That said, at least Obama's regime is doing something visible about outrageous telco behavior
There's a lot that Verizon does that's outrageous but does this really fall into that category? I've always found it absurd that they charge the same ETF for a el-cheapo no-frills candy bar phone as they do for a top of the line smartphone. If the theory behind the ETF is the amount of money they front to subsidize your device then shouldn't it stand to reason that the ETF should change according to the value of the device that you receive?
In any event, I think it would be a better use of the FCC's limited time and resources if they were to hold Verizon to it's promise to open up their network. That promise was made almost two years ago as I recall. Where's my market in non-carrier branded devices for the Verizon network?
I honestly don't know how much money the guy makes. I met him in a terminal at JFK. Saw him wearing a Ruger shirt and asked him where he got it -- he told me he worked for them. Asked him what his role was and he said he was the CEO. Talked to him for a few minutes about the firearms industry in general and Ruger in particular. He seemed pretty down to earth.
The GP was either trolling or misinformed. The stereotype of the big scary "gun industry" is just that. Most of the American gun companies aren't all that big. Ruger has a market cap of 202 million. Smith & Wesson has a market cap of 264 million. That's peanuts compared to many publicly traded companies.
What if the democratic process has already been derailed? Just because someone was "elected" doesn't mean that democracy matters for spit. As a random example, in the United States, our politicians get to pick their voters. How is that compatible with Democracy?
If you could convince a group of men to resist they become terrorists
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
but the fact of the matter is the idea of armed rebellion is quaint and irrelevant today
Why?
But all that aside, do you REALLY believe violence is an appropriate response to the banning of a video game?
No, but it is an appropriate response when the ends of government have been perverted and all other means of redress are ineffectual.
That ever useful tool. However would we have gone to the stars without it?
Yes, according to a 2007 report from the Associated Press, astronauts keep a few tranqs on hand in case anyone goes all suicidal or psychotic in space. NASA recommends binding the individual's wrists and ankles with duct tape (ever the space traveler's friend!), strapping them down with a bungee cord and, if necessary, sticking them with a tranquilizer.
Has any sci-fi show other than Firefly ever mentioned duct tape?
Contrary to the US, most every other civilised country in the world recognises that the average citizen does NOT have some God given right to own a rocket launcher!
Hyperbole. No civilian in the US owns a "rocket launcher", unless you are referring to one of these.
Unfortunately the American gun culture is now being exported (along with rap and like shit) and we're starting to pay the price with a rise in handgun crime.
Yes, it's all our fault. Your criminals were honest hard working folk until they caught a glimpse of the American gun culture, upon which they become violent murderers.
The average American is a sheep being led to the slaughter so some Ruger guy can afford another corporate jet, and the best part is, they have you loving it!
Ruger isn't that big of a company. I actually met their CEO once upon a time. Guess what? He was flying commercial.
Australian isn't the US, we have a different culture and people in general are quite happy for the government to "protect" us from certain things.
Unfortunately that attitude isn't unique to your country and there are plenty of people here in the states that would willingly surrender their freedom and liberty in exchange for "protection" from various things.
How do you refuse when they are backed with the full force of law? You can vote the Government out -- but that would require convincing the sheeple that free speech is worth more than "think of the children!" Good luck with that.
At least here in the US they don't have the power of the state behind them -- yet. Of course it's almost as stupid over here -- there's many games that should be rated 'AO' but such a rating means that most retailers won't stock it and the game isn't commercially viable. The end result is that the boundary of 'M' games (or 'R' movies for that matter) keeps getting pushed further and further and the rating system is rendered useless. This type of self-censorship on the part of major retailers is rather self-defeating in the end, isn't it?
Arizona school districts are some of the most corrupt organizations that i've ever dealt with.
I assure you that Arizona doesn't have a monopoly on school corruption.
Want to hear an example of how it works in my state? There's quasi-state agencies called 'Boards of Cooperative Educational Services' (BOCES) that provide various services to the school districts that join. The theory is that shared services between districts will offer cost savings. Good theory, but it comes with a few catches. Once a district joins BOCES they can't ever leave and must continue to pay their membership dues even if they elect not to use any of the services offered.
I used to work for a company that was contracted with two local districts to supply internet services, workstations and servers. We were always able to beat BOCES by a fair margin when the annual bids rolled around. Then New York State changed the law so that the school districts couldn't receive matching funds from the state unless they went with BOCES, even if the overall cost of doing so was higher.
The internet services that we were offering were cheaper, provided more bandwidth and were eligible for a large amount of Federal funding out of the universal service fund. The internet services offered by BOCES were more expensive, provided half the bandwidth and weren't eligible for Federal funding. But the districts had to choose them anyway, because they were "cheaper" (due to the state matching funds granted exclusively to BOCES) and the fact that they were wasting their contribution dues to BOCES if it didn't use their services.
In effect, my state is subsidizing a monopoly to do a worse job for more money. In the end almost everybody loses -- the school districts, the taxpayers and the private enterprises that could offer a superior product but find themselves shut out of the market. The only winners are the employees of BOCES. Our local one happens to be staffed with ex-politicians at the administrative level and their cronies at the lower levels. Nice, isn't it?
It probably is a cliche, but so what? They created a representative republic in an era when the conventional wisdom was that such governments are doomed to fail. Were they perfect? Hell no. Did they have insights and wisdom that remain valid even today? I would argue that they did.
Anyway, why do people get all uptight when someone cites the Founding Fathers but rarely comment when they cite other historical figures?
I would take those signs down at once. What you've done there is to create the image that you are trigger-happy. This image will bite you in the ass if you ever have an employee (you got security guards I assume?) involved in a self-defense shooting. All you need is a DA with an axe to grind and a jury with a few anti-gun types on it.
Much better to stick within the bounds of the law.
IANAL, but it seems to me that the precedent is that such signs do not have force of law. It's not just on the concealed carry issue either -- our local bowling alley has a "family friendly" policy and requests that people not use vulgar language. When people do the only thing they can do is ask them to leave, even though it's posted in plain sight when you enter the place.
The police generally aren't in the business of enforcing private rules. Even if they were, how would they have you "summarily arrested"? The property owners can't detain you there -- you could simply walk out at anytime and they'd be powerless to stop you.
The length of copyrights or patents have little to do with the irony of so called "free market" advocates lobbying to regulate their customer base.
"So called" are the most insightful two words you've used thus far. People who try to buy the system to protect their business model are anything but free market advocates. I include in this category the tel/cable-cos that get government backed monopolies, the rights holders (I'm looking at you Disney) that want never-ending copyright, the businesses that get their technology mandated by law (Macrovision), etc, etc.
if you really think about it and read the thread again your argument for free and sensible patents and copyrights are much more in line with true capitalism over the bullshit our current regime of circle jerking CxOs try to pass off.
Indeed. So why are we having this conversation? Do you think that I side with those circle jerking assholes that try to buy our political system?
you're a jackass
Wow, how insightful:)
The discussion was about pseudo capitalists raping our IP system to the point you can't use a camera without risking a prison sentence.
Which brought out the typical "grr, copyrights are bad! information wants to be free!" responses that we've all come to know and love. That's who my reply was directed at. What's the problem here?
What the fuck are you doing?
Waiting for a large file copy operation at the office to finish and passing the time by being called a jackass.
Seriously, STFU about what you think our forefathers would do. Fuck you, you don't know, fuck we have full blown shanty towns the size of the old colonies or larger (Detroit).
And that's relevant to a discussion about copyrights and patents, how?
They'd burn you at the fuckin' stake the first time you microwaved a goddamned cheeseburger.
Actually I suspect that Franklin (among others) would have been quite intrigued by modern technology. Few of the founding fathers were overly religious and I rather doubt they would have been inclined to burn anybody at the stake for any reason.
And as long as we're citing imaginary experts.
I wasn't "citing" anybody. All I pointed out was that the value of limited duration patents were recognized a long time ago. I don't think that underlying concept has changed any in 250 years. If you have no patents then you have little incentive for innovation. If you have patents that last too long then you also retard innovation.
Go ahead and keep harping on the fact that I had the audacity to cite the people who created our system of government though. It's probably a lot easier than refuting the actual point.
They also believed we shouldn't have a standing army.
So did Eisenhower. Nobody listened to him either.
They also believed that every citizen needed to own a gun in order to protect the nation.
Many people, myself included, still believe this.
Today? Not so much.
So rather then present any meaningful argument about why we don't need copyrights and/or patents you merely attack one line of mine? Interesting approach.
That way, if we get caught, at least we won't have to worry as much about the penalties.
Unless your intended rape victim is armed and declines to quietly submit to your attack. The MPAA doesn't have the legal authority to shoot you dead for pirating their product, although I'm sure their lobbyists are working on closing this loophole;)
Those corporations that participate in the free market are using copyright laws - through the buying of congresscritters - to regulate us.
There's nothing wrong with the concept of copyrights and patents. Even the Founding Fathers realized the value of them. They also realized the value of keeping them short in duration -- something we seen to have forgotten of late.
A decent copyright/patent system promotes innovation. Either extreme (no copyrights/patents or copyrights that last too long) will retard innovation.
t's also why a mall owner can't (legally) restrict you from taking photographs inside the mall;
Yes they can. They can ask you to leave. If you refuse to do so then it's trespassing and the guys with the handcuffs, tasers and firearms get involved. They can't take your property (camera) from you or (legally) require that you delete any pictures you've taken but they can insist that you leave.
I learned this in my concealed carry classes. My state has no legal provision for a property owner to post "no guns allowed" signs. They can post them but they have no force of law. All they can do is ask you to leave if they discover that you are armed -- you haven't actually broken any laws unless they ask you to leave and you decline to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
That said, at least Obama's regime is doing something visible about outrageous telco behavior
There's a lot that Verizon does that's outrageous but does this really fall into that category? I've always found it absurd that they charge the same ETF for a el-cheapo no-frills candy bar phone as they do for a top of the line smartphone. If the theory behind the ETF is the amount of money they front to subsidize your device then shouldn't it stand to reason that the ETF should change according to the value of the device that you receive?
In any event, I think it would be a better use of the FCC's limited time and resources if they were to hold Verizon to it's promise to open up their network. That promise was made almost two years ago as I recall. Where's my market in non-carrier branded devices for the Verizon network?
We aren't that fearfull of our fellow countrymen
Then why do you feel the need to disarm them?
Citation needed.
I honestly don't know how much money the guy makes. I met him in a terminal at JFK. Saw him wearing a Ruger shirt and asked him where he got it -- he told me he worked for them. Asked him what his role was and he said he was the CEO. Talked to him for a few minutes about the firearms industry in general and Ruger in particular. He seemed pretty down to earth.
The GP was either trolling or misinformed. The stereotype of the big scary "gun industry" is just that. Most of the American gun companies aren't all that big. Ruger has a market cap of 202 million. Smith & Wesson has a market cap of 264 million. That's peanuts compared to many publicly traded companies.
Thus derailing the whole democratic process.
What if the democratic process has already been derailed? Just because someone was "elected" doesn't mean that democracy matters for spit. As a random example, in the United States, our politicians get to pick their voters. How is that compatible with Democracy?
If you could convince a group of men to resist they become terrorists
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
but the fact of the matter is the idea of armed rebellion is quaint and irrelevant today
Why?
But all that aside, do you REALLY believe violence is an appropriate response to the banning of a video game?
No, but it is an appropriate response when the ends of government have been perverted and all other means of redress are ineffectual.
That ever useful tool. However would we have gone to the stars without it?
Yes, according to a 2007 report from the Associated Press, astronauts keep a few tranqs on hand in case anyone goes all suicidal or psychotic in space. NASA recommends binding the individual's wrists and ankles with duct tape (ever the space traveler's friend!), strapping them down with a bungee cord and, if necessary, sticking them with a tranquilizer.
Has any sci-fi show other than Firefly ever mentioned duct tape?
Contrary to the US, most every other civilised country in the world recognises that the average citizen does NOT have some God given right to own a rocket launcher!
Hyperbole. No civilian in the US owns a "rocket launcher", unless you are referring to one of these.
Unfortunately the American gun culture is now being exported (along with rap and like shit) and we're starting to pay the price with a rise in handgun crime.
Yes, it's all our fault. Your criminals were honest hard working folk until they caught a glimpse of the American gun culture, upon which they become violent murderers.
The average American is a sheep being led to the slaughter so some Ruger guy can afford another corporate jet, and the best part is, they have you loving it!
Ruger isn't that big of a company. I actually met their CEO once upon a time. Guess what? He was flying commercial.
Armed rebellion IS a legitimate choice.
Not in Australia. They willingly surrendered most of their firearms quite some time ago as I understand it.
Either put up with the bullshit, or do something about it, don't sit there and bitch like a whiney fuck.
Hey, I'm with you. Now how do you suggest we convince the vast majority of the populace that eats this shit up hook, line and sinker?
Australian isn't the US, we have a different culture and people in general are quite happy for the government to "protect" us from certain things.
Unfortunately that attitude isn't unique to your country and there are plenty of people here in the states that would willingly surrender their freedom and liberty in exchange for "protection" from various things.
How do you refuse when they are backed with the full force of law? You can vote the Government out -- but that would require convincing the sheeple that free speech is worth more than "think of the children!" Good luck with that.
At least here in the US they don't have the power of the state behind them -- yet. Of course it's almost as stupid over here -- there's many games that should be rated 'AO' but such a rating means that most retailers won't stock it and the game isn't commercially viable. The end result is that the boundary of 'M' games (or 'R' movies for that matter) keeps getting pushed further and further and the rating system is rendered useless. This type of self-censorship on the part of major retailers is rather self-defeating in the end, isn't it?
That sounds entirely too logical for New York State to ever consider doing it. More's the pity.
Arizona school districts are some of the most corrupt organizations that i've ever dealt with.
I assure you that Arizona doesn't have a monopoly on school corruption.
Want to hear an example of how it works in my state? There's quasi-state agencies called 'Boards of Cooperative Educational Services' (BOCES) that provide various services to the school districts that join. The theory is that shared services between districts will offer cost savings. Good theory, but it comes with a few catches. Once a district joins BOCES they can't ever leave and must continue to pay their membership dues even if they elect not to use any of the services offered.
I used to work for a company that was contracted with two local districts to supply internet services, workstations and servers. We were always able to beat BOCES by a fair margin when the annual bids rolled around. Then New York State changed the law so that the school districts couldn't receive matching funds from the state unless they went with BOCES, even if the overall cost of doing so was higher.
The internet services that we were offering were cheaper, provided more bandwidth and were eligible for a large amount of Federal funding out of the universal service fund. The internet services offered by BOCES were more expensive, provided half the bandwidth and weren't eligible for Federal funding. But the districts had to choose them anyway, because they were "cheaper" (due to the state matching funds granted exclusively to BOCES) and the fact that they were wasting their contribution dues to BOCES if it didn't use their services.
In effect, my state is subsidizing a monopoly to do a worse job for more money. In the end almost everybody loses -- the school districts, the taxpayers and the private enterprises that could offer a superior product but find themselves shut out of the market. The only winners are the employees of BOCES. Our local one happens to be staffed with ex-politicians at the administrative level and their cronies at the lower levels. Nice, isn't it?
It probably is a cliche, but so what? They created a representative republic in an era when the conventional wisdom was that such governments are doomed to fail. Were they perfect? Hell no. Did they have insights and wisdom that remain valid even today? I would argue that they did.
Anyway, why do people get all uptight when someone cites the Founding Fathers but rarely comment when they cite other historical figures?
I would take those signs down at once. What you've done there is to create the image that you are trigger-happy. This image will bite you in the ass if you ever have an employee (you got security guards I assume?) involved in a self-defense shooting. All you need is a DA with an axe to grind and a jury with a few anti-gun types on it.
Much better to stick within the bounds of the law.
IANAL, but it seems to me that the precedent is that such signs do not have force of law. It's not just on the concealed carry issue either -- our local bowling alley has a "family friendly" policy and requests that people not use vulgar language. When people do the only thing they can do is ask them to leave, even though it's posted in plain sight when you enter the place.
The police generally aren't in the business of enforcing private rules. Even if they were, how would they have you "summarily arrested"? The property owners can't detain you there -- you could simply walk out at anytime and they'd be powerless to stop you.
Ummm... they really can't force you to delete any pictures
Isn't that what I said?
The length of copyrights or patents have little to do with the irony of so called "free market" advocates lobbying to regulate their customer base.
"So called" are the most insightful two words you've used thus far. People who try to buy the system to protect their business model are anything but free market advocates. I include in this category the tel/cable-cos that get government backed monopolies, the rights holders (I'm looking at you Disney) that want never-ending copyright, the businesses that get their technology mandated by law (Macrovision), etc, etc.
if you really think about it and read the thread again your argument for free and sensible patents and copyrights are much more in line with true capitalism over the bullshit our current regime of circle jerking CxOs try to pass off.
Indeed. So why are we having this conversation? Do you think that I side with those circle jerking assholes that try to buy our political system?
you're a jackass
Wow, how insightful :)
The discussion was about pseudo capitalists raping our IP system to the point you can't use a camera without risking a prison sentence.
Which brought out the typical "grr, copyrights are bad! information wants to be free!" responses that we've all come to know and love. That's who my reply was directed at. What's the problem here?
What the fuck are you doing?
Waiting for a large file copy operation at the office to finish and passing the time by being called a jackass.
I guess we all have our pet issues.
I guess yours is whining about the pet issues of others? ;)
Seriously, STFU about what you think our forefathers would do. Fuck you, you don't know, fuck we have full blown shanty towns the size of the old colonies or larger (Detroit).
And that's relevant to a discussion about copyrights and patents, how?
They'd burn you at the fuckin' stake the first time you microwaved a goddamned cheeseburger.
Actually I suspect that Franklin (among others) would have been quite intrigued by modern technology. Few of the founding fathers were overly religious and I rather doubt they would have been inclined to burn anybody at the stake for any reason.
And as long as we're citing imaginary experts.
I wasn't "citing" anybody. All I pointed out was that the value of limited duration patents were recognized a long time ago. I don't think that underlying concept has changed any in 250 years. If you have no patents then you have little incentive for innovation. If you have patents that last too long then you also retard innovation.
Go ahead and keep harping on the fact that I had the audacity to cite the people who created our system of government though. It's probably a lot easier than refuting the actual point.
I think this is the first "I had sex with your mother"-implication joke I've ever seen on /.
You must be new here.
They also believed we shouldn't have a standing army.
So did Eisenhower. Nobody listened to him either.
They also believed that every citizen needed to own a gun in order to protect the nation.
Many people, myself included, still believe this.
Today? Not so much.
So rather then present any meaningful argument about why we don't need copyrights and/or patents you merely attack one line of mine? Interesting approach.
That way, if we get caught, at least we won't have to worry as much about the penalties.
Unless your intended rape victim is armed and declines to quietly submit to your attack. The MPAA doesn't have the legal authority to shoot you dead for pirating their product, although I'm sure their lobbyists are working on closing this loophole ;)
Those corporations that participate in the free market are using copyright laws - through the buying of congresscritters - to regulate us.
There's nothing wrong with the concept of copyrights and patents. Even the Founding Fathers realized the value of them. They also realized the value of keeping them short in duration -- something we seen to have forgotten of late.
A decent copyright/patent system promotes innovation. Either extreme (no copyrights/patents or copyrights that last too long) will retard innovation.
Think of how much damage a 9mm does
I have. That's why I bought a .45 ;)
t's also why a mall owner can't (legally) restrict you from taking photographs inside the mall;
Yes they can. They can ask you to leave. If you refuse to do so then it's trespassing and the guys with the handcuffs, tasers and firearms get involved. They can't take your property (camera) from you or (legally) require that you delete any pictures you've taken but they can insist that you leave.
I learned this in my concealed carry classes. My state has no legal provision for a property owner to post "no guns allowed" signs. They can post them but they have no force of law. All they can do is ask you to leave if they discover that you are armed -- you haven't actually broken any laws unless they ask you to leave and you decline to do so.