Slashdotters want their GPL to be enforceable but then whine when media owners try to enforce their copyrights.
The way to do that is to catch the infringers and prosecute them. But no, the media conglomerates throw out the baby with the bathwater and make it difficult for legitimate users to enjoy what they purchased. The logical conclusion is that their interest does not lie in protecting their copyrights, but rather in creating a stranglehold on all media distribution.
Maybe, but I doubt it. Since 1986 I have accumulated a collection of nearly 1000 cd's. Many of them are out of print, and I don't forsee them becoming available on a new format. And even if everything I listen to is to be released on DVD, there is no way in HELL that I will buy them all over again. I'm probably not alone in feeling this way.
If and when cd's are "phased out", there will probably be a niche market for cd's and players, just like there is for vinyl and turntables.
Perhaps if today's reporters stopped making up half of their stories and/or stopped giving away national security secrets, perhaps this would not be happening.
The problem is that any dirty deed or violation of domestic/international law by a government entity will de facto be a national security secret. And this is precisely the type of news that journalists should be reporting.
I can't agree that... all jobs should pay "enough to live on".
That is how capitalism and the free market works.
Then capitalism is unethical and immoral. Our species is doomed because we place more value on accumulating piles of refuse than on helping one another. I mean really, we are putting our ability to play above others' ability to eat. Absolutely despicable.
I think where you fail is postulating that mere need and hardship entitle one to get 'free stuff'.
As opposed to the current system where those born with the right last name (Bush, Rockefeller) are who have connections with those people are entitled to free stuff.
If a janitor does his job wrong, someone doesn't have toilet paper in their stall the next day.
Then you won't mind if all the janitors quit their jobs to train to become CEO's. Make sure you bring your own toilet paper, soap, and a toilet brush to work with you every day and take your trash out to the dumpster on the way home.
If a CEo of a major corporation does their job wrong, 100s to 1000s of people loose their jobs, hard working people loose money in their 401K for retirement and we all pay when these things happen.
Since this has happened (Enron) it doesn't so much argue in favor of high pay for CEO's as it argues against the position existing in the first place.
I didn't mean to imply that ALL people follow their calling. But, many musicians and artists (among others) follow their calling and do without higher wages.
Why should should my sister study 14 hours per day for 20 years, denying herself sleep, sex, and eyesight in the process if she will end up being no better off than a janitor, except that the janitor has been having the time of her life for the last 20 years, has a developed relationship with 7 kids (all on welfare), can sleep well at night in a house she had not earned, and does not need glasses to read the 'funnies'.
Simple... because that's what she wants to do. I truly and honestly believe that if everyone made the same wage, people would still pursue their calling. Hell, even without wage normalization, people pursue their calling --- even if it means taking a reduction in pay.
30 Million People live on minimum wage because they are too lazy to do anything else. Seriously... anyone over the age of 18 that is still making minimum wage has made a conscious decision to just sit on their asses. If you want to make more money do better in High School... or sign up for a couple community college classes _and actually do the work_ (I see a lot of people sign up for those classes and _still_ be lazy and end up back on their asses at McDonalds)... or, in general, just make better decisions in life.
Right, because everyone has an I.Q. of 200+ and unlimited resources to put them through college while paying their living expenses at the same time. Meanwhile, Richy Rich (who never learned how to cook because Mommy or McDonald's always did it for him) starves since there are no more hamburger flippers --- they are all making minimum wage as architects, electrical engineers, and medical doctors after the wages for these professions plummet due to an overabundance of skilled labor. You really are clueless, as well as unsympathetic towards your fellow man.
Well, something has to be done. Take for example the poor man who can't afford health insurance: he waits until his health problems escalate, then goes to the emergency room. Not being able to pay, the hospitals increase their rates, and the insurance companies pass it on to their paying customers. So, those who can afford it will end up paying for the poor guy ANYWAY. Furthermore, if his problem stems from microbial infection, he may have the opportunity to spread the misery through the workforce before getting treated. This costs people and businesses even more money.
The variance of the payscale needs to be reduced. The janitor's function in society is just as important as that of the CEO of Exxon, and he should be compensated at a level that enables him to pay for housing, utilities, health care, transportation, and a little extra for some fun. Why should extremely gifted or the extremely lucky be the only ones to partake of what life has to offer? It's a sad commentary on the history of human civilization that after 5,000 years we still haven't evolved beyond exploiting one another.
How can it be an unrelated argument? Did you or did you not say, as a complete sentence, "Don't sign anything you don't understand."? Do you hold by that statement in general, or only with regard to contracts with record labels? My point is that that advice is inappropriate in either case, since contracts (as well as the U.S. tax code, and plenty of other examples) are written in obfuscated language, whose proper decipherment requires an expert trained in reading such documents and an understanding of the law, and whose services cost money that many cannot afford to pay. Furthermore, even if you can afford their services, you have to trust that they actually understand the document and the law, and aren't deceiving you. In a nutshell, if you personally don't understand a document requiring your signature --- whether voluntary (a contract) or mandated (tax return) --- you are at the mercy of others.
Nice advice. Too bad it's impractical. Out of the hundred or so million federal tax returns yearly submitted to the IRS, all requiring signatures, how many filers do you estimate understand what they are signing?
Whatever. You said electricity was a basic need, and by extension, so is modern living. I refuted that by saying that modern living is no more a necessity or right than entering into a record contract. I didn't change the topic, as I responded to your argument.
If the risks are large for a certain potential payout, they must weigh their goals against those risks and make an informed decision. This is called "business".
Which is all well and good, except for one thing. Where do people learn their legal expertise, business acumen, and critical thinking skills? After lurking on/. for quite some time, it appears that many here support capitalism and the "free market". However, one of the basic tenets of capitalism is that the people are informed. And there's the rub. People are NOT informed. Big business and government have an interest in keeping people uninformed --- that way we have to rely on them for everything. We pay taxes to support a public education system that fails to teach children critical thinking or any practical life skills (like how to balance a checkbook, how to do your own taxes, how to run your own business, or even how to research doing these things). Hell, the school system barely teaches them basic math and literacy. And when the young adult leaves school and enters the big ol' world, they are all of the sudden supposed to hit the ground running and make informed logical business decisions?
To use your own argument: nobody is guaranteed the right to a modern living. What about the destitute millions across the globe who live without electricity, clean water, and so on. Right here in the good ol' U.S. there are plenty of homeless people. Electricity is no more a necessity than a record contract.
Have you ever known anyone who openly admitted to refraining from using illegal drugs, not because they were illegal, but because they were afraid they might like them? What about homophobia, the cause of which is commonly attributed to fear that oneself may be homosexual. It's so much easier to abstain from behaviors if they are illegal. People are afraid of themselves --- afraid that they might do things which are pleasurable, but morally reprehensible (according to their own standards). The government is more than happy to pass laws restricting prostitution, drugs, homosexual marriage, etc. for those who are too weak to control their own impulses and too dishonest to acknowledge their desires.
I disagree. I believe most people are afraid to decide for themselves what bounds to place on their own behavior. Of course, this would lead them to envy those who are truly free and act to restrain that freedom.
Libertarian party -- the largest 3rd party currently? Wants to legalize prostitution, end restrictions on illegal drugs (including cocaine, heroin, etc), and is for same-sex marriage. The prostitution thing will prevent (the majority) of one-half of the population from voting for them.. and most parents would never vote for relaxing restrictions on meth, cocaine, etc. Not to mention the religious vote (remember you do live in a country where 97% of the population associates with one of the major religions)... And whatever your opinion on same-sex marriage is, you have to agree that right now at least, the majority is not for it.
You are absolutely right. And thus we arrive at the heart of the problem: The majority of Americans DO NOT WANT LIBERTY. They want to be told what they can and cannot do.
The US government can't even persue terrorists who kill American citizens without inviting substantial criticism.
Aren't a lot of those terrorists dead? You know, the ones with bombs strapped to them, or the ones who forced planes into buildings. And as regards the living terrorists, the criticism isn't so much directed at their pursuit, but rather the collateral damage in terms of innocent civilian casualties abroad and loss of civil rights at home.
Slashdot Mirror
You aren't forced to send your child to a school, you are forced to make sure they get an education.
No. You are forced to make sure they can pass a series of exams. That's not quite the same as an education.
Slashdotters want their GPL to be enforceable but then whine when media owners try to enforce their copyrights.
The way to do that is to catch the infringers and prosecute them. But no, the media conglomerates throw out the baby with the bathwater and make it difficult for legitimate users to enjoy what they purchased. The logical conclusion is that their interest does not lie in protecting their copyrights, but rather in creating a stranglehold on all media distribution.
They are definately on the way out.
Maybe, but I doubt it. Since 1986 I have accumulated a collection of nearly 1000 cd's. Many of them are out of print, and I don't forsee them becoming available on a new format. And even if everything I listen to is to be released on DVD, there is no way in HELL that I will buy them all over again. I'm probably not alone in feeling this way.
If and when cd's are "phased out", there will probably be a niche market for cd's and players, just like there is for vinyl and turntables.
Perhaps if today's reporters stopped making up half of their stories and/or stopped giving away national security secrets, perhaps this would not be happening.
The problem is that any dirty deed or violation of domestic/international law by a government entity will de facto be a national security secret. And this is precisely the type of news that journalists should be reporting.
If you want to do something that would get you in trouble with your boss - put it on your own computer.
Nahh. Just encrypt it.
I can't agree that ... all jobs should pay "enough to live on".
That is how capitalism and the free market works.
Then capitalism is unethical and immoral. Our species is doomed because we place more value on accumulating piles of refuse than on helping one another. I mean really, we are putting our ability to play above others' ability to eat. Absolutely despicable.
Or the classic "Scuse me while I kiss this guy".
I think where you fail is postulating that mere need and hardship entitle one to get 'free stuff'.
As opposed to the current system where those born with the right last name (Bush, Rockefeller) are who have connections with those people are entitled to free stuff.
If a janitor does his job wrong, someone doesn't have toilet paper in their stall the next day.
Then you won't mind if all the janitors quit their jobs to train to become CEO's. Make sure you bring your own toilet paper, soap, and a toilet brush to work with you every day and take your trash out to the dumpster on the way home.
If a CEo of a major corporation does their job wrong, 100s to 1000s of people loose their jobs, hard working people loose money in their 401K for retirement and we all pay when these things happen.
Since this has happened (Enron) it doesn't so much argue in favor of high pay for CEO's as it argues against the position existing in the first place.
I didn't mean to imply that ALL people follow their calling. But, many musicians and artists (among others) follow their calling and do without higher wages.
Responsible decisions? What the hell are those?
I don't know. It's not like many governments or corporations are making any lately. Monkey see, monkey do.
So you advocate eugenics then?
Why should should my sister study 14 hours per day for 20 years, denying herself sleep, sex, and eyesight in the process if she will end up being no better off than a janitor, except that the janitor has been having the time of her life for the last 20 years, has a developed relationship with 7 kids (all on welfare), can sleep well at night in a house she had not earned, and does not need glasses to read the 'funnies'.
Simple... because that's what she wants to do. I truly and honestly believe that if everyone made the same wage, people would still pursue their calling. Hell, even without wage normalization, people pursue their calling --- even if it means taking a reduction in pay.
30 Million People live on minimum wage because they are too lazy to do anything else. Seriously... anyone over the age of 18 that is still making minimum wage has made a conscious decision to just sit on their asses. If you want to make more money do better in High School... or sign up for a couple community college classes _and actually do the work_ (I see a lot of people sign up for those classes and _still_ be lazy and end up back on their asses at McDonalds)... or, in general, just make better decisions in life.
Right, because everyone has an I.Q. of 200+ and unlimited resources to put them through college while paying their living expenses at the same time. Meanwhile, Richy Rich (who never learned how to cook because Mommy or McDonald's always did it for him) starves since there are no more hamburger flippers --- they are all making minimum wage as architects, electrical engineers, and medical doctors after the wages for these professions plummet due to an overabundance of skilled labor. You really are clueless, as well as unsympathetic towards your fellow man.
Well, something has to be done. Take for example the poor man who can't afford health insurance: he waits until his health problems escalate, then goes to the emergency room. Not being able to pay, the hospitals increase their rates, and the insurance companies pass it on to their paying customers. So, those who can afford it will end up paying for the poor guy ANYWAY. Furthermore, if his problem stems from microbial infection, he may have the opportunity to spread the misery through the workforce before getting treated. This costs people and businesses even more money.
The variance of the payscale needs to be reduced. The janitor's function in society is just as important as that of the CEO of Exxon, and he should be compensated at a level that enables him to pay for housing, utilities, health care, transportation, and a little extra for some fun. Why should extremely gifted or the extremely lucky be the only ones to partake of what life has to offer? It's a sad commentary on the history of human civilization that after 5,000 years we still haven't evolved beyond exploiting one another.
How can it be an unrelated argument? Did you or did you not say, as a complete sentence, "Don't sign anything you don't understand."? Do you hold by that statement in general, or only with regard to contracts with record labels? My point is that that advice is inappropriate in either case, since contracts (as well as the U.S. tax code, and plenty of other examples) are written in obfuscated language, whose proper decipherment requires an expert trained in reading such documents and an understanding of the law, and whose services cost money that many cannot afford to pay. Furthermore, even if you can afford their services, you have to trust that they actually understand the document and the law, and aren't deceiving you. In a nutshell, if you personally don't understand a document requiring your signature --- whether voluntary (a contract) or mandated (tax return) --- you are at the mercy of others.
Don't sign anything you don't understand.
Nice advice. Too bad it's impractical. Out of the hundred or so million federal tax returns yearly submitted to the IRS, all requiring signatures, how many filers do you estimate understand what they are signing?
Whatever. You said electricity was a basic need, and by extension, so is modern living. I refuted that by saying that modern living is no more a necessity or right than entering into a record contract. I didn't change the topic, as I responded to your argument.
If you can't stay on topic, don't post.
Try and keep me from posting, jackass.
If the risks are large for a certain potential payout, they must weigh their goals against those risks and make an informed decision. This is called "business".
/. for quite some time, it appears that many here support capitalism and the "free market". However, one of the basic tenets of capitalism is that the people are informed. And there's the rub. People are NOT informed. Big business and government have an interest in keeping people uninformed --- that way we have to rely on them for everything. We pay taxes to support a public education system that fails to teach children critical thinking or any practical life skills (like how to balance a checkbook, how to do your own taxes, how to run your own business, or even how to research doing these things). Hell, the school system barely teaches them basic math and literacy. And when the young adult leaves school and enters the big ol' world, they are all of the sudden supposed to hit the ground running and make informed logical business decisions?
Which is all well and good, except for one thing. Where do people learn their legal expertise, business acumen, and critical thinking skills? After lurking on
To use your own argument: nobody is guaranteed the right to a modern living. What about the destitute millions across the globe who live without electricity, clean water, and so on. Right here in the good ol' U.S. there are plenty of homeless people. Electricity is no more a necessity than a record contract.
Have you ever known anyone who openly admitted to refraining from using illegal drugs, not because they were illegal, but because they were afraid they might like them? What about homophobia, the cause of which is commonly attributed to fear that oneself may be homosexual. It's so much easier to abstain from behaviors if they are illegal. People are afraid of themselves --- afraid that they might do things which are pleasurable, but morally reprehensible (according to their own standards). The government is more than happy to pass laws restricting prostitution, drugs, homosexual marriage, etc. for those who are too weak to control their own impulses and too dishonest to acknowledge their desires.
I disagree. I believe most people are afraid to decide for themselves what bounds to place on their own behavior. Of course, this would lead them to envy those who are truly free and act to restrain that freedom.
Libertarian party -- the largest 3rd party currently?
Wants to legalize prostitution, end restrictions on illegal drugs (including cocaine, heroin, etc), and is for same-sex marriage. The prostitution thing will prevent (the majority) of one-half of the population from voting for them.. and most parents would never vote for relaxing restrictions on meth, cocaine, etc. Not to mention the religious vote (remember you do live in a country where 97% of the population associates with one of the major religions)... And whatever your opinion on same-sex marriage is, you have to agree that right now at least, the majority is not for it.
You are absolutely right. And thus we arrive at the heart of the problem: The majority of Americans DO NOT WANT LIBERTY. They want to be told what they can and cannot do.
Maybe we should outlaw Barbie dolls.
The US government can't even persue terrorists who kill American citizens without inviting substantial criticism.
Aren't a lot of those terrorists dead? You know, the ones with bombs strapped to them, or the ones who forced planes into buildings. And as regards the living terrorists, the criticism isn't so much directed at their pursuit, but rather the collateral damage in terms of innocent civilian casualties abroad and loss of civil rights at home.