Once again the leftist government interferes with the freemarket, certianly resulting in deleterious effects for mankind as a whole.
If the company wants to file their revenue that way, they have a right to. If consumers don't like the way they file their numbers they can do business with someone who files numbers in a way they want. When Computer Associates finds that no one is deadling with them because of their method of book-keeping, they'll want to change their ways so that they can compete and make money. This is how the freemarket works. The government doesn't need to interfere. This is the same as forcing companies to pay minimum wage: forcing them to file minimum numbers. It's anti-competetive; and, I don't want to frighten people, but it's borderlining on communism even.
My point is that traditional encyclopedias are not free from bias.
Personally, I loathe modern political philosophy in general. I really don't think politics are an interesting locus of activity nowadays. But keep on thinking that anyone who says...anything? is desperately trying to be "unique", and then spouting off about it on Slashdot, in a discussion about Wikipedia. It's just what you gotta do man. Keep on keeping on.
Well i was recently reading the Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia article on the future of Communism. This is what it said in the last paragraph(paraphrase):
"The future of communism in the 21ist century lies in a backwards[actual word that used] country, China, whose priorties are not to foster worker's emancipation but capitalism, communism's supposedly sworn enemy."
And that pretty much sums up the entire section on communism. "Communism has no chance of ressurection." "Communism always depends on brutal dictatorships, because of its very nature it depends on them." Stuff like that through and through.
But for your prediction: what about the 'Trusted Computing' everyone is talking about? Do you expect it to be a failure? The RIAA and MPAA and Microsoft and Intel all seem quite keen on it; they obviously see it as feasible. Would you expect consumers to react against it?
I think the majority would take it. With only a tiny minority moving over to the indie markets that exist now.
The filesharers know all that. Don't treat them as half-wits, not everyone is as stupid as you want them to be.
But, they also know something else, which apparently you don't. That is, with the production of these media products also comes the production of the desire for them. There's no natural demand for these things: people can get entertainment almost anywhere, at least they are certainly no where near a position where they have to worry about running out of it.
So if they take advantage of Britney Spears and her producers so much that they stop releasing music. Will the filesharers care? No. They'll just listen to something else. If Britney Spears never existed no one would ever want Britney Spears, and they know that. People are happy with whatever entertainment is handed to them. Even in the face of the most insipid productions, they'll consume it. "There's never anything good on t.v." is the eternal complaint, yet everyone still watches it. Why? Because it doesn't matter, it's good enough, and fucking easy to get. So if everyone stole television until driving it's supply into oblivion, they wouldn't care, it sucks anyway. They'd do something else. What did people do before television? Read? Listen to the radio? Maybe go to a play? People weren't dying left, right and center then because of the inexistence of television or Britney Spears and they wouldn't be now. And, with the new information technologies of today, they certainly don't fear a world without television proper.
And most of them certianly don't feel forbidden to take advantage of others for moral reasons. They understand what Nietzsche meant, even if they haven't read him, well enough to know what slave morality is.
It's far beyond Microsoft's control, that's why people do it. As much as you and many others like to pretend that somehow there's inalienable rights, it's simply not true. You have to back up rights with force or deterrence, basically you have to create fear of reprisals in prospective infringers of those rights. If there's no system of deterrence to back it up, the right doesn't exist. Since Microsoft can't force the Chinese to pay for Windows and they know that, they have no right to the monopoly on the distribution of Windows in China; even Microsoft knows that. That's all part of why they want this whole Trusted Computing(or 'Trustworthy', of 'Safer' whatever they call it now) scheme to come together with Intel and IBM and all the media owners and distributers, so they can make it physically impossible, or unremuneratively difficult, to pirate and still use the software for what you want to use it for. You only have rights as far as people respect them. Notions of "natural" rights are utopian remnants of a long-since expired line of thought.
I wasn't really nitpicking on his asterisk at all. I do not care one bit about bad spelling or grammar or form or anything like that. As long as I can understand. But I honestly did not know if his asterisk led to the note on loonies or to nowhere. I just try to maintain a very terse writing form that definitely comes off as insensitive, or maybe anti-syncretic is a better term, to avoid rants from those infamous "grammar nazis", which tends to do me no good anyway because of typographical errors.
Anyway.
Yeah, I mean, that's why they won't get into power, though. And I agree, thought and theory, is just that. It'll be put into practice in a major way when it's needed in a major way. I figure the majority is trying a strategy of playing dead right now, like a cold revolution or something. As opposed to hot revolutions which have come and gone, or never came, yet still, "gone". We'll see how it works out I guess; and I'm serious, it seems like a valid strategy to me considering the style of "oppression"(if you could call it that, maybe "repressions") the majority of people face in their life.
Raidcal leftists? Explain. Your asterisk led me nowhere*. Like, I know some radical leftists, like say, anti-social anarchists, and they're a far cry from anything the Democratic party even comes close to, even, being in the same universe as.
*Did you mean your note on "Loonies"? Maybe your definition of radical differs from the one generally well understood in most politcal or social theory, but "radical" theory is not required at all to have to do with changing one's mind or considerations on evil. It more generally refers to the far-left, or sometimes to just critical theory in general. Or maybe your note on "Loonies" wasn't what your asterisk was linked to? Then I stand by my original statement on said asterisk.
Wrong is infringing on someone else's natural rights. Whose rights did Diebold infringe? They merely exercised their right to free speech in promoting their product. If there was inaccurate information in their marketing campaign the freemarket would surely bring it out by forcing their advertising to compete with other more factually accurate advertising. The freemarket brings equality by making things compete you see. If there's a bad product, bad information etc. it will simply fail because someone else will make better goods.
I'll probably get modded down for not agreeing with the Slashdot status quo, but I have to say it anyway, even if just for the few freethinking individuals who may read my post.
If they want to "hide" behind the EULA then so be it. The customer should read it. If you don't agree to the EULA, then don't buy the product, simple as that.
This whole thing is just a bunch of socialists using the liberal biased court system to attack a tax-paying company. A company that actually does something for this country instead of living off the hard work of others. If their machines don't work the way you want them to, then make your own and sell them. Compete in the real world, the marketplace, not the leftist courts.
It's right there in the article, Swidarski says it, "the state's decision to intervene". The state shouldn't intervene with the marketplace, only a freemarket will bring true equality to all people. Look at what happened to the Soviet Union with their interventionist measures.
What is this post? Like what are you trying to say? I got the earlier ones, but like this one just plain baffles me.
Okay, we're going into a religious war, and i guess we'd know that if we pay attention? To what? The news/government? Yeah, they've been saying that since 1948. So why do you we even have to pay attention anymore? We can pretty much count on a few things: war/terrorism imminent!, environment in danger!/environment in danger?, republican!, democrats!, FTAA meeting--violent protesting from hardline "anarchists putting their beliefs into action" suppressed by courageous action from police, gay rights something/gay marriage?, animal rights something, women rights something, immigration. Personally, I don't think it's worth the attention.
But the last two comments are the ones that I really do not get.
Post Modernist Atheism. I understand that you're just making a term up to give a name to what you attack, but why? Wouldn't just plain "atheism", do? I mean, why do you have to throw that "post "modernist" bit in there? But then you get on with "historically interesting Christians" and how one who practices(???) the aforementioned brand of atheism will need them to fight hard in order for them to continue their practices. So, like, soldiers are equatable with Christians now? And not just any Christians! Historically interesting ones. As opposed to...atheists? who are not interesting historically...why?
I mean, I'm not wholly knowledgable on the subject of global military strategies, but I can also assume you aren't either. And your knowledge that like there's an army of Middle Easterners coming to take over the US unless we can stop them with our interesting Christian soldiers, I find very dubious. Maybe you run in circles with Brzezinski, but, actually, I guess you don't, because even he will say that there's no real Middle Eastern threat, apart from losing it to the Far East.
Anyway, my questions were not rhetorical. So, if you want to supply answers, I'll want to read them.
Absolutely it's the future of atheletics. Just like it'll be the future of everything else. A world where everyone is genetically modified into an idea of "perfection" and we all connect our brains into an advanced stage of the internet to have instant access to all "knowledge". A future where everyone knows and can do everything like everyone else, where all culture is sterilised. Not like it hasn't already happened essentially...
Okay...you're complaining that getting a patent from the patent office costs too much? And you blame the whole society, or system? That the whole system sucks too much of your hard earned money from you?
News for you dude: you wouldn't get that patent at all if it wasn't for the system. We may live in a Lockian society, somewhat. But, the truth is, any society we have is created out of pure anarchy. We live and always will live in pure anarchy. There are no natural rights. There is no liberty apart from what power(that you or others have) creates for you. And that patent that gives you the "liberty" to capitalize on your idea is backed merely by the power of the society to wage violence against those who don't follow its code. It's not some inalienable right. If there is no power backing the protection of your idea, it's gone. Someone will steal it if they want. You have no rights that aren't backed by power.
Not to mention the sytem creates the money you earn. They print those bills and let you use them. They're the property of the government. You think they suck too much of it from you? Don't use money. Have fun trading sheep for some milk and trying to convince the car dealership to except gold nuggets, even if you bring a scale there for them to use.
So? It's called running a better business model. Competition is what makes us strong. If Microsoft competes the best then so be it, it will just make us the strongest.
Let companies do whatever they want, it's the best in the long run. Adam Smith proves this in "The Wealth of Nations". There will always be someone else to compete, it just happens, because it's human nature, it always happens, Adam Smith says so. Read the book, you'll see.
This will just get more people off tv, more people off hollywood movies, etc. I see no downside to this whatsoever. Let them control their content, it's terrible anyway. Tell me when they start forcing actual artists to put copy protection on the cassettes that they press in their apartment with their latest EP and then I'll care.
Small minority? In 2002, 68% of people in the US were licensed to drive. And that doesn't mean all of them actually drive. I for one are licensed, but I don't drive. I don't see how you come to your conclusions.
I hear it at work(I'm a student working at a fast food place for my summer job, at least for now).
The restaurant has a policy of having it only on an available "pop" station. When I work an 8 hour day shift I'll hear the same "song" 3 times sometimes. To be naive: this is a radio station that apparently doesn't even have enough music to fill up an 8 hour spot, so they have to repeat songs. I've got enough casettes just in my car to fill up a four day spot, and I'm not a radio station. And I'd guarantee I'd actually play something that, at least, resembled music.
Slashdot Mirror
As opposed to calculating pi in decimal, which is great for impressing...geeks?
Once again the leftist government interferes with the freemarket, certianly resulting in deleterious effects for mankind as a whole.
If the company wants to file their revenue that way, they have a right to. If consumers don't like the way they file their numbers they can do business with someone who files numbers in a way they want. When Computer Associates finds that no one is deadling with them because of their method of book-keeping, they'll want to change their ways so that they can compete and make money. This is how the freemarket works. The government doesn't need to interfere. This is the same as forcing companies to pay minimum wage: forcing them to file minimum numbers. It's anti-competetive; and, I don't want to frighten people, but it's borderlining on communism even.
' "The best swimmer should have the body of a snake and the arms of a gorilla."
Edward Cussler
University of Minnesota '
TROGDOR!?!?
My point is that traditional encyclopedias are not free from bias.
Personally, I loathe modern political philosophy in general. I really don't think politics are an interesting locus of activity nowadays. But keep on thinking that anyone who says...anything? is desperately trying to be "unique", and then spouting off about it on Slashdot, in a discussion about Wikipedia. It's just what you gotta do man. Keep on keeping on.
Well i was recently reading the Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia article on the future of Communism. This is what it said in the last paragraph(paraphrase):
"The future of communism in the 21ist century lies in a backwards[actual word that used] country, China, whose priorties are not to foster worker's emancipation but capitalism, communism's supposedly sworn enemy."
And that pretty much sums up the entire section on communism. "Communism has no chance of ressurection." "Communism always depends on brutal dictatorships, because of its very nature it depends on them." Stuff like that through and through.
All good history.
But for your prediction: what about the 'Trusted Computing' everyone is talking about? Do you expect it to be a failure? The RIAA and MPAA and Microsoft and Intel all seem quite keen on it; they obviously see it as feasible. Would you expect consumers to react against it?
I think the majority would take it. With only a tiny minority moving over to the indie markets that exist now.
The filesharers know all that. Don't treat them as half-wits, not everyone is as stupid as you want them to be.
But, they also know something else, which apparently you don't. That is, with the production of these media products also comes the production of the desire for them. There's no natural demand for these things: people can get entertainment almost anywhere, at least they are certainly no where near a position where they have to worry about running out of it.
So if they take advantage of Britney Spears and her producers so much that they stop releasing music. Will the filesharers care? No. They'll just listen to something else. If Britney Spears never existed no one would ever want Britney Spears, and they know that. People are happy with whatever entertainment is handed to them. Even in the face of the most insipid productions, they'll consume it. "There's never anything good on t.v." is the eternal complaint, yet everyone still watches it. Why? Because it doesn't matter, it's good enough, and fucking easy to get. So if everyone stole television until driving it's supply into oblivion, they wouldn't care, it sucks anyway. They'd do something else. What did people do before television? Read? Listen to the radio? Maybe go to a play? People weren't dying left, right and center then because of the inexistence of television or Britney Spears and they wouldn't be now. And, with the new information technologies of today, they certainly don't fear a world without television proper.
And most of them certianly don't feel forbidden to take advantage of others for moral reasons. They understand what Nietzsche meant, even if they haven't read him, well enough to know what slave morality is.
It's far beyond Microsoft's control, that's why people do it. As much as you and many others like to pretend that somehow there's inalienable rights, it's simply not true. You have to back up rights with force or deterrence, basically you have to create fear of reprisals in prospective infringers of those rights. If there's no system of deterrence to back it up, the right doesn't exist. Since Microsoft can't force the Chinese to pay for Windows and they know that, they have no right to the monopoly on the distribution of Windows in China; even Microsoft knows that. That's all part of why they want this whole Trusted Computing(or 'Trustworthy', of 'Safer' whatever they call it now) scheme to come together with Intel and IBM and all the media owners and distributers, so they can make it physically impossible, or unremuneratively difficult, to pirate and still use the software for what you want to use it for. You only have rights as far as people respect them. Notions of "natural" rights are utopian remnants of a long-since expired line of thought.
I wasn't really nitpicking on his asterisk at all. I do not care one bit about bad spelling or grammar or form or anything like that. As long as I can understand. But I honestly did not know if his asterisk led to the note on loonies or to nowhere. I just try to maintain a very terse writing form that definitely comes off as insensitive, or maybe anti-syncretic is a better term, to avoid rants from those infamous "grammar nazis", which tends to do me no good anyway because of typographical errors.
Anyway.
Yeah, I mean, that's why they won't get into power, though. And I agree, thought and theory, is just that. It'll be put into practice in a major way when it's needed in a major way. I figure the majority is trying a strategy of playing dead right now, like a cold revolution or something. As opposed to hot revolutions which have come and gone, or never came, yet still, "gone". We'll see how it works out I guess; and I'm serious, it seems like a valid strategy to me considering the style of "oppression"(if you could call it that, maybe "repressions") the majority of people face in their life.
Raidcal leftists? Explain. Your asterisk led me nowhere*. Like, I know some radical leftists, like say, anti-social anarchists, and they're a far cry from anything the Democratic party even comes close to, even, being in the same universe as.
*Did you mean your note on "Loonies"? Maybe your definition of radical differs from the one generally well understood in most politcal or social theory, but "radical" theory is not required at all to have to do with changing one's mind or considerations on evil. It more generally refers to the far-left, or sometimes to just critical theory in general. Or maybe your note on "Loonies" wasn't what your asterisk was linked to? Then I stand by my original statement on said asterisk.
Wrong is infringing on someone else's natural rights. Whose rights did Diebold infringe? They merely exercised their right to free speech in promoting their product. If there was inaccurate information in their marketing campaign the freemarket would surely bring it out by forcing their advertising to compete with other more factually accurate advertising. The freemarket brings equality by making things compete you see. If there's a bad product, bad information etc. it will simply fail because someone else will make better goods.
I'll probably get modded down for not agreeing with the Slashdot status quo, but I have to say it anyway, even if just for the few freethinking individuals who may read my post.
If they want to "hide" behind the EULA then so be it. The customer should read it. If you don't agree to the EULA, then don't buy the product, simple as that.
This whole thing is just a bunch of socialists using the liberal biased court system to attack a tax-paying company. A company that actually does something for this country instead of living off the hard work of others. If their machines don't work the way you want them to, then make your own and sell them. Compete in the real world, the marketplace, not the leftist courts.
It's right there in the article, Swidarski says it, "the state's decision to intervene". The state shouldn't intervene with the marketplace, only a freemarket will bring true equality to all people. Look at what happened to the Soviet Union with their interventionist measures.
What is this post? Like what are you trying to say? I got the earlier ones, but like this one just plain baffles me.
Okay, we're going into a religious war, and i guess we'd know that if we pay attention? To what? The news/government? Yeah, they've been saying that since 1948. So why do you we even have to pay attention anymore? We can pretty much count on a few things: war/terrorism imminent!, environment in danger!/environment in danger?, republican!, democrats!, FTAA meeting--violent protesting from hardline "anarchists putting their beliefs into action" suppressed by courageous action from police, gay rights something/gay marriage?, animal rights something, women rights something, immigration. Personally, I don't think it's worth the attention.
But the last two comments are the ones that I really do not get.
Post Modernist Atheism. I understand that you're just making a term up to give a name to what you attack, but why? Wouldn't just plain "atheism", do? I mean, why do you have to throw that "post "modernist" bit in there? But then you get on with "historically interesting Christians" and how one who practices(???) the aforementioned brand of atheism will need them to fight hard in order for them to continue their practices. So, like, soldiers are equatable with Christians now? And not just any Christians! Historically interesting ones. As opposed to...atheists? who are not interesting historically...why?
I mean, I'm not wholly knowledgable on the subject of global military strategies, but I can also assume you aren't either. And your knowledge that like there's an army of Middle Easterners coming to take over the US unless we can stop them with our interesting Christian soldiers, I find very dubious. Maybe you run in circles with Brzezinski, but, actually, I guess you don't, because even he will say that there's no real Middle Eastern threat, apart from losing it to the Far East.
Anyway, my questions were not rhetorical. So, if you want to supply answers, I'll want to read them.
Absolutely it's the future of atheletics. Just like it'll be the future of everything else. A world where everyone is genetically modified into an idea of "perfection" and we all connect our brains into an advanced stage of the internet to have instant access to all "knowledge". A future where everyone knows and can do everything like everyone else, where all culture is sterilised. Not like it hasn't already happened essentially...
Okay...you're complaining that getting a patent from the patent office costs too much? And you blame the whole society, or system? That the whole system sucks too much of your hard earned money from you?
News for you dude: you wouldn't get that patent at all if it wasn't for the system. We may live in a Lockian society, somewhat. But, the truth is, any society we have is created out of pure anarchy. We live and always will live in pure anarchy. There are no natural rights. There is no liberty apart from what power(that you or others have) creates for you. And that patent that gives you the "liberty" to capitalize on your idea is backed merely by the power of the society to wage violence against those who don't follow its code. It's not some inalienable right. If there is no power backing the protection of your idea, it's gone. Someone will steal it if they want. You have no rights that aren't backed by power.
Not to mention the sytem creates the money you earn. They print those bills and let you use them. They're the property of the government. You think they suck too much of it from you? Don't use money. Have fun trading sheep for some milk and trying to convince the car dealership to except gold nuggets, even if you bring a scale there for them to use.
Then go overdose with heroin and you'll never waste another second of your entire life.
Hahahahahahahaha.
"Why even be here if you're not looking forward to all the good games?"
Because, games are a waste of time in general?
You obviously don't have a very good gender studies department if they give you permission for that.
So? It's called running a better business model. Competition is what makes us strong. If Microsoft competes the best then so be it, it will just make us the strongest.
Let companies do whatever they want, it's the best in the long run. Adam Smith proves this in "The Wealth of Nations". There will always be someone else to compete, it just happens, because it's human nature, it always happens, Adam Smith says so. Read the book, you'll see.
So, tv becomes "worse".
Maybe less people will sit around on the couch? Or less will fall victim to ads for useless products and junk food. The future looks truly bleak.
Dictionary.com:
[Middle English forein, from Old French forain, from Late Latin fornus, on the outside, from Latin fors, outside. See dhwer- in Indo-European Roots.]
Go buy a Rage Against the Machine shirt with a Che Guevara relief from the mall. Che would be proud, I'm sure.
Because tv is so wonderful, ha.
This will just get more people off tv, more people off hollywood movies, etc. I see no downside to this whatsoever. Let them control their content, it's terrible anyway. Tell me when they start forcing actual artists to put copy protection on the cassettes that they press in their apartment with their latest EP and then I'll care.
Small minority? In 2002, 68% of people in the US were licensed to drive. And that doesn't mean all of them actually drive. I for one are licensed, but I don't drive. I don't see how you come to your conclusions.
I hear it at work(I'm a student working at a fast food place for my summer job, at least for now).
The restaurant has a policy of having it only on an available "pop" station. When I work an 8 hour day shift I'll hear the same "song" 3 times sometimes. To be naive: this is a radio station that apparently doesn't even have enough music to fill up an 8 hour spot, so they have to repeat songs. I've got enough casettes just in my car to fill up a four day spot, and I'm not a radio station. And I'd guarantee I'd actually play something that, at least, resembled music.