But my guess is, that when you say "I don't pirate", you _mean_ you don't d/l music, movies, etc, without paying for them.
I'll openly admit, I do.
But then, please remember piracy is RESELLING that which one does not own. Simple downloading != piracy... and calling it such plays into the hands of the **AAs.
What is happening is an economic shift whereby the old business model of the **AAs as middlemen is becoming an economic burden rather than an economic necessity. And as Mal Reynolds pointed out "middlemen don't take too kindly to being eliminated".
HAHAHAHAHAHA, *riiight*, you've sure nailed libertarianism on the head! *cough cough*
Please reference prominent libertarian thinkers on how these are libertarian premises:
1)
a) It assumes that consumers are all informed,
b) make sensible decisions,
c) and care about quality
d) (or even price, to a point).
2)
a) It assumes that companies won't collude together to fix prices;
b) it assumes competition is perfect and "by the books".
And please demonstrate how the following points hold any water whatever:
3) It conveniently disregards such concepts as:
a) pre-existing mindshare
b) FUD,
c) and barrier to entry.
It's a pure form of idealistic free-market religionism, cut from the same cloth as the Pollyannas who constantly chirp about how America is "the land of opportunity" and anyone who really works hard and has a can-do attitude can make it rich here.
As for this, most libertarians are coming rapidly to the conclusion that America was the land of opportunity. Alas, people like you, who have argued collectivist-statist ideas for decades now, have started to bring her to her knees.
"Laisser-faire" approaches inevitably fail because one of the things that can be purchased, once the amount of money in play is high enough, is government coercion.
Thats akin to "the bucket failed to hold the water because we cut a hole in the bottom of the bucket"..
"Buying government coercion" is antithetical to laisez-faire principles - period - and should generally be regarded as treasonous.
That is to say, those who engage in the purchase and selling of such government coercion should be considered traitors, and sumarily dealt with once due process has confirmed their guilt.
Either stout hemp rope, or a nice sharp axe blade. In public. Hell, maybe even on PPV...
I'd also wager that most proponents of laisez-faire would, if not agreeing with my solution, would at least agree that this is a criminal problem and should be dealt with accordingly.
This is the outcome of your beloved "free market". Shitty, largely indistinguishable, highly derivative repackagings of the same generic crap from one or two sources.
Yeah, and to think I'm replying from a computer with nearly a terabyte of hard drive space, two gigs of ram, and a 2.8 GHz processor.
Shitty! Positively shitty I say! Hahahahahahahahaahahahaha
If the auto industry improved as "shitily" as the computer industry, we'd have the flying cars we were promised decades ago.
If the government _gives_ money to Microsoft, and paying taxes is a "contribution", then yeah, I guess I have "contributed" to Mr gates fortune.
(Of course, if the government isn't giving the money away, but spending it on Microsoft products, then no, your argument holds even less water.)
Then there is the fact that my view of taxation is that it is theft. That I was robbed, and some percentage of that money went to MS, hardly indicates any real financial support of MS on my part, does it now?
The link doesn't actually say how much of that came from Bill himself. Nor how much of a tax break he got for whatever he did contribute.
You're right.
So where did the money come from?
Was Melinda a multi-multi billionaire before she married Bill, and I haven't heard about it till now, when you cite such?
Ditto his father?
I'll stick with Okham's razor on this one and go with the safe assumption that at least by and large, that money came from Bill Gates.
I have a problem with the notion that a prick can get filthy rich by screwing everyone over, and then get sainted for giving part of his ill-gotten gains to charity. And arranging press releases to make sure everyone knows about it.
He hasn't screwed ME over, as I've not contributed a penny to his fortune. I run Linux on my desktop, maybe you've heard of it? It's a free alternative OS...
Yes. His business practices are in many ways detestable. And as much as I hate Microsoft - primarily due to their shoddy software and attitude of "take it or leave it, we're Microsoft" - I still don't care that they've made it so big.
Why?
Because I have faith that the market - if left alone by the government - will ultimately force one of two things: a) a correction of the market against Microsoft or b) Microsoft actually getting a clue and becoming innovative and responsive to customer needs and wants. I seriously doubt b) will happen, so I am looking forward with great glee to a), but that will take time as PCs are still a relatively very new thing.
Unless you can honestly claim to give a larger percentage of your salary to charity than bill gates has, then I encourage you to please enjoy a hearty slice of shut the hell up.
God how I *do* hate to defend Bill Gates, but giving to charity is without a shred of a doubt where this man really shines:
the Seattle-based foundation has an endowment of approximately $28.8 billion.
28.8 billion. Buh-ill-eee-on. LARGE number. And even quite a healthy percentage of Gate's own personal fortune. He's worth about sixty billion right now.
So, if you do not give near half of the worth of your total assets, I second the idea of you "enjoying a slice of shut the hell up".
Not that I am defending Bush, but the NSA spying on Americans is nothing new. Read "The Puzzle Palace" and "Body of Secrets" by James Bamford if you want a good look inside "no such agency".. the only things to change from the book would be the tech, not the policies, politics and yes, paranoia.
Well, back in the day when I played Trade Wars, you didn't have to wait for other players to take your turn. One turn/day, and if you skipped it it was your own damn fault.
Right! Because "nuculur" is allready the popular usage..
Oh... wait... it isn't, it it?
I don't think you get language at all. "Mebi" grates on the ear to most people, which is why so many resist it. It sounds downright stupid. Painful, even. Like someone dragging a cheesegrader over your dick's head.
You go ahead and use it all you'd like; I ain't going to stop you by force or nothing.
But nothing will stop me from pointing and laughing, either..
Knowing what a word stands for, and liking the word or common (thank heavens NOT the case here) usage of it, are two separate issues.
But thanks for the dunsel third grade math lesson..
But here is a lesson in English language. If you hear someone say "mega", where YOU would say "mebi", does that not still lead to confusion? So not only did whoever invented this term make up something sounding ridiculously queer, they did not succeed in their plan to end confusion.
I know that this is surely off topic, but I can't restrain myself.
You're actually the first person I've seen really _use_ this "term" in a sentence. I heard of it a while back, and cringed. But I cringed again seeing it actually used... come on! This is such a blatantly godawfull crapulescent term.. vomitous, disgusting, vile. It's like an incarnation of Barney haunting a word, only worse.
"Mebi" can kiss my ass. Thank you for listening to my rant. Now back to your regular/.
Please know that communism and authoritarian government are not the same!
Please show that communism and authoritarian government are not the same!
I've yet to hear of any instance where this did not prove true, provided that it was not a small (few people who pretty much all know each other) commune. On the state level, it always devolves into authoritarianism. After all, the state/party owns everything, and ownership is control. Control is authority... you do the math.
Knowledge is not helpfull at all in "the real world" though, since that is another missuse of the word. The REAL WORLD is in the woods, in nature.
I'm sorry, but you are a moron.
The knowledge to start a fire would most definately be useful in "the real world".
And that is just the first and most visceral example. What will you eat? Do you know what plants are safe? Can you protect yourself from the wildlife - and do you know which animals are the worst threats?
No use for knowledge in the "real world"? Puh-leeze.
But on the other hand helping the poor is totaly unamerican (socialism is baaaaaaaad).
False dichotomy.
You assume the only way to help the poor is through government action. To me, that is a recipe to keep them poor forever.
One should always strive to "teach a man to fish", rather than simply giving them a fish. But government not only hands out the fish (after stealing it from someone else), they virtually prohibit teaching fishing (metaphorically speaking.)
In other words, if you want to help the poor, a) you can ALL READY freely give them money from your wallet, thats called charity - "giving" it to the government first is a huge waste and b) getting the government OUT OF THE WAY will let the poor advance themselves, which is the only way to really aquire wealth.
Slashdot Mirror
I also assert that the rest of the world should be modelled on academia because it would raise the intellectual bar.
.. no thanks!
People would _starve to death_
For the record, I don't pirate.
... and calling it such plays into the hands of the **AAs.
Good for you, and neither do I!
But my guess is, that when you say "I don't pirate", you _mean_ you don't d/l music, movies, etc, without paying for them.
I'll openly admit, I do.
But then, please remember piracy is RESELLING that which one does not own. Simple downloading != piracy
What is happening is an economic shift whereby the old business model of the **AAs as middlemen is becoming an economic burden rather than an economic necessity. And as Mal Reynolds pointed out "middlemen don't take too kindly to being eliminated".
HAHAHAHAHAHA, *riiight*, you've sure nailed libertarianism on the head!
*cough cough*
Please reference prominent libertarian thinkers on how these are libertarian premises:
1)
a) It assumes that consumers are all informed,
b) make sensible decisions,
c) and care about quality
d) (or even price, to a point).
2)
a) It assumes that companies won't collude together to fix prices;
b) it assumes competition is perfect and "by the books".
And please demonstrate how the following points hold any water whatever:
3) It conveniently disregards such concepts as:
a) pre-existing mindshare
b) FUD,
c) and barrier to entry.
It's a pure form of idealistic free-market religionism, cut from the same cloth as the Pollyannas who constantly chirp about how America is "the land of opportunity" and anyone who really works hard and has a can-do attitude can make it rich here.
As for this, most libertarians are coming rapidly to the conclusion that America was the land of opportunity. Alas, people like you, who have argued collectivist-statist ideas for decades now, have started to bring her to her knees.
In general they help because they allow you to maintain your ignorance
.. helpful?
Maintaining ignorance is
"Laisser-faire" approaches inevitably fail because one of the things that can be purchased, once the amount of money in play is high enough, is government coercion.
...
Thats akin to "the bucket failed to hold the water because we cut a hole in the bottom of the bucket"..
"Buying government coercion" is antithetical to laisez-faire principles - period - and should generally be regarded as treasonous.
That is to say, those who engage in the purchase and selling of such government coercion should be considered traitors, and sumarily dealt with once due process has confirmed their guilt.
Either stout hemp rope, or a nice sharp axe blade. In public. Hell, maybe even on PPV
I'd also wager that most proponents of laisez-faire would, if not agreeing with my solution, would at least agree that this is a criminal problem and should be dealt with accordingly.
This is the outcome of your beloved "free market". Shitty, largely indistinguishable, highly derivative repackagings of the same generic crap from one or two sources.
Yeah, and to think I'm replying from a computer with nearly a terabyte of hard drive space, two gigs of ram, and a 2.8 GHz processor.
Shitty! Positively shitty I say! Hahahahahahahahaahahahaha
If the auto industry improved as "shitily" as the computer industry, we'd have the flying cars we were promised decades ago.
And we'd have vacation spots on Mars.
If the government _gives_ money to Microsoft, and paying taxes is a "contribution", then yeah, I guess I have "contributed" to Mr gates fortune.
(Of course, if the government isn't giving the money away, but spending it on Microsoft products, then no, your argument holds even less water.)
Then there is the fact that my view of taxation is that it is theft. That I was robbed, and some percentage of that money went to MS, hardly indicates any real financial support of MS on my part, does it now?
The link doesn't actually say how much of that came from Bill himself. Nor how much of a tax break he got for whatever he did contribute.
...
You're right.
So where did the money come from?
Was Melinda a multi-multi billionaire before she married Bill, and I haven't heard about it till now, when you cite such?
Ditto his father?
I'll stick with Okham's razor on this one and go with the safe assumption that at least by and large, that money came from Bill Gates.
I have a problem with the notion that a prick can get filthy rich by screwing everyone over, and then get sainted for giving part of his ill-gotten gains to charity. And arranging press releases to make sure everyone knows about it.
He hasn't screwed ME over, as I've not contributed a penny to his fortune. I run Linux on my desktop, maybe you've heard of it? It's a free alternative OS
Yes. His business practices are in many ways detestable. And as much as I hate Microsoft - primarily due to their shoddy software and attitude of "take it or leave it, we're Microsoft" - I still don't care that they've made it so big.
Why?
Because I have faith that the market - if left alone by the government - will ultimately force one of two things: a) a correction of the market against Microsoft or b) Microsoft actually getting a clue and becoming innovative and responsive to customer needs and wants. I seriously doubt b) will happen, so I am looking forward with great glee to a), but that will take time as PCs are still a relatively very new thing.
Ball. Your court.
Unless you can honestly claim to give a larger percentage of your salary to charity than bill gates has, then I encourage you to please enjoy a hearty slice of shut the hell up.
God how I *do* hate to defend Bill Gates, but giving to charity is without a shred of a doubt where this man really shines:
the Seattle-based foundation has an endowment of approximately $28.8 billion.
(Thats from: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/AboutUs/ )
28.8 billion. Buh-ill-eee-on. LARGE number. And even quite a healthy percentage of Gate's own personal fortune. He's worth about sixty billion right now.
So, if you do not give near half of the worth of your total assets, I second the idea of you "enjoying a slice of shut the hell up".
Not that I am defending Bush, but the NSA spying on Americans is nothing new. Read "The Puzzle Palace" and "Body of Secrets" by James Bamford if you want a good look inside "no such agency" .. the only things to change from the book would be the tech, not the policies, politics and yes, paranoia.
"I guess I forgot if there are any unknown knowns" ;)
Spear Phishing? Because it "targets specific people" ?
:)
Okay:
Jelly phishing - targeting politicians.
Salmon phishing - targeting gays.
Flounder phishing - targeting christians.
Tuna phishing - targeting pianists.
Shark phishing - targeting lawyers.
I am sure we could come up with others
You, sir (or ma'am), will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes..
Well, back in the day when I played Trade Wars, you didn't have to wait for other players to take your turn. One turn/day, and if you skipped it it was your own damn fault.
What members of the public would you like to design nuclear waste storage facilities?
Engineers.
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
;)
Naked women standing in front of the computer monitor can block pop ups, plus they have pop ups that are fun to play with
Right! Because "nuculur" is allready the popular usage ..
... wait ... it isn't, it it?
Oh
I don't think you get language at all. "Mebi" grates on the ear to most people, which is why so many resist it. It sounds downright stupid. Painful, even. Like someone dragging a cheesegrader over your dick's head.
You go ahead and use it all you'd like; I ain't going to stop you by force or nothing.
But nothing will stop me from pointing and laughing, either..
Knowing what a word stands for, and liking the word or common (thank heavens NOT the case here) usage of it, are two separate issues.
..
But thanks for the dunsel third grade math lesson
But here is a lesson in English language. If you hear someone say "mega", where YOU would say "mebi", does that not still lead to confusion? So not only did whoever invented this term make up something sounding ridiculously queer, they did not succeed in their plan to end confusion.
10 MebiBYTES each.
... come on! This is such a blatantly godawfull crapulescent term .. vomitous, disgusting, vile. It's like an incarnation of Barney haunting a word, only worse.
/.
I know that this is surely off topic, but I can't restrain myself.
You're actually the first person I've seen really _use_ this "term" in a sentence. I heard of it a while back, and cringed. But I cringed again seeing it actually used
"Mebi" can kiss my ass.
Thank you for listening to my rant.
Now back to your regular
Please know that communism and authoritarian government are not the same!
... you do the math.
Please show that communism and authoritarian government are not the same!
I've yet to hear of any instance where this did not prove true, provided that it was not a small (few people who pretty much all know each other) commune. On the state level, it always devolves into authoritarianism. After all, the state/party owns everything, and ownership is control. Control is authority
Australiam scientists have created mice which can regenerate absolutely any tissue excpet for the tissues of the brain.
..
But the Dems are still SOL
Knowledge is not helpfull at all in "the real world" though, since that is another missuse of the word. The REAL WORLD is in the woods, in nature.
I'm sorry, but you are a moron.
The knowledge to start a fire would most definately be useful in "the real world".
And that is just the first and most visceral example. What will you eat? Do you know what plants are safe? Can you protect yourself from the wildlife - and do you know which animals are the worst threats?
No use for knowledge in the "real world"? Puh-leeze.
wuld it lt me imporv my tiping and speeling after 60 ours playing mmporgs?
Sometimes you have to look beyond simply making a profit.
Making a profit is to business what breathing is to us; without it you quickly die off.
Subsidies waste money which could have otherwise been put to more productive uses by the private sector.
But on the other hand helping the poor is totaly unamerican (socialism is baaaaaaaad).
False dichotomy.
You assume the only way to help the poor is through government action. To me, that is a recipe to keep them poor forever.
One should always strive to "teach a man to fish", rather than simply giving them a fish. But government not only hands out the fish (after stealing it from someone else), they virtually prohibit teaching fishing (metaphorically speaking.)
In other words, if you want to help the poor, a) you can ALL READY freely give them money from your wallet, thats called charity - "giving" it to the government first is a huge waste and b) getting the government OUT OF THE WAY will let the poor advance themselves, which is the only way to really aquire wealth.