You have signed a sort of contract. More, you've accepted a license. If they have it so in the license that you agree to by watching their content that you mustn't do the things Tivo does with that content, then you've agreed not to. "Shrink-wrap" licenses are still licenses. It's their content and by watching their content, accepting their content, you must agree to a licence which they distribute it under for you. Enforcing those licences would be something that the government does.
Opposing libertarianism against this problem of your's doesn't work...because, sometimes, companies can get so rich they can begin to own the rulebook of the market itself, so to speak.
The network login we had was some version of Novell Netware. I just made a program that looked like it in BASIC and ran it from DOS-PROMPT. After an attemptive login, I would just make it freeze there, like the computers would sometime do; they'd reboot and lauch the regular one. After I got a teacher's password whose accounts had administrator status(or were able to make new users who had admin status, one of those two), then me and my friends made new accounts and we could install games on them, just stupid stuff, we were like 11 and 12. We got caught because my one idiot friend saved a poem assignment he wrote on one of the admin accounts he made so he could print it later. When the admin came around from the central office for the school board to do whatever maintenance, it was all found out. I got fingered in the scheme by my friend, but I was a much better social hacker than computer hacker and just lied and convinced my way of the situation, even though I was the main culprit.
I remember my teacher asking the whole class for a show of hands, "who knew that this was going on?" and over half the class raised their hands. Anyway, goes to show, you can only trust yourself. Or, maybe, perform better network security so 11 year olds aren't able to bring it down.
I note that I haven't kept up my deviant ways, in fact, I haven't kept up my computer ways, I've only got university Programming I, which is to say I don't have anything.
I certainly don't see how a mere computer can understand. Perhaps some sort of greater machine, but considering Searle's arguments, a mere computer can not. Like Descartes, a computer which dreams that it is a robot: it could arrange signs in such a way to pass a Turing test all day, but it has none of Searle's intentionality, or Chomsky's appropriateness.
Classic, shitty-father attitude. "I put the food on the table and you kids don't even go get summer jobs! blah blah blah!"
Just like the "God" believers. "But God gave you all of this! You MUST love him! Agape!"
Father = God = Asshole. You are an asshole.
I can forsee the response: "I don't care if you think I'm an asshole." Just like everyone's dad: "I don't want to be your friend, I'm just doing what's right, being a good parent."
When you do someone a "favour" or give a gift, you don't ask for anything back. That's what a favour is. Doing something for someone without any hope of any return. Fathers, God, assholes like you, do their "favours," but then demand retribution.
You see it nowadays where guys will call sending their kids to university an "investment," from which they hope to see a "return." They're bound up in some vicarious obsession and expect their kids to throw their time and effort into this cesspool of narcissism. Treating your kids' lives as a means rather than an end, yeah, that passes Virtues 101.
If you don't treat people as an end in itself, they're going to treat you as a means too. So when you want the "open source community" to create wealth for you, don't be surprised when it turns right back and spits in your face. You're not moral, so now neither are they.
"People who have given us their complete confidence believe that they have a right to ours. The inference is false, a gift confers no rights." - Nietzsche.
Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the righteous and the unrighteous. (Matthew 5:44)
It's exactly because they have different starting points that adding them doesn't "work."
0 degrees Celsius + 0 degrees Celsius is about 273.15 degrees Celsius. How?
Because 0 degrees Celsius is about 273.15K, so we get 2 * 273.15K; then to convert to Celsius we subtract 273.15, divide out a K and multiply in a degrees Celsius and we end up with that amount in Celsius.
When you think of your thermometer, when it goes from 10 to 20 degrees Celsius, you're not adding another 10 degrees Celsius, you're adding 10 Kelvin, or, as grandparent said, "Celsius degrees."
Tricky business.
Maybe just think of the unit "degrees Celsius" as "K + 273.15K." That's not the definition I don't think, but just for demonstration.
Your thermometer isn't going up 10"K + 273.15K," it's only going up 10K, when it moves from 10 to 20.
To remove Google as the default search engine in the search bar you have to manually delete the files, whereas adding engines is integrated.
And to remove Google as the engine that is used when you use the "Search Web for" context menu option you have change some config file that is not easy to find. I've searched through the Firefox directories(install and profiles) for occurences of "google," and there are many occurences, but I could not find something that looked like it would be it. I can not find information on how to do this from the "Mozilla KnowledgeBase," although I don't deny that it may exist. The help files are of course totally useless.
Why this assumption that no one would use anything but Google for searching? I my opinion Alltheweb is a far superior search engine.
I'm not suggesting this has anything to do with Google pushing for these features. Saying merely what I said.
Get the source for the View in IE extension for Firefox/Mozilla. Add to that a list and then when you go to a page on that list it automatically launches it in IE. That would certainly not be hard to build.
For some reason at time of posting, the whole mozdev.org site seems to be down, but otherwise I would have gotten the link to the View in IE extension.
They can't just take the money from you, right. You misunderstand. They can take your value from you. Obviously the terms get confused. Just like if you bought a CD with some music that came with a license. The license said that you are allowed to keep the CD, but after one year you have to destroy the music, or the publisher will destroy it for you. They own the music, you just have a license to "use" it. Same with money, you don't own the dollars, you're just given a promise. A promise to pay.
They can take your wealth from you that you have in US dollars at any time.
All they have to do is print more of it. That creates inflation because it depreciates the value of the dollars you hold. That value goes to them, because they hold the money. That's what inflation is: the government taking your value that you have bound up in their dollars. There's nothing you can do about that short of changing the law because they control the printing.
They're not granted the sole ability to create currency. You can make a currency whenever you want, and people have. Look up the Liberty Dollar.
Yes, they can still tax your sheep.. Not for social security though, at least within the bounds of the Constitution. Look at what I said: "The government will not take your sheep away from you to spend on social security if you trade in sheep."
Yes, it is a government by the people for the people. You can change the rules. Are you though? No one else but a few people perhaps like you want the Federal Reserve gone. They like it quite like it is.
Wrong wrong wrong. It's not theft. It's not theft. It's not theft.
The government only takes US dollars from you. This is their money, not yours. You may not destroy it, you may not copy it. You're only allowed to use US dollars as long as you follow the rules associated with them. Since it is their money, the government sets those rules.
The rules include being taxed. If you don't like being taxed they way you are, don't use Federal Reserve notes. You do not have an inalienable right to use Federal Reserve notes. You are allowed to use them by the goodwill of the government who owns them. You have to follow their rules, or not play their game.
The taxpayer should not have any say in how "his money" is spent, because it's not his money. It's the government's money. The government will not take your sheep away from you to spend on social security if you trade in sheep. It only takes US dollars away from you because that's in the agreement.
Yes, you have the right not to have your property taken from you. Your US dollars are not your property however. They are the property of the Federal Reserve.
"It's an easy mistake. Most of the time, when someone pays for something, they own it. The government plays by different rules."
I said this before to something else in this story.
They get to play by different rules though, because it's their money. The Federal Reserve has the monopoly. They control the printing for the money, they control the level of inflation.
I mean you, obviously I can see you understand all that, and you know more about me economics wise.
What I want to say is that it's fair. You have no right to one thin dime because you're playing the Federal Reserve's game. You're trading their dollars, they set the rules. No one says you have to trade in FR dollars, but people decide by their own freewill to do so, because it's a trillion gazillion times easier.
When you decide to play the game, you have to play by the rules. If you want to get paid in US dollars, you have to be taxed. If you don't want to pay into social security without any guarantee, then don't use central bank money. You don't have to play, but if you do, you're in the social contract, and you're bound to it. Admittedly, if you don't, you're going to have a hard life trying to get the gas station to accept gold nuggets. The government is doing us all a favour by offering a service which we are not forced to use.
People like to reap all the benefits of being paid in an extremely functional currency like US dollars, but they still complain when they get taxed. But if they truly thought it wasn't worth it, that they were being ripped off by the government, they just would stop getting jobs that pay in it, which is completely ridiculous.
Look at your bills. What do they say? Federal Reserve note.
Doesn't matter how much they tax you, they can take all of your wealth away just by moving your money's purchasing power through inflation into their hands. They actually do it at a rate of about three or four percent every year. That's not just on your payroll, that's on your net worth.
It is their money. They print it, they control it. If they want to take your wealth away, they'll print up some more and depreciate your money that you've saved. Don't want them to have that power? Then don't trade Federal Reserve dollars. Admittedly you'll have a bit of fun getting the gas station to accept pieces of gold or the cashiers at Walmart to accept those little Liberty Dollars that other dreaming libertarians have invented. But that "little bit of fun" will soon turn into annoyance and subsequently desperation.
They have the monopoly and people have no one to blame but themselves, because it was elected officials that put the Federal Reserve Act into play and nary a damn soul did anything about it then. And the majority doesn't apparently want it gone nowadays either.
You're being unreasonable. Why you feel compelled to mention what I do in this regard is beyond me. You can comment on my own way of life as much as you like, but it doesn't affect the argument at hand. Further, there's no way you can know what I do, maybe I do only consume public domain movies.
This all misses on another, larger level as well, as I'm not an advocate of copyright law revision in the first place.
Again, you seem to be arguing the same thing but instead of pointing out the consequences that proposed copyright revisions would have on future content producers, you just allude to them, wrapped up in a near attack on my own personal actions, which you can only speculate on(despite that you do play the chances correctly in your guess that I don't only consume movies in the public domain, and that I won't in the future).
Even if I was preaching, I wouldn't have to practice it. Maybe I'm a really mean guy, doesn't mean if I tell my kids that they should be kind and fair that being kind and fair is not good advice. Maybe it's not, but it's not affected by my disposition.
Texas is absolutely fascinating, like most of the States. Italy is absolutely seductive, like most of "Old World" Europe. Both beautiful in their own right.
I would say maybe Idaho is the most beautiful State, or California. I would mention the northern, mid-west Great Lake States, but then you're so close to the real deal, Northern Ontario, which is probably the most beautiful place in the world. Give's me chills just thinking about Northwestern Ontario. The trees, the lakes, the lakes! So many pristine, cold lakes. The summer when it's light out forever, and it's sunny in general, so rare a cloudy day. Wait for a thirty degree day in the summer and then bike up some dusty road and jump in a chilling lake. And Canada is just the fifty-first state so it kind of counts here...
You're begging the question, unless you believe in an economic principle where eveyone is to be reimbursed for all of their investments . (Who are the socialists now? Heh.)
The question at hand is should copyright owners have the rights they do now? You assume they should, Catbeller does not.
Take for example some other person. She spends one million dollars developing a mathematical proof that (pi + e) is irrational. But, gosh dangit, no one is paying when they reproduce the proof! But there's no law to enforce it, what the frick, eh? What about her money that she invested? How will she be able to recover the cost? Without laws enforcing payment to mathematicians for their proofs, how can we guarantee that good mathematicians will be compensated?
We don't guarantee that though, because we don't worry about making sure everyone gets retribution for the things they do.
"Content producers" are only "copyright holders" because they are given those copyrights by the Copyright Act. It doesn't protect some theoretical inalienable rights(and even if they did, a similar argument can still be made), it only gives them the rights, which is underlined by the idea that it is best for "the advancement" of society in general. They're not enshrined there to guarantee content producers compensation just because they made investments in their production. That's a means to an end.
What many advocates of copyright law revision are saying is that the rights that are given to copyright holders are not what's best for society. They have whatever reasons. If you disagree with these advocates you have to argue against those reasons and not beg their questions and argue ad consequentiam with the effects it will have on some theoretical future content producers.* Or, I guess, you can argue for your principle that everyone should be compensated for any investments they make as an end in itself. Or at least content producers. It'll take more than merely saying that it's nice to the content producers.
* Almost obviously, I would say, changes in copyright law would not affect current copyright holders.
I think he would be referring to the ability to wipe out vast arrays of humans by creating things like so-called super-viruses.
I know some libertarians argue that rights-respecting citizens should be allowed to own anything, from hydrogen bombs to smallpox strains, but, do you?
Re:I want to start some more discussion...
on
The Law as a Parent
·
· Score: 1
I'll answer to just a couple thing in your post because I otherwise I understand and don't really have anything else to say.
Acutally, your position is pretty solid and I understand it. Give parents the right to do whatever they want to their children that does not cause any sort of even close to long term harm. So spanking allowed, as long you don't bruise, for example. As I said before, sound. But I think one can still see where my questions fit in.
As a society we definitely do outlaw some things that "protect" children beyond this. The pornography for example. You can't sell porn to children, and why not then? My questions, although the one did not address selling porno exactly, are allowed to slice both ways. Questioning both the "let parents do whatever they want within rights" position and societal norms, which don't seem to agree with the former position.
First a comment on correlation. In psychology you're never going to get proof that something causes something, you're just going to get correlations. There's no science of the mind yet because the mind is ridiculously complex. Anyone can snap at any time. In this I agree with you: you're not going to know for sure the effects abnormal sexual encounters when developing will have on a child. But this is true for some many other things that people would outlaw.
Dropping out of school before your 16, for example. We don't let parents take their kids out of school. Well, where's the proof that this is detrimental to the child? As you say, should we let the parent decide as they're closest to the effects? All we have is a correlation between a dropping out and harm. And I don't think you could even call it harm...more like poor economic performance. I mean, I respect the fact that performing sufficiently economically is an important part of modern life, but I wouldn't go so far as to equate that with a pure "harm." So we use laws to make parents educate their children just so that they perform better economically, essentially.
And that's where I'm slicing between. As I said originally, I see "parents should have the final say" written a lot. Yet the society, the law, seems to disagree that that's how it should be. So where do people really stand? Perhaps even the question is, is there really this gulf between so many people's(I can only assume the number is at least somewhat representative of a much larger population who would agree) beliefs and how it actually is?
But I see how my questions are bad, because they don't address anyone in particular even though they're worded like the should. They're more like a poll but they seem to pose like an argument.
Re:I want to start some more discussion...
on
The Law as a Parent
·
· Score: 1
I'm going to offer further response because obviously your post has lots in it and not worthless at all, despite what I think is a real misreading.
There was no real sarcasm when I said it was "sound advice." I mean, there's coherence in that idea. Maybe the use of the word "mantra" sets you off on that one: I suppose, yes, that word is commonly used negatively. I don't mean to use it like that though, but I couldn't think of a better word to describe it. Meme? That's one Slashdot knows, but doesn't sound much less negative.
When you say that's how it is, yes, I know this, I haven't lost touch with reality, yet at least. But of course I'm asking what people think with regards to it normatively, not descriptively.
I don't really know what to tell you with regards to me not offering an alternative. Why is this alternative required? I just wish to know if people would allow within the law such parenting or not. They're not rhetorical questions.
Okay, I have to bifurcate your question on the peircing, because I think it encompasses concepts that are equally worth addressing as distinct. Again, this is about forcing and allowing. Should a parent be allowed within the law to force their child to get peirced? And also, should a parent be allowed within the law to allow their child to get peirced? However, honestly, it doesn't matter to me. To answer both questions I would say, "if you want." If it was a vote, I would abstain. This is not a lack of an ethical belief on the issue, however; it's just that my belief on the issue is so incredibly weak that when it cashes out in real world terms that's what it looks like. I believe that it's better to allow others to do as they please, with regards to much anything. Just not to concern yourself with the concerns of others that does not effect you. It saves you the bad blood from messing around in other's affairs, and I see that as a benefit. Of course, I would say, allow yourself to do as you please too. A sort of egoism, I suppose. I don't feel alone in that category though, because I'm not.
When you say I'm putting them in a dubious position, I can see how you say that. I think you're conflating things though. It's not just me who would be putting them in a dubious position with these drawn up situations. It's me and something like their, or some larger ethical, conscience. I'm lead to say this because you say, "they are required to be responsible." I just lay out an idea, what requires them to be responsible is their own conscience, not me. If someone responded with, "whatever, I'd let the kids end up being sociopaths, I don't care," I wouldn't object. Sure, I put them in a dubious position, but only if their conscience has set it up as such. Just like if you verbally abuse some random person on the street, say you got annoyed, and he goes home and kills himself because he's been rather depressed and that event just sealed it. Technically you were the "force" that made him give up on life. However, you just bumped into him and he fell over the edge, something else got him teetering there. I pushed them down into a dubious position, sure, but they were set up to fall anyway. And everyone pushes their fair bit, in life, in theory, whatever.
And again, I think what I'm saying is much clearer if you understand that I'm not saying "force" but merely "allow."
Re:I want to start some more discussion...
on
The Law as a Parent
·
· Score: 1
No troll at all good sir.
I believe you misread me. You many read in "force." "Force" a child to watch pornography. I did not say force. Let. Let them watch pornography. I can understand how it's easy to read that in, but I did not say it, and I did not mean it. Please re-read with that in mind.
I really do not want to come off as an asshole with this post, and I do want you to respond. I can honestly understand how you could read in "force." I wrote force in when I typed in up just to delete afterwords because it's not what I want to ask, for the very reason, the question begging reason you brought up.
I want to start some more discussion...
on
The Law as a Parent
·
· Score: 1, Troll
We hear the "parents should take responsibility" mantra. Sound advice, no doubt. But at what level do children have rights and responsibilities themselves and at which do parents have them over the children?
I read in this discussion "leave law abiding citizens alone." Watching hardcore pornography is certainly law abiding. Would you allow parents to let their 8 year olds watch hardcore pornography?
Even watching people have sex is legal, if they want you to watch. Would you let parents let their children watch them have sex? Extremely disturbing, that's how you make a sociopath, but the parents should have the right, right?
Self-mutilation is legal, within people's rights. Would you allow parents to let their children watch them as they mutilate their own body? Or on that note, would you allow parents to let their children mutilate themselves?
I don't think cannibalism itself is illegal in the U.S, I could be wrong, it's not in Germany I know that! Would you let parents feed their children human flesh?
Do you want to give parents total responsibility and rights or take away some like ones mentioned here?
Slashdot Mirror
You have signed a sort of contract. More, you've accepted a license. If they have it so in the license that you agree to by watching their content that you mustn't do the things Tivo does with that content, then you've agreed not to. "Shrink-wrap" licenses are still licenses. It's their content and by watching their content, accepting their content, you must agree to a licence which they distribute it under for you. Enforcing those licences would be something that the government does.
Opposing libertarianism against this problem of your's doesn't work...because, sometimes, companies can get so rich they can begin to own the rulebook of the market itself, so to speak.
The network login we had was some version of Novell Netware. I just made a program that looked like it in BASIC and ran it from DOS-PROMPT. After an attemptive login, I would just make it freeze there, like the computers would sometime do; they'd reboot and lauch the regular one. After I got a teacher's password whose accounts had administrator status(or were able to make new users who had admin status, one of those two), then me and my friends made new accounts and we could install games on them, just stupid stuff, we were like 11 and 12. We got caught because my one idiot friend saved a poem assignment he wrote on one of the admin accounts he made so he could print it later. When the admin came around from the central office for the school board to do whatever maintenance, it was all found out. I got fingered in the scheme by my friend, but I was a much better social hacker than computer hacker and just lied and convinced my way of the situation, even though I was the main culprit.
I remember my teacher asking the whole class for a show of hands, "who knew that this was going on?" and over half the class raised their hands. Anyway, goes to show, you can only trust yourself. Or, maybe, perform better network security so 11 year olds aren't able to bring it down.
I note that I haven't kept up my deviant ways, in fact, I haven't kept up my computer ways, I've only got university Programming I, which is to say I don't have anything.
Two words and a name: Chinese room; John Searle.
I certainly don't see how a mere computer can understand. Perhaps some sort of greater machine, but considering Searle's arguments, a mere computer can not. Like Descartes, a computer which dreams that it is a robot: it could arrange signs in such a way to pass a Turing test all day, but it has none of Searle's intentionality, or Chomsky's appropriateness.
Classic, shitty-father attitude. "I put the food on the table and you kids don't even go get summer jobs! blah blah blah!"
Just like the "God" believers. "But God gave you all of this! You MUST love him! Agape!"
Father = God = Asshole. You are an asshole.
I can forsee the response: "I don't care if you think I'm an asshole." Just like everyone's dad: "I don't want to be your friend, I'm just doing what's right, being a good parent."
When you do someone a "favour" or give a gift, you don't ask for anything back. That's what a favour is. Doing something for someone without any hope of any return. Fathers, God, assholes like you, do their "favours," but then demand retribution.
You see it nowadays where guys will call sending their kids to university an "investment," from which they hope to see a "return." They're bound up in some vicarious obsession and expect their kids to throw their time and effort into this cesspool of narcissism. Treating your kids' lives as a means rather than an end, yeah, that passes Virtues 101.
If you don't treat people as an end in itself, they're going to treat you as a means too. So when you want the "open source community" to create wealth for you, don't be surprised when it turns right back and spits in your face. You're not moral, so now neither are they.
"People who have given us their complete confidence believe that they have a right to ours. The inference is false, a gift confers no rights." - Nietzsche.
Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the righteous and the unrighteous. (Matthew 5:44)
It's exactly because they have different starting points that adding them doesn't "work."
0 degrees Celsius + 0 degrees Celsius is about 273.15 degrees Celsius. How?
Because 0 degrees Celsius is about 273.15K, so we get 2 * 273.15K; then to convert to Celsius we subtract 273.15, divide out a K and multiply in a degrees Celsius and we end up with that amount in Celsius.
When you think of your thermometer, when it goes from 10 to 20 degrees Celsius, you're not adding another 10 degrees Celsius, you're adding 10 Kelvin, or, as grandparent said, "Celsius degrees."
Tricky business.
Maybe just think of the unit "degrees Celsius" as "K + 273.15K." That's not the definition I don't think, but just for demonstration.
Your thermometer isn't going up 10"K + 273.15K," it's only going up 10K, when it moves from 10 to 20.
Firefox is already too intertwined with Google.
To remove Google as the default search engine in the search bar you have to manually delete the files, whereas adding engines is integrated.
And to remove Google as the engine that is used when you use the "Search Web for" context menu option you have change some config file that is not easy to find. I've searched through the Firefox directories(install and profiles) for occurences of "google," and there are many occurences, but I could not find something that looked like it would be it. I can not find information on how to do this from the "Mozilla KnowledgeBase," although I don't deny that it may exist. The help files are of course totally useless.
Why this assumption that no one would use anything but Google for searching? I my opinion Alltheweb is a far superior search engine.
I'm not suggesting this has anything to do with Google pushing for these features. Saying merely what I said.
Same with english, if you just throw an 'a' on the end("eczema"). eXeema.
Get the source for the View in IE extension for Firefox/Mozilla. Add to that a list and then when you go to a page on that list it automatically launches it in IE. That would certainly not be hard to build.
For some reason at time of posting, the whole mozdev.org site seems to be down, but otherwise I would have gotten the link to the View in IE extension.
They can't just take the money from you, right. You misunderstand. They can take your value from you. Obviously the terms get confused. Just like if you bought a CD with some music that came with a license. The license said that you are allowed to keep the CD, but after one year you have to destroy the music, or the publisher will destroy it for you. They own the music, you just have a license to "use" it. Same with money, you don't own the dollars, you're just given a promise. A promise to pay.
They can take your wealth from you that you have in US dollars at any time.
All they have to do is print more of it. That creates inflation because it depreciates the value of the dollars you hold. That value goes to them, because they hold the money. That's what inflation is: the government taking your value that you have bound up in their dollars. There's nothing you can do about that short of changing the law because they control the printing.
They're not granted the sole ability to create currency. You can make a currency whenever you want, and people have. Look up the Liberty Dollar.
Yes, they can still tax your sheep.. Not for social security though, at least within the bounds of the Constitution. Look at what I said: "The government will not take your sheep away from you to spend on social security if you trade in sheep."
Yes, it is a government by the people for the people. You can change the rules. Are you though? No one else but a few people perhaps like you want the Federal Reserve gone. They like it quite like it is.
Wrong wrong wrong. It's not theft. It's not theft. It's not theft.
The government only takes US dollars from you. This is their money, not yours. You may not destroy it, you may not copy it. You're only allowed to use US dollars as long as you follow the rules associated with them. Since it is their money, the government sets those rules.
The rules include being taxed. If you don't like being taxed they way you are, don't use Federal Reserve notes. You do not have an inalienable right to use Federal Reserve notes. You are allowed to use them by the goodwill of the government who owns them. You have to follow their rules, or not play their game.
The taxpayer should not have any say in how "his money" is spent, because it's not his money. It's the government's money. The government will not take your sheep away from you to spend on social security if you trade in sheep. It only takes US dollars away from you because that's in the agreement.
Yes, you have the right not to have your property taken from you. Your US dollars are not your property however. They are the property of the Federal Reserve.
"It's an easy mistake. Most of the time, when someone pays for something, they own it. The government plays by different rules."
I said this before to something else in this story.
They get to play by different rules though, because it's their money. The Federal Reserve has the monopoly. They control the printing for the money, they control the level of inflation.
I mean you, obviously I can see you understand all that, and you know more about me economics wise.
What I want to say is that it's fair. You have no right to one thin dime because you're playing the Federal Reserve's game. You're trading their dollars, they set the rules. No one says you have to trade in FR dollars, but people decide by their own freewill to do so, because it's a trillion gazillion times easier.
When you decide to play the game, you have to play by the rules. If you want to get paid in US dollars, you have to be taxed. If you don't want to pay into social security without any guarantee, then don't use central bank money. You don't have to play, but if you do, you're in the social contract, and you're bound to it. Admittedly, if you don't, you're going to have a hard life trying to get the gas station to accept gold nuggets. The government is doing us all a favour by offering a service which we are not forced to use.
People like to reap all the benefits of being paid in an extremely functional currency like US dollars, but they still complain when they get taxed. But if they truly thought it wasn't worth it, that they were being ripped off by the government, they just would stop getting jobs that pay in it, which is completely ridiculous.
Same shit, different, bigger pile.
It is their money.
Look at your bills. What do they say? Federal Reserve note.
Doesn't matter how much they tax you, they can take all of your wealth away just by moving your money's purchasing power through inflation into their hands. They actually do it at a rate of about three or four percent every year. That's not just on your payroll, that's on your net worth.
It is their money. They print it, they control it. If they want to take your wealth away, they'll print up some more and depreciate your money that you've saved. Don't want them to have that power? Then don't trade Federal Reserve dollars. Admittedly you'll have a bit of fun getting the gas station to accept pieces of gold or the cashiers at Walmart to accept those little Liberty Dollars that other dreaming libertarians have invented. But that "little bit of fun" will soon turn into annoyance and subsequently desperation.
They have the monopoly and people have no one to blame but themselves, because it was elected officials that put the Federal Reserve Act into play and nary a damn soul did anything about it then. And the majority doesn't apparently want it gone nowadays either.
You're being unreasonable. Why you feel compelled to mention what I do in this regard is beyond me. You can comment on my own way of life as much as you like, but it doesn't affect the argument at hand. Further, there's no way you can know what I do, maybe I do only consume public domain movies.
This all misses on another, larger level as well, as I'm not an advocate of copyright law revision in the first place.
Again, you seem to be arguing the same thing but instead of pointing out the consequences that proposed copyright revisions would have on future content producers, you just allude to them, wrapped up in a near attack on my own personal actions, which you can only speculate on(despite that you do play the chances correctly in your guess that I don't only consume movies in the public domain, and that I won't in the future).
Even if I was preaching, I wouldn't have to practice it. Maybe I'm a really mean guy, doesn't mean if I tell my kids that they should be kind and fair that being kind and fair is not good advice. Maybe it's not, but it's not affected by my disposition.
Texas is absolutely fascinating, like most of the States. Italy is absolutely seductive, like most of "Old World" Europe. Both beautiful in their own right.
I would say maybe Idaho is the most beautiful State, or California. I would mention the northern, mid-west Great Lake States, but then you're so close to the real deal, Northern Ontario, which is probably the most beautiful place in the world. Give's me chills just thinking about Northwestern Ontario. The trees, the lakes, the lakes! So many pristine, cold lakes. The summer when it's light out forever, and it's sunny in general, so rare a cloudy day. Wait for a thirty degree day in the summer and then bike up some dusty road and jump in a chilling lake. And Canada is just the fifty-first state so it kind of counts here...
You're begging the question, unless you believe in an economic principle where eveyone is to be reimbursed for all of their investments . (Who are the socialists now? Heh.)
The question at hand is should copyright owners have the rights they do now? You assume they should, Catbeller does not.
Take for example some other person. She spends one million dollars developing a mathematical proof that (pi + e) is irrational. But, gosh dangit, no one is paying when they reproduce the proof! But there's no law to enforce it, what the frick, eh? What about her money that she invested? How will she be able to recover the cost? Without laws enforcing payment to mathematicians for their proofs, how can we guarantee that good mathematicians will be compensated?
We don't guarantee that though, because we don't worry about making sure everyone gets retribution for the things they do.
"Content producers" are only "copyright holders" because they are given those copyrights by the Copyright Act. It doesn't protect some theoretical inalienable rights(and even if they did, a similar argument can still be made), it only gives them the rights, which is underlined by the idea that it is best for "the advancement" of society in general. They're not enshrined there to guarantee content producers compensation just because they made investments in their production. That's a means to an end.
What many advocates of copyright law revision are saying is that the rights that are given to copyright holders are not what's best for society. They have whatever reasons. If you disagree with these advocates you have to argue against those reasons and not beg their questions and argue ad consequentiam with the effects it will have on some theoretical future content producers.* Or, I guess, you can argue for your principle that everyone should be compensated for any investments they make as an end in itself. Or at least content producers. It'll take more than merely saying that it's nice to the content producers.
* Almost obviously, I would say, changes in copyright law would not affect current copyright holders.
Do not limit beauty to only what is profoundly moral. - Baudrillard
I think he would be referring to the ability to wipe out vast arrays of humans by creating things like so-called super-viruses.
I know some libertarians argue that rights-respecting citizens should be allowed to own anything, from hydrogen bombs to smallpox strains, but, do you?
I'll answer to just a couple thing in your post because I otherwise I understand and don't really have anything else to say.
Acutally, your position is pretty solid and I understand it. Give parents the right to do whatever they want to their children that does not cause any sort of even close to long term harm. So spanking allowed, as long you don't bruise, for example. As I said before, sound. But I think one can still see where my questions fit in.
As a society we definitely do outlaw some things that "protect" children beyond this. The pornography for example. You can't sell porn to children, and why not then? My questions, although the one did not address selling porno exactly, are allowed to slice both ways. Questioning both the "let parents do whatever they want within rights" position and societal norms, which don't seem to agree with the former position.
First a comment on correlation. In psychology you're never going to get proof that something causes something, you're just going to get correlations. There's no science of the mind yet because the mind is ridiculously complex. Anyone can snap at any time. In this I agree with you: you're not going to know for sure the effects abnormal sexual encounters when developing will have on a child. But this is true for some many other things that people would outlaw.
Dropping out of school before your 16, for example. We don't let parents take their kids out of school. Well, where's the proof that this is detrimental to the child? As you say, should we let the parent decide as they're closest to the effects? All we have is a correlation between a dropping out and harm. And I don't think you could even call it harm...more like poor economic performance. I mean, I respect the fact that performing sufficiently economically is an important part of modern life, but I wouldn't go so far as to equate that with a pure "harm." So we use laws to make parents educate their children just so that they perform better economically, essentially.
And that's where I'm slicing between. As I said originally, I see "parents should have the final say" written a lot. Yet the society, the law, seems to disagree that that's how it should be. So where do people really stand? Perhaps even the question is, is there really this gulf between so many people's(I can only assume the number is at least somewhat representative of a much larger population who would agree) beliefs and how it actually is?
But I see how my questions are bad, because they don't address anyone in particular even though they're worded like the should. They're more like a poll but they seem to pose like an argument.
I'm going to offer further response because obviously your post has lots in it and not worthless at all, despite what I think is a real misreading.
There was no real sarcasm when I said it was "sound advice." I mean, there's coherence in that idea. Maybe the use of the word "mantra" sets you off on that one: I suppose, yes, that word is commonly used negatively. I don't mean to use it like that though, but I couldn't think of a better word to describe it. Meme? That's one Slashdot knows, but doesn't sound much less negative.
When you say that's how it is, yes, I know this, I haven't lost touch with reality, yet at least. But of course I'm asking what people think with regards to it normatively, not descriptively.
I don't really know what to tell you with regards to me not offering an alternative. Why is this alternative required? I just wish to know if people would allow within the law such parenting or not. They're not rhetorical questions.
Okay, I have to bifurcate your question on the peircing, because I think it encompasses concepts that are equally worth addressing as distinct. Again, this is about forcing and allowing. Should a parent be allowed within the law to force their child to get peirced? And also, should a parent be allowed within the law to allow their child to get peirced? However, honestly, it doesn't matter to me. To answer both questions I would say, "if you want." If it was a vote, I would abstain. This is not a lack of an ethical belief on the issue, however; it's just that my belief on the issue is so incredibly weak that when it cashes out in real world terms that's what it looks like. I believe that it's better to allow others to do as they please, with regards to much anything. Just not to concern yourself with the concerns of others that does not effect you. It saves you the bad blood from messing around in other's affairs, and I see that as a benefit. Of course, I would say, allow yourself to do as you please too. A sort of egoism, I suppose. I don't feel alone in that category though, because I'm not.
When you say I'm putting them in a dubious position, I can see how you say that. I think you're conflating things though. It's not just me who would be putting them in a dubious position with these drawn up situations. It's me and something like their, or some larger ethical, conscience. I'm lead to say this because you say, "they are required to be responsible." I just lay out an idea, what requires them to be responsible is their own conscience, not me. If someone responded with, "whatever, I'd let the kids end up being sociopaths, I don't care," I wouldn't object. Sure, I put them in a dubious position, but only if their conscience has set it up as such. Just like if you verbally abuse some random person on the street, say you got annoyed, and he goes home and kills himself because he's been rather depressed and that event just sealed it. Technically you were the "force" that made him give up on life. However, you just bumped into him and he fell over the edge, something else got him teetering there. I pushed them down into a dubious position, sure, but they were set up to fall anyway. And everyone pushes their fair bit, in life, in theory, whatever.
And again, I think what I'm saying is much clearer if you understand that I'm not saying "force" but merely "allow."
No troll at all good sir.
I believe you misread me. You many read in "force." "Force" a child to watch pornography. I did not say force. Let. Let them watch pornography. I can understand how it's easy to read that in, but I did not say it, and I did not mean it. Please re-read with that in mind.
I really do not want to come off as an asshole with this post, and I do want you to respond. I can honestly understand how you could read in "force." I wrote force in when I typed in up just to delete afterwords because it's not what I want to ask, for the very reason, the question begging reason you brought up.
We hear the "parents should take responsibility" mantra. Sound advice, no doubt. But at what level do children have rights and responsibilities themselves and at which do parents have them over the children?
I read in this discussion "leave law abiding citizens alone." Watching hardcore pornography is certainly law abiding. Would you allow parents to let their 8 year olds watch hardcore pornography?
Even watching people have sex is legal, if they want you to watch. Would you let parents let their children watch them have sex? Extremely disturbing, that's how you make a sociopath, but the parents should have the right, right?
Self-mutilation is legal, within people's rights. Would you allow parents to let their children watch them as they mutilate their own body? Or on that note, would you allow parents to let their children mutilate themselves?
I don't think cannibalism itself is illegal in the U.S, I could be wrong, it's not in Germany I know that! Would you let parents feed their children human flesh?
Do you want to give parents total responsibility and rights or take away some like ones mentioned here?
You're so classy Svartalf, you're like a millionaire socialite out on the scene.