Much better to wait a year, when a new administration is in office, and then go after the lawbreakers.
You're joking, right? I certainly hope so. You really think that a Clinton or McCain administration will do anything different from the current one? HAH. You are living in Candyland or something. No one makes it to that kind of power without toeing the line. Not anymore. We're poised for another 8 years of the Bush-Clinton dynasty. Things like this are only going to become more common and punishments less common...for those in power. The rest of us will continue to foot the bill, just as we always do. Let's all welcome the new boss, same as the old boss.
Overpopulation? Of what? I mean, regions can be overpopulated, sure. However, the Earth as a whole is not overpopulated. You could fit the entire population of the Earth into Texas. Of course, that would cause Texas to be overpopulated, but not the Earth as a whole. There's still plenty of room out there. You probably live in a city and just don't realize it. You're a fool if you think that the world is overpopulated.
The point is exactly that: you have nothing to actually fear from either the Nazis or the Spanish Inquisition. Why waste time being afraid of them? In fact, we had nothing to fear from the Nazis during WWII. They weren't going to attack us, and we really didn't come in and just win the war...it would have been won without us. So we lost many American men for no real reason. Fear is destructive, especially when it isn't warranted. It's like the guy who walks around so afraid of things like Iraqis and North Koreans that he doesn't even see the bus that hits him. Don't be that guy.
(Not uniformly, though; the Taliban may have been small, but boy, were they scary.)
Oh, and I forgot this gem. They never scared me. I never once worried that I had anything at all to fear from any member of the Taliban. So far, I've been proven right. Other groups I don't fear in the slightest: Iraqis, Iranians, Afghanis, Germans, Russians, Japanese, the PLO, the IRA, the Red Brigade, Al Quaeda, Al Jazeera (joking).
I have much more to fear from k-10 or the latin kings than I do from any of the groups named above. Oddly enough, I don't know of any religious gangs...well, except maybe the LDSers.
I never said that secularism was the cause of secularists killing people. I just said that statistically, you're far more likely to be killed by a secularist than by a religious person. The people killed by secularists so far dwarfs the number of those killed by religious people that it is akin to the difference between worrying about a lightning strike or an auto accident. Sure, some people are killed every year by lightning strikes, but far more people are killed in auto accidents. If you're going to worry, it makes more sense to worry about what is more likely. Also, far from religion being the most obvious road to authoritarianism, I have to point out that secular governments almost always either start out authoritarian or end up that way. There may be an exception here or there, but they are few. A good example of this is that since the U.S. began transitioning to a secular government, it has become increasingly authoritarian. Now, I'm not saying that correlation implies causation in this matter, I'm just saying that the correlation can be found elsewhere in history as well. I'm not saying that it's secularism that causes authoritarianism, I'm just saying that they are almost always found together. I think part of the problem lies in coming up with an objective morality absent a third party handing it out. It's been tried over and over, but it always comes down to someone's subjective opinions.
Please note that it was not 'fanatics' who created nuclear weapons. It was 'rationalists'. As to the relative danger of either group, well, without rationalists creating the nuclear bombs in the first place, you'd not have to worry about 'fanatics' detonating them. I would note, however, that the ONLY people to have ever used nuclear weapons "in the field" were in the US government, and that they had no religious imperative for their use. Also note that those who have murdered the largest numbers of people in history - Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Alexander the Great, Ghengis Khan - all were either non-religious or anti-religious. So the scoreboard shows that you have more to fear from non-religious types than religious ones, statistically speaking. In fact, of the 20 worst losses of human life in history, only ONE had anything to do with religion, and I believe it is either 19th or 20th on the list.
If you had read the Bible, you would know that according to it, people don't *have* souls, people *are* souls. The idea that there is something called a soul which a human can either have or not is NOT a Biblically-generated message. I am not claiming that the Bible is true, I'm just stating that people who claim to base their religions on the Bible should not espouse the soul as existing separate from the 'person', and that tossing aside the Bible based upon a faulty interpretation of it is basing your decision on bad information. Just saying. As far as rational thought goes, it's kind of hard to rationally deduce a system of morality. Actually, it's quite impossible. So rationalism and reason only take you so far. Whatever gets you the rest of the way will be by necessity based on faith of some sort. Not necessarily religious faith, but blind belief without supporting evidence. It's unavoidable. We may all, of course, choose in what we place our faith, but we must all place it somewhere.
No, not really. The FCC was not set up originally to do content regulation, which is not Constitutional. It was set up to ensure that everyone would have fair access to the spectrum. Obviously it failed in even that capacity, but content regulation is should properly be done by consumers. In no way should there be any kind of government or quasi-government body telling the American people what they can and cannot say or view.
Slavery is when you aren't allowed to chose how, when and for whom you work, aren't allowed to quit, don't get paid, and are considered property.
Your definition.
1: drudgery, toil 2: submission to a dominating influence 3: a: the state of a person who is a chattel of another b: the practice of slaveholding
Dictionary definition.
You stated that slavery MUST consist of ALL OF the following: 1. a slave can never choose what they do 2. a slave can never choose when they work 3. a slave can never choose for whom they work 4. a slave can never stop being a slave 5. a slave can never be paid 6. a slave is always considered property
The primary dictionary definition consists of two words, drudgery and toil.
Drudgery is defined thusly:
dull, irksome, and fatiguing work : uninspiring or menial labor
Now, you claim that definition 1 is caused by 'language degradation'. Are you objecting to the definition of slavery as drudgery or toil? Or are you claiming that in the past, drudgery and toil between them encompassed all six of your required conditions for slavery? Obviously, if we use the modern primary dictionary definition of 'slavery', you're incorrect.
Let's check the history of the word 'slavery'.
The 1926 Slavery Convention described slavery as "...the status and/or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised..." Well, this certainly meets your final condition, but doesn't express any of the others. A few may be implied, but I don't see how this definition meets your six required points either.
Let's check some famous historical slaves, shall we?
Illtutmish, an Indian slave, became Sultan of India while a slave, and ruled for 25 years. His daughter then took over. Joespeh, a Hebrew, was made overseer of Egypt while a slave. He had great discretion and his counsel influenced the Pharoah. Harriet Tubman, famous underground railroad runner, worked odd jobs for pay for other people while a slave.
Also, a forum poster on the Afrigeneas slave research forum has provided the following comment along with a bibliography for reference:
It was common in the 19th century for owners to pay slaves for some goods and services. Slavemasters found that threats and brute force were inefficient long-term motivators. The practices of American slavery were negotiated and renegotiated between the masters and the slaves; after all, the fiction that masters had absolute control over absolute slaves butted heads with the reality of slaves' unceasing insistence that their human needs be acknowledged and at least marginally accommodated. Even though slaves negotiated from a position of weakness, they won notable concessions. Customs varied with region and might be denied or enlarged according to the temperament of each individual master, but common privileges included:
Family garden plots in which to grow foodstuffs for own use or sale. Occasionally permission to grow a plot of cotton or tobacco for cash sale. Permission to keep livestock and fowls for own use, consumption, and sale. Free time from Saturday noon until Monday morning. Free time at the end of each day's assigned tasks.
Slaves grew crops that they might sell to their masters or mistresses. They might do extra tasks after the customary working hours or on weekends and get paid cash ("paid old Lucinda $1.00) or credit ("I owe Lucinda $1.00"). Enslaved women sometimes provided midwife services on their own plantation and in the neighborhood and got paid for it ($3 was the midwife's normal fee in Upson County, GA).
For a fee, men cut wood, mended fences, or other odd jobs to help neighbor
Well, so the man is right, but for the wrong reasons. It's not because it has Texans. It's because it has Houstonians. The rest of us disowned those crazy bastards long ago.
Note the first part: Congress shall make no law...
Funny, that didn't seem to stop them from creating an 'advisory body' to regulate speech for them. If you believe in free speech, you should be dead set against the FCC. They're easily the most egregious break of the first amendment extant, AND they're actually un-Constitutional.
Please note that I am not attempting to infer or imply the parent's support of the FCC. 'You' above is plural and generic.
Actually, serfs were considered slaves. However, they got to keep more of their labor than most Americans, and they also had more free time on average. They did get paid and were not always considered property.
To further contradict you, please allow me to provide the dictionary definition of slavery, which differs quite a bit from your definition:
1: drudgery, toil 2: submission to a dominating influence 3: a: the state of a person who is a chattel of another b: the practice of slaveholding
Oh, whoops, you are completely, thoroughly, and totally wrong.
So should he have cleared all his posts on various forums? Perhaps CNN would fire him for supporting the Horde in typical fanboy fashion over on allakhazam.... After all, posting to forums is 'writing', too. How about his grocery list? Should he have gotten that approved, too? I mean, if he wrote it down instead of just memorizing it, that is. What about letters to the editor of his local newspaper? How about evites? Really, CNN should have no interest in what he writes unless he is selling it, and even then if he's using his own time and resources, they should back off. My employer can already totally control what I do when I am at work (even should they choose not to), why should I let them have control of what I do on my own time? Or is there no concept of 'one's own time' any longer?
We must do this now or we will have everyone being afraid to speak out about stuff for fear of losing their jobs.
Well, duh. You just nailed the precise reason why nothing WILL be done about it. Employers want MORE of this, not less. Heck, they can already control some of your off-work leisure activities, why would you assume they want less control and not more? Companies want to reduce liability and increase profitability. If they can control everything their employees do, on company property or off it, they can generally count on doing both. This is, of course, desirable to the bosses (who aren't held to the same rules us everyday schlubs are).
I've always wondered why they don't call it a 'spelling checker' instead of a 'spell checker'. Maybe the 'grammatical checker' should have been invented first.
Look, man. I haven't missed the formation of the elite class. However, it's precisely because of the amount of control "the system" has over you and your money that this can continue. In the early days of our country, anyone COULD be rich, depending upon the amount of effort they put it. However, by playing upon the fears of people like you, that very elite has gained more and more control over your life. The way to get control of your life back is to free the common folk from the chains of government and NOT by making government more powerful. The way to do is is to give the common man more control over his own destiny, to succeed or fail based upon his own merits, and not the hard work and sweat of others. Your goal is noble, but your methodology only gives more control to those whom you wish to see lose control. For example, see the USSR during the height of the Communist influence. The common person was totally screwed while the Party bigwigs lived like kings, all wrapped in the rhetoric of socialism. That is exactly what you would have happen here. You talk about inequality, but it is the height of inequality for one person to be forced to work to support another. You should certainly be able to choose to do that, but no matter what you use my money for, if you take it from me by force, you are stealing and you are wrong. For example, a mugger who gave the money he stole to charity would still be arrested for mugging people.
you are making statements that might be perfectly acceptable and reasonable in a perfect system, but this is not a perfect system.
No, I'm making statements of fact to correct your inaccurate statements.
facts rule here; the US is a nation of laws, even if those laws are flawed.
The FACT is that copying a digital file fails to meet the definition of theft. I am not saying it's morally correct or morally incorrect, I am saying that IT IS NOT THEFT. Clear enough for you?
another fact is that human ambition is driven by profit and/or personal gain
Maybe yours is. You don't speak for everyone. Music and literature and live plays existed LONG before copyright laws. According to you, that's not possible...but yet it happened. Fact.
so that concept of IP must exist or else intellectual advances would not be made
Um, again you are provably wrong here. "Intelectual" (btw, not a word you want to be misspelling) advances were made before the concept of IP was invented. According to you, that's impossible, and yet, again, it happened. Fact.
and music could not be made profitably on a national level, only on a local level where musicians are paid for the performance and not for the song
How did Radiohead make any money then? Didn't they release, on an INTERNATIONAL level, an album (collection of songs, not a performance) for which downloaders could pay anything or nothing? Oh, and didn't they make money doing that? So again, you are demonstrably wrong. Your track record is abysmal.
again, the system is flawed, but this started as post on how it is now, and how it is now is completely opposite of every single point you have made in your posts.
Wow, you're not only good at being wrong, you're good at hyperbole as well. Too bad you're not as good at spelling and grammar.
we cannot live in a world of anarchy, which seems to be what you suggest in your posts.
Are you completely retarded? A world in which copyright infringement is properly referred to as copyright infringement and is not improperly called theft is, to you, a world of anarchy? What a fucking moron you are. Seriously.
it sure would be nice to do whatever you wanted to do, but the huge drawback of rampant disregard for other people's property undoubtedly leads to chaos.
So referring to things by their proper terms is rampant disregard for (not of) other people's property?
most importantly, the system needs to be fixed, not disregarded.
Wow. I am in utter shock. It's a point on which we agree, however inelegantly stated.
by skirting the system you fuel the other side's arguments and make their arguments more favorable because they are on the side of the law and you have become a criminal.
Once again, referring to things by their proper term is NOT skirting the system. You nitwit.
fix the system, don't ignore it. if you simply ignore the law, then you can get punished. then what will you argue?
I don't ignore the law. I simply disagree that copyright infringement equals theft. I am not arguing that it is not against the law, I am arguing that it is not theft. Can you really be so dense as to miss this constant theme in my posts to you?
If you decided not to buy a movie ticket and snuck into the theater, you still break the law.
Yes, you trespassed on private property. Do you think the RIAA would sue someone for copyright infringement for sneaking in to a theater?
If you decide that you will not pay for dinner but still order and eat the dinner, you still broke the law.
Yes, you DEPRIVED the restaurant of food that they could otherwise sell to another diner. If you made a perfect copy of someone else's dinner without depriving them of that same food, and used your resources to do it with, you didn't break the law.
If you install a copy of Windows with zero intent of ever buying the software you are still breaking the law.
It depends on whether the copy was stolen from someone or not. If you took a physical copy and the person/store you took it from no longer has it, then you've stolen it. If you made a perfect copy without depriving anyone of their copy, then you haven't stolen it. You might have USED IT WITHOUT PERMISSION, but that doesn't always equal stealing. Again, it may be against the law, but I don't think you want to argue the perfection of law. There were laws enforcing segregation, too. You may be one of those who is confused about the difference between wrong and illegal.
They are using a licensed product, that license must be purchased, theirfore they are not paying for a product they are using which means that revenue is lost. That's like saying that no revenue is lost if you steal windows xp. intent has no place in civil law.
Revenue which would not have otherwise been realized is not lost. It would never, ever, under any circumstances, have existed. You cannot lose that which is nonexistent. Period. Point blank.
the dictionary has no legal relevance. a license is treated by the law the same as ownership of physical products. I.P. has just as strong of legal precedence as physical property.
Um, IP hasn't been around for very long, relatively speaking. Physical property has had protection under the law for thousands of years. Then, some giant corporations decided that they should be able to defy the laws of physics and make imaginary property. Again legal does not always equal right. and illegal does not always equal wrong.
m-w is a business, they publish a book that is not authoritative in any way. marriam-webster is not a book of law and has no legal grounds.
You are far, far too in love with the law. You're the same type of person who supported Jim Crow because, "It's the law!"
why dont you lookup 'song' in m-w dictionary? see if it calls songs 'not-real' or 'imaginary'.
Hmm, I thought that m-w didn't have any kind of legal authority? Or was that only when I was referring to them? Besides, most dictionary entires define what something IS, not what it is NOT. I notice that, 'real, physical object' isn't among the definitions you provided, either. Why don't you show me a legal source that defines a song as a physical object? Besides, you don't seem to understand the difference between 'not a physical object' and 'imaginary'. It's really not a difficult concept. Well, it shouldn't be.
Assuming we are talking about some non-portable computer, I was thinking once at the library and possible solutions have been found, simply print them out. I've got nothing wrong against dead trees with text on them, just paying for it when its not necessary.
Our public libraries charge for printouts. So, it could easily cost as much as a book to print out many, many pages of internet randomness which may or may not solve the issue (and which will most likely not address any FUTURE issues), which may take several trips and several hours per trip. Sounds a lot better than just making a one-time purchase which may have additional utility in the future.~ Again, an hour of my time more than pays for this book. Therefore, if your solution is going to take more than an hour, which it certainly would, it is more costly to use your solution than to purchase this book.
I assert there is no need to pay anyone over one million dollars per year.
You assert that, and the market disagrees with you. I agree that conditions right now are unfairly favorable to certain large companies, but that is the fault of corrupt government and byzantine regulations/statues which unfairly provide advantage to certain people. However, stating that no one should make over a million dollars is ludicrous. If someone brings in $100M in revenue in a year, they shouldn't receive more than a 1% share of it? You're being far more unfair than any CEO's salary, here. I agree that we need a change, but you're punishing more than just CEOs. Your zero-sum game theory falls apart when you look at it more closely. You indicate that 'if the top income is 30 million a year, the best condo will be 3 million a year' or somesuch. Bull. What you will have is people exploiting other people to get more than 30million a year. They will be able to afford to do this, while everyone who is already low on resources will NEVER be able to better their situation. You claim that money is just a token, but here's a historical fact for you: Some people are much better at gathering and retaining money than others. The ones who are best at it get rich, while the ones who are worst at it get poor...no matter what the starting stakes are. That's just the way it is. There will always be an elite, and the best way to combat that elite is to make it easier for everyone to obtain, not harder. Clear out the corrupt government influence and we'll return to the time when we were far more prosperous as individuals. Adding more corrupt government on top of the already corrupt government isn't going to solve anything. That's like trying to put out a fire with gasoline. I also notice that you haven't addressed the issue of personal responsibility... why should someone who works hard and saves money be penalized in favor of someone who does not work hard and/or does not save money? That's penalizing who you should be rewarding, and vice versa.
Slashdot Mirror
Much better to wait a year, when a new administration is in office, and then go after the lawbreakers.
You're joking, right? I certainly hope so. You really think that a Clinton or McCain administration will do anything different from the current one? HAH. You are living in Candyland or something. No one makes it to that kind of power without toeing the line. Not anymore. We're poised for another 8 years of the Bush-Clinton dynasty. Things like this are only going to become more common and punishments less common...for those in power. The rest of us will continue to foot the bill, just as we always do. Let's all welcome the new boss, same as the old boss.
Besides, people working to reduce light pollution likely don't have the skills to cure cancer (biology, chemistry)
Exactly correct. And the people who DO have the skills are... working on another Viagra, Propecia, or Slim-Fast.
13% of people use made-up statistics.
Cite please? Since 87% of all statistics are made up on the spot, I don't believe yours.
Overpopulation? Of what? I mean, regions can be overpopulated, sure. However, the Earth as a whole is not overpopulated. You could fit the entire population of the Earth into Texas. Of course, that would cause Texas to be overpopulated, but not the Earth as a whole. There's still plenty of room out there. You probably live in a city and just don't realize it. You're a fool if you think that the world is overpopulated.
The point is exactly that: you have nothing to actually fear from either the Nazis or the Spanish Inquisition. Why waste time being afraid of them? In fact, we had nothing to fear from the Nazis during WWII. They weren't going to attack us, and we really didn't come in and just win the war...it would have been won without us. So we lost many American men for no real reason. Fear is destructive, especially when it isn't warranted. It's like the guy who walks around so afraid of things like Iraqis and North Koreans that he doesn't even see the bus that hits him. Don't be that guy.
(Not uniformly, though; the Taliban may have been small, but boy, were they scary.)
Oh, and I forgot this gem. They never scared me. I never once worried that I had anything at all to fear from any member of the Taliban. So far, I've been proven right. Other groups I don't fear in the slightest: Iraqis, Iranians, Afghanis, Germans, Russians, Japanese, the PLO, the IRA, the Red Brigade, Al Quaeda, Al Jazeera (joking).
I have much more to fear from k-10 or the latin kings than I do from any of the groups named above. Oddly enough, I don't know of any religious gangs...well, except maybe the LDSers.
Alexander the Great and Ghengis Khan were not within the last 100 years or so. Nice try, but you're going to have to try again.
I never said that secularism was the cause of secularists killing people. I just said that statistically, you're far more likely to be killed by a secularist than by a religious person. The people killed by secularists so far dwarfs the number of those killed by religious people that it is akin to the difference between worrying about a lightning strike or an auto accident. Sure, some people are killed every year by lightning strikes, but far more people are killed in auto accidents. If you're going to worry, it makes more sense to worry about what is more likely. Also, far from religion being the most obvious road to authoritarianism, I have to point out that secular governments almost always either start out authoritarian or end up that way. There may be an exception here or there, but they are few. A good example of this is that since the U.S. began transitioning to a secular government, it has become increasingly authoritarian. Now, I'm not saying that correlation implies causation in this matter, I'm just saying that the correlation can be found elsewhere in history as well. I'm not saying that it's secularism that causes authoritarianism, I'm just saying that they are almost always found together. I think part of the problem lies in coming up with an objective morality absent a third party handing it out. It's been tried over and over, but it always comes down to someone's subjective opinions.
Please note that it was not 'fanatics' who created nuclear weapons. It was 'rationalists'. As to the relative danger of either group, well, without rationalists creating the nuclear bombs in the first place, you'd not have to worry about 'fanatics' detonating them. I would note, however, that the ONLY people to have ever used nuclear weapons "in the field" were in the US government, and that they had no religious imperative for their use. Also note that those who have murdered the largest numbers of people in history - Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Alexander the Great, Ghengis Khan - all were either non-religious or anti-religious. So the scoreboard shows that you have more to fear from non-religious types than religious ones, statistically speaking. In fact, of the 20 worst losses of human life in history, only ONE had anything to do with religion, and I believe it is either 19th or 20th on the list.
If you had read the Bible, you would know that according to it, people don't *have* souls, people *are* souls. The idea that there is something called a soul which a human can either have or not is NOT a Biblically-generated message. I am not claiming that the Bible is true, I'm just stating that people who claim to base their religions on the Bible should not espouse the soul as existing separate from the 'person', and that tossing aside the Bible based upon a faulty interpretation of it is basing your decision on bad information. Just saying. As far as rational thought goes, it's kind of hard to rationally deduce a system of morality. Actually, it's quite impossible. So rationalism and reason only take you so far. Whatever gets you the rest of the way will be by necessity based on faith of some sort. Not necessarily religious faith, but blind belief without supporting evidence. It's unavoidable. We may all, of course, choose in what we place our faith, but we must all place it somewhere.
No, not really. The FCC was not set up originally to do content regulation, which is not Constitutional. It was set up to ensure that everyone would have fair access to the spectrum. Obviously it failed in even that capacity, but content regulation is should properly be done by consumers. In no way should there be any kind of government or quasi-government body telling the American people what they can and cannot say or view.
Slavery is when you aren't allowed to chose how, when and for whom you work, aren't allowed to quit, don't get paid, and are considered property.
Your definition.
1: drudgery, toil
2: submission to a dominating influence
3: a: the state of a person who is a chattel of another b: the practice of slaveholding
Dictionary definition.
You stated that slavery MUST consist of ALL OF the following:
1. a slave can never choose what they do
2. a slave can never choose when they work
3. a slave can never choose for whom they work
4. a slave can never stop being a slave
5. a slave can never be paid
6. a slave is always considered property
The primary dictionary definition consists of two words, drudgery and toil.
Drudgery is defined thusly:
dull, irksome, and fatiguing work : uninspiring or menial labor
Toil is defined thusly:
1 (archaic) a: struggle, battle b: laborious effort
2: long strenuous fatiguing labor
Now, you claim that definition 1 is caused by 'language degradation'. Are you objecting to the definition of slavery as drudgery or toil? Or are you claiming that in the past, drudgery and toil between them encompassed all six of your required conditions for slavery? Obviously, if we use the modern primary dictionary definition of 'slavery', you're incorrect.
Let's check the history of the word 'slavery'.
The 1926 Slavery Convention described slavery as "...the status and/or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised..." Well, this certainly meets your final condition, but doesn't express any of the others. A few may be implied, but I don't see how this definition meets your six required points either.
Let's check some famous historical slaves, shall we?
Illtutmish, an Indian slave, became Sultan of India while a slave, and ruled for 25 years. His daughter then took over.
Joespeh, a Hebrew, was made overseer of Egypt while a slave. He had great discretion and his counsel influenced the Pharoah.
Harriet Tubman, famous underground railroad runner, worked odd jobs for pay for other people while a slave.
Also, a forum poster on the Afrigeneas slave research forum has provided the following comment along with a bibliography for reference:
Well, so the man is right, but for the wrong reasons. It's not because it has Texans. It's because it has Houstonians. The rest of us disowned those crazy bastards long ago.
Note the first part: Congress shall make no law...
Funny, that didn't seem to stop them from creating an 'advisory body' to regulate speech for them. If you believe in free speech, you should be dead set against the FCC. They're easily the most egregious break of the first amendment extant, AND they're actually un-Constitutional.
Please note that I am not attempting to infer or imply the parent's support of the FCC. 'You' above is plural and generic.
Actually, serfs were considered slaves. However, they got to keep more of their labor than most Americans, and they also had more free time on average. They did get paid and were not always considered property.
To further contradict you, please allow me to provide the dictionary definition of slavery, which differs quite a bit from your definition:
1: drudgery, toil
2: submission to a dominating influence
3: a: the state of a person who is a chattel of another b: the practice of slaveholding
Oh, whoops, you are completely, thoroughly, and totally wrong.
So should he have cleared all his posts on various forums? Perhaps CNN would fire him for supporting the Horde in typical fanboy fashion over on allakhazam.... After all, posting to forums is 'writing', too. How about his grocery list? Should he have gotten that approved, too? I mean, if he wrote it down instead of just memorizing it, that is. What about letters to the editor of his local newspaper? How about evites? Really, CNN should have no interest in what he writes unless he is selling it, and even then if he's using his own time and resources, they should back off. My employer can already totally control what I do when I am at work (even should they choose not to), why should I let them have control of what I do on my own time? Or is there no concept of 'one's own time' any longer?
We must do this now or we will have everyone being afraid to speak out about stuff for fear of losing their jobs.
Well, duh. You just nailed the precise reason why nothing WILL be done about it. Employers want MORE of this, not less. Heck, they can already control some of your off-work leisure activities, why would you assume they want less control and not more? Companies want to reduce liability and increase profitability. If they can control everything their employees do, on company property or off it, they can generally count on doing both. This is, of course, desirable to the bosses (who aren't held to the same rules us everyday schlubs are).
What's speach and where can I get my free one?
I've always wondered why they don't call it a 'spelling checker' instead of a 'spell checker'. Maybe the 'grammatical checker' should have been invented first.
Look, man. I haven't missed the formation of the elite class. However, it's precisely because of the amount of control "the system" has over you and your money that this can continue. In the early days of our country, anyone COULD be rich, depending upon the amount of effort they put it. However, by playing upon the fears of people like you, that very elite has gained more and more control over your life. The way to get control of your life back is to free the common folk from the chains of government and NOT by making government more powerful. The way to do is is to give the common man more control over his own destiny, to succeed or fail based upon his own merits, and not the hard work and sweat of others. Your goal is noble, but your methodology only gives more control to those whom you wish to see lose control. For example, see the USSR during the height of the Communist influence. The common person was totally screwed while the Party bigwigs lived like kings, all wrapped in the rhetoric of socialism. That is exactly what you would have happen here. You talk about inequality, but it is the height of inequality for one person to be forced to work to support another. You should certainly be able to choose to do that, but no matter what you use my money for, if you take it from me by force, you are stealing and you are wrong. For example, a mugger who gave the money he stole to charity would still be arrested for mugging people.
you argue for argument's sake
No, I correct you because you're wrong.
you are making statements that might be perfectly acceptable and reasonable in a perfect system, but this is not a perfect system.
No, I'm making statements of fact to correct your inaccurate statements.
facts rule here; the US is a nation of laws, even if those laws are flawed.
The FACT is that copying a digital file fails to meet the definition of theft. I am not saying it's morally correct or morally incorrect, I am saying that IT IS NOT THEFT. Clear enough for you?
another fact is that human ambition is driven by profit and/or personal gain
Maybe yours is. You don't speak for everyone. Music and literature and live plays existed LONG before copyright laws. According to you, that's not possible...but yet it happened. Fact.
so that concept of IP must exist or else intellectual advances would not be made
Um, again you are provably wrong here. "Intelectual" (btw, not a word you want to be misspelling) advances were made before the concept of IP was invented. According to you, that's impossible, and yet, again, it happened. Fact.
and music could not be made profitably on a national level, only on a local level where musicians are paid for the performance and not for the song
How did Radiohead make any money then? Didn't they release, on an INTERNATIONAL level, an album (collection of songs, not a performance) for which downloaders could pay anything or nothing? Oh, and didn't they make money doing that? So again, you are demonstrably wrong. Your track record is abysmal.
again, the system is flawed, but this started as post on how it is now, and how it is now is completely opposite of every single point you have made in your posts.
Wow, you're not only good at being wrong, you're good at hyperbole as well. Too bad you're not as good at spelling and grammar.
we cannot live in a world of anarchy, which seems to be what you suggest in your posts.
Are you completely retarded? A world in which copyright infringement is properly referred to as copyright infringement and is not improperly called theft is, to you, a world of anarchy? What a fucking moron you are. Seriously.
it sure would be nice to do whatever you wanted to do, but the huge drawback of rampant disregard for other people's property undoubtedly leads to chaos.
So referring to things by their proper terms is rampant disregard for (not of) other people's property?
most importantly, the system needs to be fixed, not disregarded.
Wow. I am in utter shock. It's a point on which we agree, however inelegantly stated.
by skirting the system you fuel the other side's arguments and make their arguments more favorable because they are on the side of the law and you have become a criminal.
Once again, referring to things by their proper term is NOT skirting the system. You nitwit.
fix the system, don't ignore it. if you simply ignore the law, then you can get punished. then what will you argue?
I don't ignore the law. I simply disagree that copyright infringement equals theft. I am not arguing that it is not against the law, I am arguing that it is not theft. Can you really be so dense as to miss this constant theme in my posts to you?
Obviously I meant MPAA above, and brainfarted it. Just posting this to note that it was an error in my writing, not my point.
If you decided not to buy a movie ticket and snuck into the theater, you still break the law.
Yes, you trespassed on private property. Do you think the RIAA would sue someone for copyright infringement for sneaking in to a theater?
If you decide that you will not pay for dinner but still order and eat the dinner, you still broke the law.
Yes, you DEPRIVED the restaurant of food that they could otherwise sell to another diner. If you made a perfect copy of someone else's dinner without depriving them of that same food, and used your resources to do it with, you didn't break the law.
If you install a copy of Windows with zero intent of ever buying the software you are still breaking the law.
It depends on whether the copy was stolen from someone or not. If you took a physical copy and the person/store you took it from no longer has it, then you've stolen it. If you made a perfect copy without depriving anyone of their copy, then you haven't stolen it. You might have USED IT WITHOUT PERMISSION, but that doesn't always equal stealing. Again, it may be against the law, but I don't think you want to argue the perfection of law. There were laws enforcing segregation, too. You may be one of those who is confused about the difference between wrong and illegal.
They are using a licensed product, that license must be purchased, theirfore they are not paying for a product they are using which means that revenue is lost. That's like saying that no revenue is lost if you steal windows xp. intent has no place in civil law.
Revenue which would not have otherwise been realized is not lost. It would never, ever, under any circumstances, have existed. You cannot lose that which is nonexistent. Period. Point blank.
the dictionary has no legal relevance. a license is treated by the law the same as ownership of physical products. I.P. has just as strong of legal precedence as physical property.
Um, IP hasn't been around for very long, relatively speaking. Physical property has had protection under the law for thousands of years. Then, some giant corporations decided that they should be able to defy the laws of physics and make imaginary property. Again legal does not always equal right. and illegal does not always equal wrong.
m-w is a business, they publish a book that is not authoritative in any way. marriam-webster is not a book of law and has no legal grounds.
You are far, far too in love with the law. You're the same type of person who supported Jim Crow because, "It's the law!"
why dont you lookup 'song' in m-w dictionary? see if it calls songs 'not-real' or 'imaginary'.
Hmm, I thought that m-w didn't have any kind of legal authority? Or was that only when I was referring to them? Besides, most dictionary entires define what something IS, not what it is NOT. I notice that, 'real, physical object' isn't among the definitions you provided, either. Why don't you show me a legal source that defines a song as a physical object? Besides, you don't seem to understand the difference between 'not a physical object' and 'imaginary'. It's really not a difficult concept. Well, it shouldn't be.
Assuming we are talking about some non-portable computer, I was thinking once at the library and possible solutions have been found, simply print them out. I've got nothing wrong against dead trees with text on them, just paying for it when its not necessary.
Our public libraries charge for printouts. So, it could easily cost as much as a book to print out many, many pages of internet randomness which may or may not solve the issue (and which will most likely not address any FUTURE issues), which may take several trips and several hours per trip. Sounds a lot better than just making a one-time purchase which may have additional utility in the future.~ Again, an hour of my time more than pays for this book. Therefore, if your solution is going to take more than an hour, which it certainly would, it is more costly to use your solution than to purchase this book.
I assert there is no need to pay anyone over one million dollars per year.
You assert that, and the market disagrees with you. I agree that conditions right now are unfairly favorable to certain large companies, but that is the fault of corrupt government and byzantine regulations/statues which unfairly provide advantage to certain people. However, stating that no one should make over a million dollars is ludicrous. If someone brings in $100M in revenue in a year, they shouldn't receive more than a 1% share of it? You're being far more unfair than any CEO's salary, here. I agree that we need a change, but you're punishing more than just CEOs. Your zero-sum game theory falls apart when you look at it more closely. You indicate that 'if the top income is 30 million a year, the best condo will be 3 million a year' or somesuch. Bull. What you will have is people exploiting other people to get more than 30million a year. They will be able to afford to do this, while everyone who is already low on resources will NEVER be able to better their situation. You claim that money is just a token, but here's a historical fact for you: Some people are much better at gathering and retaining money than others. The ones who are best at it get rich, while the ones who are worst at it get poor...no matter what the starting stakes are. That's just the way it is. There will always be an elite, and the best way to combat that elite is to make it easier for everyone to obtain, not harder. Clear out the corrupt government influence and we'll return to the time when we were far more prosperous as individuals. Adding more corrupt government on top of the already corrupt government isn't going to solve anything. That's like trying to put out a fire with gasoline. I also notice that you haven't addressed the issue of personal responsibility... why should someone who works hard and saves money be penalized in favor of someone who does not work hard and/or does not save money? That's penalizing who you should be rewarding, and vice versa.