship is the meme of the land.