I did, however, acquire it for a sub-retail price by agreeing to be either a customer of the reseller for 24 successive months or to pay them $375 I signed no contract stating otherwise
Signing a contract is not necessary to enter into one, so while these two statements might be true on their face, one of them is not substantively true. If it were, you could renege on the agreement tomorrow, keep the phone, and pay them nothing with zero consequences. Do you actually believe that to be the case? If not, the fact that you did not physically sign a contract is irrelevant to whether or not you own the phone, and you should be smart enough to realize that is the case.
Minus the widespread violence, it's really not that much different here. Between the "highest single percentage" winner system and numerous laws restricting ballot access, the US political system is not a representative democracy. Incumbent parties have spent nearly 250 years making the barrier to entry higher and harder to cross. We might have two parties that swing like a pendulum, but we don't actually have anything more than the illusion of choice. Even when there's a backlash, the only way for non-[D|R]NC establishment politicians to get elected is to use one of those groups as a platform; they are the gatekeepers, the only ones with access. If you aren't one of them, you have to steal a uniform and sneak through, like the Tea Party candidates did.
Given the extremely partisan nature of US politics, it would not surprise me in the slightest that particularly contested areas are routinely the targets of vote-counting fraud. If they weren't, why is there such concerted opposition to a paper trail? I'm not saying one party or the other does it, more that if it happens it's likely both parties are engaging in it.
This would be a perfect opportunity for a joke about an iRubber protecting dicks from getting iSTDs, but that would be mean since I do actually have friends who use iPhones...
Corporations are bound to whatever limits the law allowing their incorporation says they are. The entity gives up certain rights in order to be an immortal shield for those working under it. The jurisdiction of incorporation should have in their power the ability to require any terms they want in exchange for the power of incorporation, including saying "You cannot be involved in politics."
If groups want to get together for political purposes, they are free to do so. They shouldn't get to use a corporation to shield them from liability for their actions, or to hide who they are. Corporations also shouldn't be used to allow a small number of major shareholders to use the funds from a huge number of essentially powerless minor shareholders to purchase politicians.
Or, if they are allowed, there should be a non-taxable (for the shareholder), non-deductible (for the corporation) dividend that can be exercised by any shareholder any time a corporation makes a political contribution. It would be for the amount of the contribution divided by the number of shares held by the shareholder, with a minimum payout of a dollar.
Damn straight. I'm all for corporations being liquidated if convicted of repeated or gross malfeasance.
I know that some libertarians worship at the corporate altar, but I see that as being inconsistent with a libertarian perspective. Corporations are entities of the State, and exist solely for the purpose of making money. If they commit crimes, everyone who owns stock should pay based on the percentage of stock they hold; after all, a corporation can only be punished financially. Liquidate everything, pay off the fines and judgments, and the shareholders get what's left over according to the number of shares they held. That is consistent with personal responsibility. Stock traders would actually research the ethics of companies and their officers, major shareholders would have an enormous vested interest in making sure the company was on the up-and-up, etc.
There is no reason to fear investing in a company that is evil, so long as it is not actually engaged in investment fraud. That's really the only modern situation where investors can actually lose their shirt. Even then, executives still make out like bandits. There needs to be real accountability for corporate malfeasance, and the corporate death penalty would do that.
No, you're spot-on in regard to the spirit of what "rights" are in the US: They are considered inherent within an individual, and as such cannot be transferred to another. You can give temporary power to another, but you cannot ever give away rights (though you can be stripped of some as an end result of certain extensive legal actions).
Realize, the above is not how it is in practice, but rather the ideal. In practice, government in the US routinely deprives people of rights unjustly and allows others the exercise of powers as if they were rights.
I'd replace "employee" with "shareholder," but otherwise essentially agree with you. Corporations do not exist for the benefit of their employees, unless the employees are also shareholders. Corporations exist for the benefit of their shareholders, and the voting power tends to be concentrated in just a handful of those (at most).
Sadly, the downside of either position was bound to come to pass. With specific rights codified, the government disclaims any others and seeks to limit the rights based on changes in how the exact words are understood (and despite the clear existence and meaning of the 9th and 10th amendments).
Where those rights not codified, they also would have been lost. The government would have used the lack of explicit protections as a means for unlimited expansion of the powers granted them in the Constitution. Actually, they have expanded those in an almost unlimited manner anyway. The worst of both worlds was fairly easy once they stopped recognizing the existence of the 9th and 10th amendments. The fact that the vast majority of people are lazy (from the standpoint of doing anything about issues not clearly, immediately, tangibly, and directly affecting them at this exact moment) only helped the process along.
Anonymous Coward's comment above shows that he/she doesn't understand why the Bill of Rights exists, and also clearly demonstrates what those who argued against its inclusion were afraid of.
People who choose to assemble as a corporation gain certain privileges while losing certain rights (and then only when acting in their capacity as corporate officers). Corporations exist at the pleasure of the jurisdiction they are chartered in. In order to have rights extending from mere existence, one must first have a right to exist. Corporations have no such right; they have only privileges granted by the laws they are incorporated under.
If a group of people wishes to retain full use of their rights when operating as a group, all they simply need do is operate together. This requires no lawyer to accomplish, and does not subject them to limitations of the laws of incorporation. In order for the group to be legally recognized as an entity, that requires certain trade-offs. A given individual no longer necessarily has complete, legal control of assets that they would retain as an individual. They no longer necessarily have the right to refuse to divulge financial information (lots of corporations require regular regulatory filings merely for the pleasure of existing at all). A corporation exists legally only insofar as the legal jurisdiction it was incorporated allows it to exist. It has whatever powers that jurisdiction grants it. Or, at least they did up until a point when they were declared full persons by the US Supreme Court. It's only a matter of time before corporations start fighting for the right to actually cast ballots, even though they already cast powerful votes with their treasuries.
Being a voracious learner and being intellectually lazy are not mutually exclusive. One could say that passing through school with the least effort requires a good understanding of how to exploit the system's weaknesses. Children are good at figuring things out, just not necessarily at prioritizing what those "things" should be. Big difference.
Just like any other tool, students should be taught how to use them and allowed to use them where appropriate. When learning the mechanics of things, there are good examples of situations where computers do more harm than good. If an assignment can be completed without an ounce of effort to understand it, simply by relying on technology, allowing technology is undermining the entire point of education. Many, if not most, students will do the absolute minimum required unless they have good reason to do otherwise. Students who pursue knowledge for its' own sake are rare. Children are typically intellectually lazy unless they have had a love of learning instilled in them by their parents, or are one of the extraordinary rarities where those qualities occur absent any articulable outside influence.
So yes, there are numerous examples of places where a ban on technology is idiotic. There are also numerous examples of places where the allowance of the use of technology is equally idiotic. The issue isn't black-or-white.
<pedant>Yes; sometimes intentional, sometimes accidental. Accidents are usually the fault of the people not letting the horse know clearly where they are though.:)</pedant>
My phone does all that too, without the added expense/hassle of an external keyboard. I'm not understanding what point is being addressed. Support for RIM being classified as a general computing OEM or against the iPad as a general computing device maybe?
Neither my comment nor my categorization, though I believe there are legitimate reasons for making the distinction at times.
The exact uses that distinguish between IPad and sub-iPad size are just as arbitrary. Anyway, basic word processing is easier for me on a Curve than an iPad since one has a real, physical keyboard and the other doesn't. I'd as easily count RIM as a general purpose computer manufacturer for the BB if I'm counting Apple for the iPad.
I think there's a communication failure here. Yes, Apple would be the number one manufacturer, but they would still be a minority when you add the numbers manufactured by Dell, HP, Gateway, et al. together. The information in your link does not invalidate what don.g wrote, since it's talking about manufacturer-to-manufacturer output, rather than overall PC-vs-Mac output. The two are not the same thing.
Since you brought it up, you should tell us where the point of fairness begins. How much of what you earn should you be able to keep? After all, 95% of $30,000 is not as comfortable as 5% of $1,000,000. Almost, but not quite.
Much as I hate to, I have to agree. Trailing a vehicle operated on public property is perfectly acceptable without a warrant, and courts have ruled fairly logically that things that are legally engaged in manually can be legally engaged in technologically.
It sucks in a lot of ways, but unless a technological solution is specifically limited by law when its manual counterpart is perfectly acceptable, the technological solution is by default also perfectly acceptable.
Just need to increase the availability of technological countermeasures.
I ran a forum for a couple years that was used by a group of about a dozen people. It was targeted repeatedly by forum spammers.
The scale of the operation seems to have little bearing on whether they'll target something or not. It's much more likely that the key issue is whether they can easily use automated spamming software. They probably don't bother with unique commenting systems, just those that have a large number of installations.
Slashdot Mirror
I did, however, acquire it for a sub-retail price by agreeing to be either a customer of the reseller for 24 successive months or to pay them $375
I signed no contract stating otherwise
Signing a contract is not necessary to enter into one, so while these two statements might be true on their face, one of them is not substantively true. If it were, you could renege on the agreement tomorrow, keep the phone, and pay them nothing with zero consequences. Do you actually believe that to be the case? If not, the fact that you did not physically sign a contract is irrelevant to whether or not you own the phone, and you should be smart enough to realize that is the case.
Minus the widespread violence, it's really not that much different here. Between the "highest single percentage" winner system and numerous laws restricting ballot access, the US political system is not a representative democracy. Incumbent parties have spent nearly 250 years making the barrier to entry higher and harder to cross. We might have two parties that swing like a pendulum, but we don't actually have anything more than the illusion of choice. Even when there's a backlash, the only way for non-[D|R]NC establishment politicians to get elected is to use one of those groups as a platform; they are the gatekeepers, the only ones with access. If you aren't one of them, you have to steal a uniform and sneak through, like the Tea Party candidates did.
Given the extremely partisan nature of US politics, it would not surprise me in the slightest that particularly contested areas are routinely the targets of vote-counting fraud. If they weren't, why is there such concerted opposition to a paper trail? I'm not saying one party or the other does it, more that if it happens it's likely both parties are engaging in it.
Goatse, is that you?
This would be a perfect opportunity for a joke about an iRubber protecting dicks from getting iSTDs, but that would be mean since I do actually have friends who use iPhones...
Applying logic to fanboy rage? You must be new here...
Ah. That's pretty screwed up. It's sad when any movement gets hijacked by thugs, though it's all too common an occurrence.
Corporations are bound to whatever limits the law allowing their incorporation says they are. The entity gives up certain rights in order to be an immortal shield for those working under it. The jurisdiction of incorporation should have in their power the ability to require any terms they want in exchange for the power of incorporation, including saying "You cannot be involved in politics."
If groups want to get together for political purposes, they are free to do so. They shouldn't get to use a corporation to shield them from liability for their actions, or to hide who they are. Corporations also shouldn't be used to allow a small number of major shareholders to use the funds from a huge number of essentially powerless minor shareholders to purchase politicians.
Or, if they are allowed, there should be a non-taxable (for the shareholder), non-deductible (for the corporation) dividend that can be exercised by any shareholder any time a corporation makes a political contribution. It would be for the amount of the contribution divided by the number of shares held by the shareholder, with a minimum payout of a dollar.
Damn straight. I'm all for corporations being liquidated if convicted of repeated or gross malfeasance.
I know that some libertarians worship at the corporate altar, but I see that as being inconsistent with a libertarian perspective. Corporations are entities of the State, and exist solely for the purpose of making money. If they commit crimes, everyone who owns stock should pay based on the percentage of stock they hold; after all, a corporation can only be punished financially. Liquidate everything, pay off the fines and judgments, and the shareholders get what's left over according to the number of shares they held. That is consistent with personal responsibility. Stock traders would actually research the ethics of companies and their officers, major shareholders would have an enormous vested interest in making sure the company was on the up-and-up, etc.
There is no reason to fear investing in a company that is evil, so long as it is not actually engaged in investment fraud. That's really the only modern situation where investors can actually lose their shirt. Even then, executives still make out like bandits. There needs to be real accountability for corporate malfeasance, and the corporate death penalty would do that.
No, you're spot-on in regard to the spirit of what "rights" are in the US: They are considered inherent within an individual, and as such cannot be transferred to another. You can give temporary power to another, but you cannot ever give away rights (though you can be stripped of some as an end result of certain extensive legal actions).
Realize, the above is not how it is in practice, but rather the ideal. In practice, government in the US routinely deprives people of rights unjustly and allows others the exercise of powers as if they were rights.
I'd replace "employee" with "shareholder," but otherwise essentially agree with you. Corporations do not exist for the benefit of their employees, unless the employees are also shareholders. Corporations exist for the benefit of their shareholders, and the voting power tends to be concentrated in just a handful of those (at most).
Sadly, the downside of either position was bound to come to pass. With specific rights codified, the government disclaims any others and seeks to limit the rights based on changes in how the exact words are understood (and despite the clear existence and meaning of the 9th and 10th amendments).
Where those rights not codified, they also would have been lost. The government would have used the lack of explicit protections as a means for unlimited expansion of the powers granted them in the Constitution. Actually, they have expanded those in an almost unlimited manner anyway. The worst of both worlds was fairly easy once they stopped recognizing the existence of the 9th and 10th amendments. The fact that the vast majority of people are lazy (from the standpoint of doing anything about issues not clearly, immediately, tangibly, and directly affecting them at this exact moment) only helped the process along.
Anonymous Coward's comment above shows that he/she doesn't understand why the Bill of Rights exists, and also clearly demonstrates what those who argued against its inclusion were afraid of.
People who choose to assemble as a corporation gain certain privileges while losing certain rights (and then only when acting in their capacity as corporate officers). Corporations exist at the pleasure of the jurisdiction they are chartered in. In order to have rights extending from mere existence, one must first have a right to exist. Corporations have no such right; they have only privileges granted by the laws they are incorporated under.
If a group of people wishes to retain full use of their rights when operating as a group, all they simply need do is operate together. This requires no lawyer to accomplish, and does not subject them to limitations of the laws of incorporation. In order for the group to be legally recognized as an entity, that requires certain trade-offs. A given individual no longer necessarily has complete, legal control of assets that they would retain as an individual. They no longer necessarily have the right to refuse to divulge financial information (lots of corporations require regular regulatory filings merely for the pleasure of existing at all). A corporation exists legally only insofar as the legal jurisdiction it was incorporated allows it to exist. It has whatever powers that jurisdiction grants it. Or, at least they did up until a point when they were declared full persons by the US Supreme Court. It's only a matter of time before corporations start fighting for the right to actually cast ballots, even though they already cast powerful votes with their treasuries.
You lost me with that one...
Reading the exchange, it appears from the outside as if you were both making exactly the same joke, yes.
None that I can think of, which is why pretty much all fanboys should be curb-stomped at every reasonable opportunity.
Being a voracious learner and being intellectually lazy are not mutually exclusive. One could say that passing through school with the least effort requires a good understanding of how to exploit the system's weaknesses. Children are good at figuring things out, just not necessarily at prioritizing what those "things" should be. Big difference.
Just like any other tool, students should be taught how to use them and allowed to use them where appropriate. When learning the mechanics of things, there are good examples of situations where computers do more harm than good. If an assignment can be completed without an ounce of effort to understand it, simply by relying on technology, allowing technology is undermining the entire point of education. Many, if not most, students will do the absolute minimum required unless they have good reason to do otherwise. Students who pursue knowledge for its' own sake are rare. Children are typically intellectually lazy unless they have had a love of learning instilled in them by their parents, or are one of the extraordinary rarities where those qualities occur absent any articulable outside influence.
So yes, there are numerous examples of places where a ban on technology is idiotic. There are also numerous examples of places where the allowance of the use of technology is equally idiotic. The issue isn't black-or-white.
Have you ever seen a horse [...] step on a human?
<pedant>Yes; sometimes intentional, sometimes accidental. Accidents are usually the fault of the people not letting the horse know clearly where they are though. :)</pedant>
My phone does all that too, without the added expense/hassle of an external keyboard. I'm not understanding what point is being addressed. Support for RIM being classified as a general computing OEM or against the iPad as a general computing device maybe?
Neither my comment nor my categorization, though I believe there are legitimate reasons for making the distinction at times.
The exact uses that distinguish between IPad and sub-iPad size are just as arbitrary. Anyway, basic word processing is easier for me on a Curve than an iPad since one has a real, physical keyboard and the other doesn't. I'd as easily count RIM as a general purpose computer manufacturer for the BB if I'm counting Apple for the iPad.
I think there's a communication failure here. Yes, Apple would be the number one manufacturer, but they would still be a minority when you add the numbers manufactured by Dell, HP, Gateway, et al. together. The information in your link does not invalidate what don.g wrote, since it's talking about manufacturer-to-manufacturer output, rather than overall PC-vs-Mac output. The two are not the same thing.
Since you brought it up, you should tell us where the point of fairness begins. How much of what you earn should you be able to keep? After all, 95% of $30,000 is not as comfortable as 5% of $1,000,000. Almost, but not quite.
Much as I hate to, I have to agree. Trailing a vehicle operated on public property is perfectly acceptable without a warrant, and courts have ruled fairly logically that things that are legally engaged in manually can be legally engaged in technologically.
It sucks in a lot of ways, but unless a technological solution is specifically limited by law when its manual counterpart is perfectly acceptable, the technological solution is by default also perfectly acceptable.
Just need to increase the availability of technological countermeasures.
Excuse me, what was the question?
I ran a forum for a couple years that was used by a group of about a dozen people. It was targeted repeatedly by forum spammers.
The scale of the operation seems to have little bearing on whether they'll target something or not. It's much more likely that the key issue is whether they can easily use automated spamming software. They probably don't bother with unique commenting systems, just those that have a large number of installations.