You are a fucktard that believes in "free markets" when there are no free markets anywhere on earth. The only difference between you and Techno-Vampire is that he got shot down and you just slog onward oblivious to what is going on around you. But Techno-Vampire cannot afford to be oblivious to what happened to him, he had to take a crash course in the school of hard knocks.
What's going on is that the value of labor is being devalued everywhere - and I, for one, am unconvinced that it will reach equilibrium until everyone, everywhere is basically a serf beholden to multi-national corporations. What we call the "western world" is going to get hit and hit hard. Techno-Vampire is just an early casualty.
The monied elite (via their corporations) would be worried but time and the numbers are on their side. Sure, with enough leverage you can move the whole planet - but how do you get hold of a lever that size? The momentum is on their side and it's going to be very hard to shove back the other way.
Do you know what it takes to get people to realize they are being screwed? More effort than most of you can imagine - as proof I can only offer the evidence that many of you are being hammered right now but you still support the status quo by spouting that "free market" gibberish en mass. That's fine by me, keep drinking the poisoned kool-aid fucktards!
Do you know what works in terms of survival? Small, agile, and adaptive. Get out of your locked mindset and into the reality around you. You can't change the world by voting with your dollars because you can't match dollar for dollar with the monied elite. That's why George Bush is president right now and why even when there was a horse race it was between two Yale grads. Sure, there were differences between the two candidates - but the differences could be measured in shades of grey, not in high contrast like black and white.
And BTW, you have to care about your own fucking country, your own fucking state, your own fucking county, and your own fucking city. It's not patriotism exactly, it's just keeping things small enough that the problems are manageable. If you think in terms of "one world" then you must think that all of the solutions that will work in Ethiopia will work in Guatemala, and also from Maine to California - and that's just not so. You must solve your problems more locally. There is no one solution just as there should be no single "one world" neck ready to be fitted with one slave labor collar.
So yes, it is "us" versus "them." It's time to enter Thunderdome, where David grapples with Goliath. The producer/worker of flesh and blood must destroy the fiction of law that is the corporation - and let the real "person" remain standing.
We need to retake the legislature by means of real campaign finance reform. While it remains political suicide to ignore the money coming in from the monied elites and corporations no politician can afford to ignore those political realities. Until we have true campaign finance reform, politicians have to care more about the corporations giving them money than they can afford to care about their constituents - that's just an obvious fact. A dog licks the hand of it's master because it's master feeds it. We must also limit terms so that people cannot actually become career politicians, nip that in the bud too.
Then we need to reign in the power of the corporations if it's not too late already. We must eliminate the pork and tax and regulate them into submission. Corporations are not people, they have no rights. Corporations were intended to do more than just to create profits for shareholders, they were intended as a public good. Where they have failed to remain a public good they should be eradicated.
I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country. - Thom. Jefferson
Where do you get this stuff? By whose definition have you decided these things? You act like this is a long settled matter (and perhaps it is for you), but when I look up those two words - ethical, moral - they seem largely interchangable according to both definitions and modern usage.
I like the distinction you are trying to make. I think your distinction would be useful. I also think you are simply dead wrong.
As far as I can see, you are talking out your ass.
They say shit like this to make it seem hopeless and give credibility to what is basically the strategy of an utter dumbshit.
"See, even this well-educated man can't manage his box!"
A computer is not quite like any other appliance: because it is programmable, it is programmable even by the malicious assholes that gain access to your box.
FWIW, I don't see where they get this $60 price for part time sys admin services - isn't the average around $80 an hour or more? And I mean even for Geek Squad or crap like that...
The guy says nothing of substance. Jargon is just one of the ways language evolves. Language is not static however much semantic nazis want to force certain modes of speech on everyone else.
I agree that some statements laden with jargon fail to communicate a precise idea, and to that extent fail in their primary functions: to communicate ideas precisely so that other people can understand what was being stated.
But taking specific words to task is sort of bullshit. If I say: "I implemented a new code routine" how is that somehow far worse than saying "I created a new code routine"? That's just silly, the word implemented is fine. In fact, it might be even better because it might suggest both creation and placement within an existing programmatic context. Follow-up statements might go towards explaining where the code was implemented, development or production, etc. The word has a meaning that conveys information usefully. Pointing out the failings if certain words is really just whining about the imprecision of all languages and all words. So what else is new?
And you know, if certain word choices really bother someone that much - maybe the problem is with him! Maybe that person is an idler with an obsessive compulsion to try to control the world around him even to the point of trying to dictate how other people choose to express themselves. Could be, huh? Just maybe...
In what way are those two axioms specifically related? FWIW, I don't even accept either of those two ideas as particularly self-evident so I reject the notion that they are even axioms in the first place.
What you don't know about the techniques of argument or debate would likely fill volumes. What you really came here to do was to assert the impossibility of reasoned debate and you did so by arguing unreasonably - which proves nothing.
Just because you appear to be incapable of reasoned and pursuasive argument does not make it impossible to accomplish; it just points up your own obvious lack of skill in mounting such arguments.
I am fucking not paying to watch commercials. That's what the commercials pay for - over the air TV. And the other point is that over the air TV should be an obligation for the TV stations because of the emergency broadcast system.
12%? Who cares. They should do it because it's the right thing to do.
But hey, if it goes away then I will be 100% without TV - which I can live with. Then I'll avoid all the fucking commercials, which is fine by me.
Yes, I am one of those 98% DVD users. I maybe watch 3 over the air TV programs a week, if that, maybe not even that.
There's about as much evidence for your assertions as against them, thereby reducing your post to a trolling crock of shit that someone should mod down.
The reality is that in a world of 6 billion people we are going to have to learn cooperation over competition as a way to live. Or would it not bother you if I killed your family and robbed you of your earthly possessions? Survival of the fittest and most fucked up, right? Is that what you want?
Do you want the law of the jungle or the law of civilization? Choose wisely, because so far you seem like a fucking idiot.
"And just accept the fact that attractive women want attractive men. That's biology for you."
And that's where you got it wrong. Following your logic, what you wanted to say was that women are attracted to good provider's/protector's. So stability, money, love of children, etc. is how to attract a woman. That's biology for you. It is the man that is attracted to good looks. And you might call the arrangement they both end up in a kind of attenuated prostitution.
I'll just take you first point to prove what an ignorant ass you are and to put a stop to this fucking Doc Love commercial:
Firstly, your claim is self-protective. You're underlying claim is that its impossible to make people do things. Everyone, and esp. advertisers, know that your claim is false. If nothing else read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
The reality is that you can make people do practically anything given the right motivation.
This is the lamest advice ever. Almost as bad as "The Rules" for women.
The main thing is that you don't want a relationship based on manipulation. in your examples you are both manipulating yourself and your intended - that level of personal dishonesty will absolutely blow up in your face. You will both become people you don't know and don't even want to know.
If all you want to do is score, that's actually not very difficult. I actually reject more offers than I accept, and I am nobody's Adonis.
BTW, for kicks I decided to run down some of Doc's supposedly sage advice:
"You have to be in perfect shape when you're as old as you are. Make sure you shave every day, use deodorant, shine your shoes, and have a premium membership to the health club (and use it). You've got to look like you've stepped out of Esquire or GQ just to have a fighting chance."
Gee, no wonder the advertisers love this guy - it's all about money and consumerism. Of course, consumerism is the path to true love - I should have known!
"Here's the doctor's prescription. First you're going to study "The System" for four straight weekends at the library wired on coffee and with your cell phone turned off. Then you're going to join Toastmasters."
Actually, Toastmasters is not a bad place to learn how to speak. No problem there. But yeah, check it - big personal plug. Buy my stuff. Now. Right now. Now.
Thanks, Doc. I'll pass. Just as I pass on most fucking commercials.
I think we're on the same side of the issue, but get your shit together, man. This is a civil case. It has nothing to do with the standard you discuss above.
The common standard in a civil case is a "preponderance of the evidence." But yes, they still have to have actual evidence. They can't just walk in and claim damages on mere suspicion.
I'll allow that it gets confusing because some of what is under discussion - the ART Act - has criminal ramifications.
The Napster case seems to be just plain old CAPITOL RECORDS, INC. et al. v. BERTELSMANN AG et. al.
The Third World War is being waged right now. WW III is The Information War.
How does one acquire knowledge? How does one know what information is correct? To what degree is one susceptible to disinformation? How does one maintain secret information? How does one keep information out of the hands of enemies?
We will win The Information War because technology is such that we cannot lose. If they intend to really shut us all down, they will have to go toe to toe with us and resort to violence in the streets of the United States. My only real fear is that bunker bombs are actually intended for use in country.
It is not paranoia if you really are being watched. And you are. They are coming for you.
Uh...the similarity is sufficient that I understand the point of Stallman's statement - in fact, so do you. We differ merely in that you reject the utility or reasonableness of what he stated.
Gee, that's one of the most idiotic statements I have ever read. An analogy by definition notes similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar. So contending that things compared by way of anology have nothing to do with one another is basically stating the obvious.
Now whether the anology is useful is another matter. But even the act of proffering a bad anology does not make one dishonest, stupid, or insane. Personally, I'd have to very seriously question the motives of someone like yourself that wants to make a mountain out of a molehill this way.
Stallman's point is simply to say that when rights are created in law, it is reasonable to expect the enforcement of those rights. And that is essentially a fact, why lobby for rights you don't intend to use?
Just do what I do - stop watching broadcast and cable TV altogether. Most of the good stuff makes it to DVD anyway, and most often you can rent it via programs like the one I have where you can rent 3 DVDs at a time for 5 days and return them and get 3 more and etc - all for a low monthly fee of $10-20. The selection is better than the library, and there is always the potential to copy a film that is worth the $0.40 cost of a blank DVD. I pause my show when I want to. No broadcaster sets my schedule or interrupts me with BS - there being no commercials except maybe the previews of other movies or series offerings for purchase or rental. Even if the previews annoy, I can fast forward through them, or skip through chapters even more easily. When and if they ever disable those features - the ripped copy will be preferable as I can reauthor it.
The program I use is store specific, but I enjoy getting out of the house and interacting with the locals.
There are Bay Area cities in California that already provide many of these kinds of utilities, sometimes even for free. There's no sense in having capitalist-style competition for certain things. Basic home utilities strike me as one of those things that might be better provided by single city-based services.
I don't know about you, but I am not that keen to have my water controlled by private enterprise. I feel little differently about phone lines, etc.
BTW, if the city runs the utilities it might just provide stronger protection of my personal information concerning those items because the government is specifically limited in terms of what it can and cannot do as regards my info. It's not a perfect solution, but easily as good as what we've got. I know the private sector trades on my info without my permission as it stands right now.
Slashdot Mirror
To anyone that wants to pick on Techno-Vampire:
You are a fucktard that believes in "free markets" when there are no free markets anywhere on earth. The only difference between you and Techno-Vampire is that he got shot down and you just slog onward oblivious to what is going on around you. But Techno-Vampire cannot afford to be oblivious to what happened to him, he had to take a crash course in the school of hard knocks.
What's going on is that the value of labor is being devalued everywhere - and I, for one, am unconvinced that it will reach equilibrium until everyone, everywhere is basically a serf beholden to multi-national corporations. What we call the "western world" is going to get hit and hit hard. Techno-Vampire is just an early casualty.
The monied elite (via their corporations) would be worried but time and the numbers are on their side. Sure, with enough leverage you can move the whole planet - but how do you get hold of a lever that size? The momentum is on their side and it's going to be very hard to shove back the other way.
Do you know what it takes to get people to realize they are being screwed? More effort than most of you can imagine - as proof I can only offer the evidence that many of you are being hammered right now but you still support the status quo by spouting that "free market" gibberish en mass. That's fine by me, keep drinking the poisoned kool-aid fucktards!
Do you know what works in terms of survival? Small, agile, and adaptive. Get out of your locked mindset and into the reality around you. You can't change the world by voting with your dollars because you can't match dollar for dollar with the monied elite. That's why George Bush is president right now and why even when there was a horse race it was between two Yale grads. Sure, there were differences between the two candidates - but the differences could be measured in shades of grey, not in high contrast like black and white.
And BTW, you have to care about your own fucking country, your own fucking state, your own fucking county, and your own fucking city. It's not patriotism exactly, it's just keeping things small enough that the problems are manageable. If you think in terms of "one world" then you must think that all of the solutions that will work in Ethiopia will work in Guatemala, and also from Maine to California - and that's just not so. You must solve your problems more locally. There is no one solution just as there should be no single "one world" neck ready to be fitted with one slave labor collar.
So yes, it is "us" versus "them." It's time to enter Thunderdome, where David grapples with Goliath. The producer/worker of flesh and blood must destroy the fiction of law that is the corporation - and let the real "person" remain standing.
We need to retake the legislature by means of real campaign finance reform. While it remains political suicide to ignore the money coming in from the monied elites and corporations no politician can afford to ignore those political realities. Until we have true campaign finance reform, politicians have to care more about the corporations giving them money than they can afford to care about their constituents - that's just an obvious fact. A dog licks the hand of it's master because it's master feeds it. We must also limit terms so that people cannot actually become career politicians, nip that in the bud too.
Then we need to reign in the power of the corporations if it's not too late already. We must eliminate the pork and tax and regulate them into submission. Corporations are not people, they have no rights. Corporations were intended to do more than just to create profits for shareholders, they were intended as a public good. Where they have failed to remain a public good they should be eradicated.
Instead of reading my ugly words, it wouldn't kill you to read this instead:
http://www.uuworld.org/2003/03/
Find out what's going on and why its been going on for so lon
I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country. - Thom. Jefferson
Where do you get this stuff? By whose definition have you decided these things? You act like this is a long settled matter (and perhaps it is for you), but when I look up those two words - ethical, moral - they seem largely interchangable according to both definitions and modern usage.
I like the distinction you are trying to make. I think your distinction would be useful. I also think you are simply dead wrong.
As far as I can see, you are talking out your ass.
That's fucking epic. It gets my vote!
"He died after suffering repeated blows to the head."
That's a sad and horrifying way to die - less like spam and more of a pâté though...
I thought this guy was a spammer!
"By restricting the supply of drugs, the government artificially raises the price of drugs making them a very lucrative business."
That's it? full stop, next paragraph?
Makes you wonder who's racket they are protecting, doesn't it?
You know, that's not even close to a total solution.
They say shit like this to make it seem hopeless and give credibility to what is basically the strategy of an utter dumbshit.
"See, even this well-educated man can't manage his box!"
A computer is not quite like any other appliance: because it is programmable, it is programmable even by the malicious assholes that gain access to your box.
FWIW, I don't see where they get this $60 price for part time sys admin services - isn't the average around $80 an hour or more? And I mean even for Geek Squad or crap like that...
Doc is right.
I am 100% more concerned about homeland security than I am about securing our oil rights in the Middle East and fighting a war so we can babysit it.
Oil is so last century. Forward with the alt energy sources please.
I hope the dawning century has little use for jerkweeds like Bush et al. Let them go fix the price of oil on someone else's dime.
Ogg is still less well supported for many devices than is MP3. LAME VBR is the way to go. And remember... ...LAME Ain't an MP3 Encoder!
The guy says nothing of substance. Jargon is just one of the ways language evolves. Language is not static however much semantic nazis want to force certain modes of speech on everyone else.
I agree that some statements laden with jargon fail to communicate a precise idea, and to that extent fail in their primary functions: to communicate ideas precisely so that other people can understand what was being stated.
But taking specific words to task is sort of bullshit. If I say: "I implemented a new code routine" how is that somehow far worse than saying "I created a new code routine"? That's just silly, the word implemented is fine. In fact, it might be even better because it might suggest both creation and placement within an existing programmatic context. Follow-up statements might go towards explaining where the code was implemented, development or production, etc. The word has a meaning that conveys information usefully. Pointing out the failings if certain words is really just whining about the imprecision of all languages and all words. So what else is new?
And you know, if certain word choices really bother someone that much - maybe the problem is with him! Maybe that person is an idler with an obsessive compulsion to try to control the world around him even to the point of trying to dictate how other people choose to express themselves. Could be, huh? Just maybe...
Someone please mod this guy's stuff incoherent.
In what way are those two axioms specifically related? FWIW, I don't even accept either of those two ideas as particularly self-evident so I reject the notion that they are even axioms in the first place.
What you don't know about the techniques of argument or debate would likely fill volumes. What you really came here to do was to assert the impossibility of reasoned debate and you did so by arguing unreasonably - which proves nothing.
Just because you appear to be incapable of reasoned and pursuasive argument does not make it impossible to accomplish; it just points up your own obvious lack of skill in mounting such arguments.
I am fucking not paying to watch commercials. That's what the commercials pay for - over the air TV. And the other point is that over the air TV should be an obligation for the TV stations because of the emergency broadcast system.
12%? Who cares. They should do it because it's the right thing to do.
But hey, if it goes away then I will be 100% without TV - which I can live with. Then I'll avoid all the fucking commercials, which is fine by me.
Yes, I am one of those 98% DVD users. I maybe watch 3 over the air TV programs a week, if that, maybe not even that.
Mod parent up. Brilliant idea.
There's about as much evidence for your assertions as against them, thereby reducing your post to a trolling crock of shit that someone should mod down.
The reality is that in a world of 6 billion people we are going to have to learn cooperation over competition as a way to live. Or would it not bother you if I killed your family and robbed you of your earthly possessions? Survival of the fittest and most fucked up, right? Is that what you want?
Do you want the law of the jungle or the law of civilization? Choose wisely, because so far you seem like a fucking idiot.
"And just accept the fact that attractive women want attractive men. That's biology for you."
And that's where you got it wrong. Following your logic, what you wanted to say was that women are attracted to good provider's/protector's. So stability, money, love of children, etc. is how to attract a woman. That's biology for you. It is the man that is attracted to good looks. And you might call the arrangement they both end up in a kind of attenuated prostitution.
I'll just take you first point to prove what an ignorant ass you are and to put a stop to this fucking Doc Love commercial:
Firstly, your claim is self-protective. You're underlying claim is that its impossible to make people do things. Everyone, and esp. advertisers, know that your claim is false. If nothing else read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
The reality is that you can make people do practically anything given the right motivation.
This is the lamest advice ever. Almost as bad as "The Rules" for women.
The main thing is that you don't want a relationship based on manipulation. in your examples you are both manipulating yourself and your intended - that level of personal dishonesty will absolutely blow up in your face. You will both become people you don't know and don't even want to know.
If all you want to do is score, that's actually not very difficult. I actually reject more offers than I accept, and I am nobody's Adonis.
BTW, for kicks I decided to run down some of Doc's supposedly sage advice:
"You have to be in perfect shape when you're as old as you are. Make sure you shave every day, use deodorant, shine your shoes, and have a premium membership to the health club (and use it). You've got to look like you've stepped out of Esquire or GQ just to have a fighting chance."
Gee, no wonder the advertisers love this guy - it's all about money and consumerism. Of course, consumerism is the path to true love - I should have known!
"Here's the doctor's prescription. First you're going to study "The System" for four straight weekends at the library wired on coffee and with your cell phone turned off. Then you're going to join Toastmasters."
Actually, Toastmasters is not a bad place to learn how to speak. No problem there. But yeah, check it - big personal plug. Buy my stuff. Now. Right now. Now.
Thanks, Doc. I'll pass. Just as I pass on most fucking commercials.
Oh man, how lame am I? This caught me by surprise and I was actually laughing out loud at the absurdity of it all.
I thank you and my endorphins thank you.
I think we're on the same side of the issue, but get your shit together, man. This is a civil case. It has nothing to do with the standard you discuss above.
The common standard in a civil case is a "preponderance of the evidence." But yes, they still have to have actual evidence. They can't just walk in and claim damages on mere suspicion.
I'll allow that it gets confusing because some of what is under discussion - the ART Act - has criminal ramifications.
The Napster case seems to be just plain old CAPITOL RECORDS, INC. et al. v. BERTELSMANN AG et. al.
Civil case.
The Third World War is being waged right now. WW III is The Information War.
How does one acquire knowledge? How does one know what information is correct? To what degree is one susceptible to disinformation? How does one maintain secret information? How does one keep information out of the hands of enemies?
We will win The Information War because technology is such that we cannot lose. If they intend to really shut us all down, they will have to go toe to toe with us and resort to violence in the streets of the United States. My only real fear is that bunker bombs are actually intended for use in country.
It is not paranoia if you really are being watched. And you are. They are coming for you.
Uh...the similarity is sufficient that I understand the point of Stallman's statement - in fact, so do you. We differ merely in that you reject the utility or reasonableness of what he stated.
Let's face it, you're just trolling here...
Gee, that's one of the most idiotic statements I have ever read. An analogy by definition notes similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar. So contending that things compared by way of anology have nothing to do with one another is basically stating the obvious.
Now whether the anology is useful is another matter. But even the act of proffering a bad anology does not make one dishonest, stupid, or insane. Personally, I'd have to very seriously question the motives of someone like yourself that wants to make a mountain out of a molehill this way.
Stallman's point is simply to say that when rights are created in law, it is reasonable to expect the enforcement of those rights. And that is essentially a fact, why lobby for rights you don't intend to use?
Just do what I do - stop watching broadcast and cable TV altogether. Most of the good stuff makes it to DVD anyway, and most often you can rent it via programs like the one I have where you can rent 3 DVDs at a time for 5 days and return them and get 3 more and etc - all for a low monthly fee of $10-20. The selection is better than the library, and there is always the potential to copy a film that is worth the $0.40 cost of a blank DVD. I pause my show when I want to. No broadcaster sets my schedule or interrupts me with BS - there being no commercials except maybe the previews of other movies or series offerings for purchase or rental. Even if the previews annoy, I can fast forward through them, or skip through chapters even more easily. When and if they ever disable those features - the ripped copy will be preferable as I can reauthor it.
The program I use is store specific, but I enjoy getting out of the house and interacting with the locals.
Cheap, convenient - no downside.
Jeez...
There are Bay Area cities in California that already provide many of these kinds of utilities, sometimes even for free. There's no sense in having capitalist-style competition for certain things. Basic home utilities strike me as one of those things that might be better provided by single city-based services.
I don't know about you, but I am not that keen to have my water controlled by private enterprise. I feel little differently about phone lines, etc.
BTW, if the city runs the utilities it might just provide stronger protection of my personal information concerning those items because the government is specifically limited in terms of what it can and cannot do as regards my info. It's not a perfect solution, but easily as good as what we've got. I know the private sector trades on my info without my permission as it stands right now.