You're absolutely right, but I think we've gone beyond copyright itself into the realm of "copyright == guaranteed revenue" It's not... never has been, and the Founders' view had a distinct view of "a limited time" because of Europe's stranglehold on copyrighted works.
Copyright itself isn't a problem. The obvious (reasonable man tested) "for a limited time" is not a problem. Seeking civil remedies for infringement that involves monetary gain is not a problem. Nailing people and turning copyright into the new War on Drugs is nothing more than a power grab. Copyright holders have become, for lack of a better term, dodos who are clinging to an obsolete model. "If you can't beat 'em, sue 'em" has morphed into "if you can't beat 'em, buy some legislation to crush 'em." It's hurting innovation, and it's eroding our technological lead to the point of the US being a bloody laughing stock because some wrinkled old bastards in suits think "First sale" means the guy in line at the Wal Mart before everyone else. And "fair use" is a dirty phrase to them.
Copyright hasn't been logical in the last 50 years. The original poster's frustrations are understandable, considering the artists no longer are the copyright holders (for the most part) and corporations (that never die) are gleaning revenue off items that the Founders would have already assumed were put into public domain.
I tend to sound overly negative about copyright, but my real target is the lack of focus on what copyright really is. It's not a blank check or a perpetual money machine for corporations. Though Congres seems to side with the "revised" definition.
And it makes me sick. May Orrin Hatch get a serious case of the crabs from a hooker in Atlantic City....
AND IT ALREADY IS. Why do we need MORE laws? We DO NOT. This is just another attempt to crminalize a CIVIL MATTER.
Seizing property suspected of infringing? Are you NUTS?
The copyright holder has all the resources at his disposal to stop the redistribution of his work without consent, etc. This law does nothing but create a secret police force whose sole purpose is to rough up those who exist outside the "established" copyright kingdom.
Read up on the history of US copyright and you'll see that infringing is what we're good at, particularly when it came to books and the like.:)
WE were the rebels opposing the draconian English/European copyrights. I'm frankly tired of the perpetual extensions, lax registration, and overbearing unconstitutional power given copyright holders. (And artist != copyright holders these days...)
The decline is greater than it's ever been in spite of the wringing of hands and crying out from the content holders. And we can directly attribute this to many things, not the least of which is growing tired of being treated like a criminal. The cost of gas, food, and housing eating away at luxury items, these "essential" things like music and DVDs are losing sales. This loss of sales being blamed on piracy is the tragedy. Yes, indirectly, anti-piracy measures have done the opposite of what they were intended, but it's getting the content holders to _see_ that, rather than raise the specter of piracy again and again (getting more of our freedoms slashed in the name of "protecting" copyright) is the frustrating part.
And we're still preaching to the choir here, of course. But I've said it many times before... getting our voice heard over the stacks of money in Congresscritters' offices is becoming more and more difficult....soon it may become impossible.
Explain to me how Apple's ditched 32 bit? a 64-bit CAPABLE OS isn't a 64-bit ONLY OS, or all those Core Duos they sold would still be running Tiger... Now they are all Core 2 Duo and greater, but that has been very _recent_ and the radar is still current with vast quantities of Core Duo chips.
Last sale date for the PPC Power Mac was not that long ago. Buy a calendar. They've supported an Intel version of this OS since 10.0, and integrating universal binaries into the system is how they accomplish the transition.
Simply put, it's like the fat binaries of the Motorola era... See how long Apple supported that and you'll see why you aren't making much sense. After how many iterations of the PPC chips did Apple ditch 32-bit PPC? Oh yeah, they never did.. (they went intel, but the point's made...)
Speak from what you know, not from what you think you know and life will go more smoothly.
Of course, I'm not really running Leopard on my Core Duo....
Think before you type... you won't look like such an idiot.
The track record that in all the history of Apple, this would be the shortest support lifespan (past the post-production date) of any line of computers?
Just go back to the 68x00 series v. PPC and see what I mean.
Ditching PowerPC is an interesting choice though - it basically means that third-party developers won't be able to use any of the new features in 10.6 without abandoning a big chunk of their potential market. Which is precisely why the PPC ditch for 10.6 is unlikely and simply a rumor to fuel hits to websites. Like the abandoning of 32-bit altogether.... Apple's not in the habit of abandoning platforms sold less than 3 years ago. Why would they all of a sudden start now? I don't doubt there's going to be a new OS on the horizon (for perhaps 2009 or so), but the "facts" associated with this 10.6 rumor are way beyond the usual... And Apple's predictable when it comes to keeping as much of their market in tow as they possibly can...
More specifically, governments have nothing the PEOPLE don't grant them.
And since the PEOPLE grant them, the PEOPLE can (and should) be able to TAKE THEM AWAY.
So, let's pretend we (at least Americans) _remember_ the true spirit of our Founding Fathers....
That's why when we sheepishly ask the government to solve a problem, we really need to think before we grant them _more_ power.
And yes, it's not perfect, and we're to blame for most of the ills of our own governments... but in the US, we still have the Constitution, and we still have the ability to change our government if we truly wanted to. In other "democratic" places, the peoples' rights are much more in danger.
I agree... and coming from the man that decries the current crop of consoles as crap, and all games since he left the industry being nothing more than a "race to the bottom" (of the quality barrel), he needs to stick to remembering the good ol' days and apologize for Chuck E. Cheese.:)
I'd believe that was the case if they actually lost that much money due to "piracy". It's a thorny issue, one that I am firmly on the side of it being a civil matter (unless they're a street vendor bootlegging DVDs/CDs) and I firmly believe the solution is not to treat customers with contempt, rather than more laws, bigger penalties, and more DRM. The RIAA overstates their "loss" to scare legislators (who get lots of cash from the RIAA and so forth) into creating a boogeyman from an issue that warrants little in the way of spookiness.
The record companies, before the intertubes, were able to throw out music, buzz around "it's cool! you need it!" and people would go out and get it, based on a catchy radio song and the accompanying marketing blitz. And until word of mouth got around, the album would sell. Remember how the sales charts tipped upside down when they moved to Soundscan? How the labels' story of artist X being their big seller was turned inside out by actual sales data? The internet has done the same thing... made it possible to know the real story before the album is declared gold.
The internet has created the "great leveling effect" to the influence and power of the labels, and their model of "throw it out and create a market later" is backfiring. iTunes, mp3's, and other advances have made it possible to realize before the marketing blitz can take hold that the music really does suck. I think that, more than the evil dirty rotten pirates are the cause of the decline.
The world's moving forward, but the RIAA thinks it's still 1981.
I wonder who on the inside helped him get the music? Just like screener copies of movies... SOMEONE on the inside of the great umbrella that is the rainbow-riffic RIAA member corporations _is_ helping the nasty, vile piratey types.
But, like the War on Drugs... someone has to get pinched.. and we wouldn't want it to be the anti-soviet dictatorships who give us money.;)
The trojan _was_ Britney's album.;) But I can see that the pre-release stuff is just like the good old days of 0-day cracks...
Frankly, there's precious little entertainment left worth supporting from major labels.. and the tiny fraction that is generally is a band (or individual) that is well established. I'm not saying definitively that all new stuff is crap, because I'm not that old. What I am seeing is a concerted effort by the media conglomerates to flood the market with also-rans and copycats vastly quicker than they have done so in the past. Whether or not that's simply the speed at which we get information these days or a stepped up effort to milk the cash cow one last time, I can't really say for certain.
What I can say for certain is, if it's not worth listening to in the first place, why infringe?
Having ditched my cable TV recently, I can say I don't miss it.. and I don't feel the need to bitTorrent episodes of shows either. It's all just getting saturated with mediocre junk. *shrug* I guess I really am getting old.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that you don't go to gay bars. They are accessible, but they don't cater to heterosexuals, because their core group is homosexuals. Does that mean a heterosexual can't go there and enjoy a night of dancing and drinks? No... but it certainly doesn't mean that the bar should give up its decor and appeal to a particular audience to be more accessible to all demographic groups? It's the same thing with smoking. It's a choice to smoke, but in order to ban a free act that is legal to do (and a tax boon to the government)... the government has made it a public health issue.
I don't work on high steel because I don't want to fall off. Does that mean we need to make shorter buildings so I can work there if I so choose? If you choose not to work somewhere because you don't smoke, don't want to smoke, and don't want to inhale 2nd hand smoke, that's fine and acceptable... but banning smoking because you _do_ want to work there, (which nothing is saying a non-smoker can't work there... so it's not discriminatory) is plain-old nanny state rearing its ugly head.
I for one have no trouble with an establishment saying "it's a smoker's paradise.." I don't mind it one bit. I choose not to go, but I certainly don't want to piss in the smokers' post-toasties because I feel like I have a _right_ to a smoke free place... I do have a right if I own it. My house is smoke free. You can't smoke in my house, but you can smoke outside if you want.. So why are we not giving restaurant owners and bar owners the same privilege?
We're subverting freedom in the name of "public health"... and we're on a slippery slope that we're seeing go places we do _NOT_ want it to go... fat people... ugly people... people who have bad breath... where will it end?
This particular study's a bogus bunch of claptrap, but you see the germinating seed of socially acceptable discrimination (Unconstitutional btw) all in the name of "the public good." My ass... This is plain old fascism.
Thank god you can't be executed simply for being a bitch (or an asshole, or a cocksucker, or a genuinely rotten curmudgeon...)
This is morally suspect, but legally it should've stayed out of the criminal courts... but never underestimate the power of assholes who like to shift blame.:)
Tragic? Yes... but not in the same manner as everyone's thinking...
That's the trouble with the past... we tend to forget the turds and remember the gems.
The same thing will happen when I'm 70... Hell, I already think quite a few of the movies I loved when I was a kid are shallow now.
It's called old age... and you're right... but like every period in history, Hollywood cranked out just as many moronic crapfests as they did thoughtful, meaningful, and relevant films.
And with the passage of time, the movies that were better stick around. The movies that suck are part of local programming at 3am now.
We still talk about IJ movies and Star Wars movies, but we don't talk about Bikini Car Wash or Hard Ticket to Hawaii... (well, there might be some fans of those movies, and who's not a fan of boobies? Hooray for boobies!)
Entertainment is just that... entertainment. I don't need a history/civics lesson every time I go to the theater. Those are nice, but sometimes I just want to see titties and explosions (in that order... and sometimes just titties...)
We wax nostalgic for the "good old days" all the time, but if we are objective about it, the good old days weren't as good as we remember... Not that they were horrid and we're just projecting good on our memories, but we have in our memories the ability to filter out the bad... which isn't wrong, just something we need to take into account when we wax nostalgic for "the good old days";)
The only difference is we don't see this firsthand on closed-source projects, because there's no transparency like an OSS project.
Simply put, it happens EVERYWHERE there is software being written... we just see it in OSS circles because of the whole "Open" (*duh*) nature of that process.
Anyone who doesn't believe that either hasn't worked in software or is a sole-source single Lone-Ranger developer who has to please only himself.
They already do (speaking specifically of the USA). Cable companies and phone companies are government sanctioned monopolies in most areas (and nationally, the seizure of right of way and juicy subsidies make it not just local municipalities doing the sanctioning.) Any time there is a local move for municipal broadband or other forms of competition, the Bells and the cable companies whine to their patrons (the government) and try to get such moves squashed. (Rather than providing a better service at a competitive price, as the market would dictate.)
None of your examples are infrastructure, because none of those items are government sponsored monopolies. (Not even the healthcare system.) The Gap didn't approach the US Government and ask for billions of dollars to build a network of stores in exchange for sweet land rights and cash back... (Same for food).. on an individual basis, there may have been some zoning issues and at the worst, some land seizure... but nothing on the scale of what AT&T and most cable companies have done to get their equipment and positions to market.
When we allow the government to 'halfway' control these things, we're _never_ going to get any market competition and this sort of abuse will continue... first P2P, then certain websites... then startups trying to provide streaming video... etc. etc...
If we had basic competition at a level comparative to say the food or clothing "industries", we'd see less of this behavior and more of what we are really after (choice and competition.)
Well, offhand, I can think of a few reasons.. Most notably, the 4th Amendment protection. The TSA can ask if your laptop works, see it boot, or whatever.. but searching the contents of said laptop isn't the same as a suitcase, because the TSA isn't in the business of doing searches for naughty things... unless your definition of naughty things is a bomb. Bomb making letters, idiotic rants about the illuminati, letters to your sweetie, do NOT affect air travel. Once you prove your laptop isn't a bomb... they should be done with it. If they've any questions regarding illegal items _on_ the laptop, they have to get a warrant like any other law enforcement entity. Or, at least, they should. Without probable cause, searching someone's laptop for something (this guy wasn't in a sting for kiddie porn that I can figure out) and the evidence was gathered without a warrant... meaning it should've been inadmissible. (Granted, he's a scummy bastard, but that's not the issue here... individual rights are..)
Am I missing something? Does the TSA also perform Customs duties too? Looking for bad fruit and drugs? It's a bit confusing to me, considering the other rights you have as a citizen..
I guess I'm too old-fashioned.. I really think the 4th Amendment still means something. (It does...they can't take the rights away... they can just illegally try to suppress them...)
A locomotive engineer will probably like to have a word with you about the various definitions of the word "engineer"...;) But, your point is still valid, considering the origin of the word engineer ("to design"). Most IT people don't have to do that in IT... they simply have to make sure it stays up and running (for the most part...)
You are right about one thing... the morons still equate "windows" with "computer". But thanks to the 'tubes, TV, and Apple's marketing, that _is_ changing.
Death knell? Windows will not die with a bang, but with a whimper... but what do I know... I'm posting on Gartner, er Slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
You're absolutely right, but I think we've gone beyond copyright itself into the realm of "copyright == guaranteed revenue" It's not... never has been, and the Founders' view had a distinct view of "a limited time" because of Europe's stranglehold on copyrighted works.
Copyright itself isn't a problem. The obvious (reasonable man tested) "for a limited time" is not a problem. Seeking civil remedies for infringement that involves monetary gain is not a problem. Nailing people and turning copyright into the new War on Drugs is nothing more than a power grab. Copyright holders have become, for lack of a better term, dodos who are clinging to an obsolete model. "If you can't beat 'em, sue 'em" has morphed into "if you can't beat 'em, buy some legislation to crush 'em." It's hurting innovation, and it's eroding our technological lead to the point of the US being a bloody laughing stock because some wrinkled old bastards in suits think "First sale" means the guy in line at the Wal Mart before everyone else. And "fair use" is a dirty phrase to them.
Copyright hasn't been logical in the last 50 years. The original poster's frustrations are understandable, considering the artists no longer are the copyright holders (for the most part) and corporations (that never die) are gleaning revenue off items that the Founders would have already assumed were put into public domain.
I tend to sound overly negative about copyright, but my real target is the lack of focus on what copyright really is. It's not a blank check or a perpetual money machine for corporations. Though Congres seems to side with the "revised" definition.
And it makes me sick. May Orrin Hatch get a serious case of the crabs from a hooker in Atlantic City....
AND IT ALREADY IS. Why do we need MORE laws? We DO NOT. This is just another attempt to crminalize a CIVIL MATTER.
:)
Seizing property suspected of infringing? Are you NUTS?
The copyright holder has all the resources at his disposal to stop the redistribution of his work without consent, etc. This law does nothing but create a secret police force whose sole purpose is to rough up those who exist outside the "established" copyright kingdom.
Read up on the history of US copyright and you'll see that infringing is what we're good at, particularly when it came to books and the like.
WE were the rebels opposing the draconian English/European copyrights. I'm frankly tired of the perpetual extensions, lax registration, and overbearing unconstitutional power given copyright holders. (And artist != copyright holders these days...)
The decline is greater than it's ever been in spite of the wringing of hands and crying out from the content holders. And we can directly attribute this to many things, not the least of which is growing tired of being treated like a criminal. The cost of gas, food, and housing eating away at luxury items, these "essential" things like music and DVDs are losing sales. This loss of sales being blamed on piracy is the tragedy. Yes, indirectly, anti-piracy measures have done the opposite of what they were intended, but it's getting the content holders to _see_ that, rather than raise the specter of piracy again and again (getting more of our freedoms slashed in the name of "protecting" copyright) is the frustrating part.
...soon it may become impossible.
And we're still preaching to the choir here, of course. But I've said it many times before... getting our voice heard over the stacks of money in Congresscritters' offices is becoming more and more difficult.
Some have stopped putting up with it, but the resultant decline in sales is attributed to piracy, rather than a fed up customer.
Explain to me how Apple's ditched 32 bit? a 64-bit CAPABLE OS isn't a 64-bit ONLY OS, or all those Core Duos they sold would still be running Tiger... Now they are all Core 2 Duo and greater, but that has been very _recent_ and the radar is still current with vast quantities of Core Duo chips.
Last sale date for the PPC Power Mac was not that long ago. Buy a calendar. They've supported an Intel version of this OS since 10.0, and integrating universal binaries into the system is how they accomplish the transition.
Simply put, it's like the fat binaries of the Motorola era... See how long Apple supported that and you'll see why you aren't making much sense. After how many iterations of the PPC chips did Apple ditch 32-bit PPC? Oh yeah, they never did.. (they went intel, but the point's made...)
Speak from what you know, not from what you think you know and life will go more smoothly.
Of course, I'm not really running Leopard on my Core Duo....
Think before you type... you won't look like such an idiot.
The track record that in all the history of Apple, this would be the shortest support lifespan (past the post-production date) of any line of computers?
Just go back to the 68x00 series v. PPC and see what I mean.
More specifically, governments have nothing the PEOPLE don't grant them.
And since the PEOPLE grant them, the PEOPLE can (and should) be able to TAKE THEM AWAY.
So, let's pretend we (at least Americans) _remember_ the true spirit of our Founding Fathers....
That's why when we sheepishly ask the government to solve a problem, we really need to think before we grant them _more_ power.
And yes, it's not perfect, and we're to blame for most of the ills of our own governments... but in the US, we still have the Constitution, and we still have the ability to change our government if we truly wanted to. In other "democratic" places, the peoples' rights are much more in danger.
I agree... and coming from the man that decries the current crop of consoles as crap, and all games since he left the industry being nothing more than a "race to the bottom" (of the quality barrel), he needs to stick to remembering the good ol' days and apologize for Chuck E. Cheese. :)
Oh, good angle. I hadn't thought of that. Of course it's a bit more tinfoil hat than most theories, but it's not implausible.
;)
Still, whichever version it is, the RIAA is asking for criminality when they need to police their member labels' security policies.
I'd believe that was the case if they actually lost that much money due to "piracy". It's a thorny issue, one that I am firmly on the side of it being a civil matter (unless they're a street vendor bootlegging DVDs/CDs) and I firmly believe the solution is not to treat customers with contempt, rather than more laws, bigger penalties, and more DRM. The RIAA overstates their "loss" to scare legislators (who get lots of cash from the RIAA and so forth) into creating a boogeyman from an issue that warrants little in the way of spookiness.
The record companies, before the intertubes, were able to throw out music, buzz around "it's cool! you need it!" and people would go out and get it, based on a catchy radio song and the accompanying marketing blitz. And until word of mouth got around, the album would sell. Remember how the sales charts tipped upside down when they moved to Soundscan? How the labels' story of artist X being their big seller was turned inside out by actual sales data? The internet has done the same thing... made it possible to know the real story before the album is declared gold.
The internet has created the "great leveling effect" to the influence and power of the labels, and their model of "throw it out and create a market later" is backfiring. iTunes, mp3's, and other advances have made it possible to realize before the marketing blitz can take hold that the music really does suck. I think that, more than the evil dirty rotten pirates are the cause of the decline.
The world's moving forward, but the RIAA thinks it's still 1981.
Perhaps that is the problem we can feed to the RIAA's super brain so it'll explode trying to figure it out!
:-)
It worked on "The Prisoner..." (The General, anyone?)
why? *kaboom!*
Ok, I'll go to bed now.
I wonder who on the inside helped him get the music? Just like screener copies of movies... SOMEONE on the inside of the great umbrella that is the rainbow-riffic RIAA member corporations _is_ helping the nasty, vile piratey types.
;)
But, like the War on Drugs... someone has to get pinched.. and we wouldn't want it to be the anti-soviet dictatorships who give us money.
The trojan _was_ Britney's album. ;) But I can see that the pre-release stuff is just like the good old days of 0-day cracks...
Frankly, there's precious little entertainment left worth supporting from major labels.. and the tiny fraction that is generally is a band (or individual) that is well established. I'm not saying definitively that all new stuff is crap, because I'm not that old. What I am seeing is a concerted effort by the media conglomerates to flood the market with also-rans and copycats vastly quicker than they have done so in the past. Whether or not that's simply the speed at which we get information these days or a stepped up effort to milk the cash cow one last time, I can't really say for certain.
What I can say for certain is, if it's not worth listening to in the first place, why infringe?
Having ditched my cable TV recently, I can say I don't miss it.. and I don't feel the need to bitTorrent episodes of shows either. It's all just getting saturated with mediocre junk. *shrug* I guess I really am getting old.
Accidents happen... even to those strapped to the building.
:P
High steel is a dangerous job was the entire point... which was missed, apparently.
So no one falls, eh?
Never worked on the high steel, I take it.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that you don't go to gay bars. They are accessible, but they don't cater to heterosexuals, because their core group is homosexuals. Does that mean a heterosexual can't go there and enjoy a night of dancing and drinks? No... but it certainly doesn't mean that the bar should give up its decor and appeal to a particular audience to be more accessible to all demographic groups? It's the same thing with smoking. It's a choice to smoke, but in order to ban a free act that is legal to do (and a tax boon to the government)... the government has made it a public health issue.
I don't work on high steel because I don't want to fall off. Does that mean we need to make shorter buildings so I can work there if I so choose? If you choose not to work somewhere because you don't smoke, don't want to smoke, and don't want to inhale 2nd hand smoke, that's fine and acceptable... but banning smoking because you _do_ want to work there, (which nothing is saying a non-smoker can't work there... so it's not discriminatory) is plain-old nanny state rearing its ugly head.
I for one have no trouble with an establishment saying "it's a smoker's paradise.." I don't mind it one bit. I choose not to go, but I certainly don't want to piss in the smokers' post-toasties because I feel like I have a _right_ to a smoke free place... I do have a right if I own it. My house is smoke free. You can't smoke in my house, but you can smoke outside if you want.. So why are we not giving restaurant owners and bar owners the same privilege?
We're subverting freedom in the name of "public health"... and we're on a slippery slope that we're seeing go places we do _NOT_ want it to go... fat people... ugly people... people who have bad breath... where will it end?
This particular study's a bogus bunch of claptrap, but you see the germinating seed of socially acceptable discrimination (Unconstitutional btw) all in the name of "the public good." My ass... This is plain old fascism.
I'd rather eat dirt. Smoke if you got 'em!
Thank god you can't be executed simply for being a bitch (or an asshole, or a cocksucker, or a genuinely rotten curmudgeon...)
:)
This is morally suspect, but legally it should've stayed out of the criminal courts... but never underestimate the power of assholes who like to shift blame.
Tragic? Yes... but not in the same manner as everyone's thinking...
That's the trouble with the past... we tend to forget the turds and remember the gems.
;)
:P
The same thing will happen when I'm 70... Hell, I already think quite a few of the movies I loved when I was a kid are shallow now.
It's called old age... and you're right... but like every period in history, Hollywood cranked out just as many moronic crapfests as they did thoughtful, meaningful, and relevant films.
And with the passage of time, the movies that were better stick around. The movies that suck are part of local programming at 3am now.
We still talk about IJ movies and Star Wars movies, but we don't talk about Bikini Car Wash or Hard Ticket to Hawaii... (well, there might be some fans of those movies, and who's not a fan of boobies? Hooray for boobies!)
Entertainment is just that... entertainment. I don't need a history/civics lesson every time I go to the theater. Those are nice, but sometimes I just want to see titties and explosions (in that order... and sometimes just titties...)
We wax nostalgic for the "good old days" all the time, but if we are objective about it, the good old days weren't as good as we remember... Not that they were horrid and we're just projecting good on our memories, but we have in our memories the ability to filter out the bad... which isn't wrong, just something we need to take into account when we wax nostalgic for "the good old days"
Now Get off my Lawn!!
I think that's how MS-BOB got out... they asked. ;)
The only difference is we don't see this firsthand on closed-source projects, because there's no transparency like an OSS project.
Simply put, it happens EVERYWHERE there is software being written... we just see it in OSS circles because of the whole "Open" (*duh*) nature of that process.
Anyone who doesn't believe that either hasn't worked in software or is a sole-source single Lone-Ranger developer who has to please only himself.
They already do (speaking specifically of the USA). Cable companies and phone companies are government sanctioned monopolies in most areas (and nationally, the seizure of right of way and juicy subsidies make it not just local municipalities doing the sanctioning.) Any time there is a local move for municipal broadband or other forms of competition, the Bells and the cable companies whine to their patrons (the government) and try to get such moves squashed. (Rather than providing a better service at a competitive price, as the market would dictate.)
None of your examples are infrastructure, because none of those items are government sponsored monopolies. (Not even the healthcare system.) The Gap didn't approach the US Government and ask for billions of dollars to build a network of stores in exchange for sweet land rights and cash back... (Same for food).. on an individual basis, there may have been some zoning issues and at the worst, some land seizure... but nothing on the scale of what AT&T and most cable companies have done to get their equipment and positions to market.
When we allow the government to 'halfway' control these things, we're _never_ going to get any market competition and this sort of abuse will continue... first P2P, then certain websites... then startups trying to provide streaming video... etc. etc...
If we had basic competition at a level comparative to say the food or clothing "industries", we'd see less of this behavior and more of what we are really after (choice and competition.)
Well, offhand, I can think of a few reasons.. Most notably, the 4th Amendment protection. The TSA can ask if your laptop works, see it boot, or whatever.. but searching the contents of said laptop isn't the same as a suitcase, because the TSA isn't in the business of doing searches for naughty things... unless your definition of naughty things is a bomb. Bomb making letters, idiotic rants about the illuminati, letters to your sweetie, do NOT affect air travel. Once you prove your laptop isn't a bomb... they should be done with it. If they've any questions regarding illegal items _on_ the laptop, they have to get a warrant like any other law enforcement entity. Or, at least, they should. Without probable cause, searching someone's laptop for something (this guy wasn't in a sting for kiddie porn that I can figure out) and the evidence was gathered without a warrant... meaning it should've been inadmissible. (Granted, he's a scummy bastard, but that's not the issue here... individual rights are..)
Am I missing something? Does the TSA also perform Customs duties too? Looking for bad fruit and drugs? It's a bit confusing to me, considering the other rights you have as a citizen..
I guess I'm too old-fashioned.. I really think the 4th Amendment still means something. (It does...they can't take the rights away... they can just illegally try to suppress them...)
A locomotive engineer will probably like to have a word with you about the various definitions of the word "engineer"... ;) But, your point is still valid, considering the origin of the word engineer ("to design"). Most IT people don't have to do that in IT... they simply have to make sure it stays up and running (for the most part...)
The truly lucky ones get to design their own....
Gartner owns Slashdot now?
Man, when did this happen?
You are right about one thing... the morons still equate "windows" with "computer". But thanks to the 'tubes, TV, and Apple's marketing, that _is_ changing.
Death knell? Windows will not die with a bang, but with a whimper... but what do I know... I'm posting on Gartner, er Slashdot.