I'm writing to you to voice my support for your shutting down the bnetd project. The den of thieves known as slashdot seems to be believe that they have a right to the products of your minds and efforts. Their talks of boycotts is unjust, and I will probably buy your products more eagerly because you're being unjustly victimized. I just hope there are more sane people out there than the typical slashdot lunatic and that this doesn't hurt you financially. You are perfectly in the right here. Stay selfish. Stay principled. Ignore the bastards.
Here in Sweden a company is legally bound to monitor the health of employees, because if they don't, they can be forced to pay for work-related damages.
That's precisely why MindArk was forced to fire employees who stayed up nights working, or otherwise neglected their health. Employees who neglect their health are considered MindArk's responsibility by Swedish law, and had MindArk not gotten rid of the potential liabilities as fast as possible, the law might have bankrupted them.
I guarantee you I will never choose Sweden as a place of operations for a business. Laws like this make it unnecessarily difficult to run a successful one.
Because America has taken sides in so many conflicts, because America has armed so many countris' enemies, because America has imposed so many "solutions" on so many people, because American troops occupy so many countries, the world has become dangerous for America.
Foreigners generally love McDonald's but hate our government. Foreign politicians explot that hatred. And now and then foreign terrorists try--or pretend to try--to change our government's policies by bombing American targets here or abroad.
But our policies don't change, because politicians never respond by letting go of their power. So, instead of doing something to eliminate the motive for actual or threatened terrorism, our politicians "fight" it with even more foreign adventures.
And they issue a steady stream of alarms about frightening problems around the world--all of which supposedly require our immediate attention and intervention.
But why should we have anything to fear? Our country is bounded by two friendly nations and two oceans that protect us from invasion. We are open only to the sky. Our first military concern should be to defend ourselves against missiles launched from overseas.
[...]
How would a Libertarian government assure our safety?
Our foreign policy would be simple:
We are always ready to defend ourselves, but we threaten no one.
And just how many users are going to understand what is going on?
The ones who don't won't turn smart tags on.
And just how the hell are you going to know which links belong to the author and which were generated by M$?
They look different.
And what makes you think that M$ will do anything other than have sets of links that favor them explicitly?
Maybe they won't. When you choose to activate smart tags on your browser, remember to change the default smart tag.
You're forgetting that this is already fully controlled by M$, there is no room for 'how it should or could be used properly' because Bill hasn't asked and isn't going to. He already knows what he's doing and he's relying on people like you to help him 'show everyone else' what a good thing it is.
It is a good thing. I could import tags from (say) CATO.org or slashdot (if they choose to provide them) and have a constant connection to the content which they find interesting.
Don't you get it? This will allow M$ to turn ALL internet content into M$ content.
"Sanford said that the Smart Tags operate on an open architecture that will allow virtually any group to create a class of Smart Tag links, which Internet Explorer users in turn will be able to download and add to their files. Users will be able to determine whose Smart Tags they use under the IE platform, Sanford added."
"In the initial versions of IE 6.0, the Smart Tag technology will be set to a default setting of 'off.' Users who want to employ the technology will have to turn Smart Tags on, Sanford said."
"The Panel does not infer that "-sucks" domain names are immune from scrutiny as being confusingly similar to trademarks to which they are appended. Each case must be considered in light of the facts presented."
And which facts are relevant? How am I to know whether I'm breaking the law or not?
I think it would be better for them to send a check in to the people, despite the convience of this type system. That way you are sure all the money goes to the group it belongs to.
The people you're donating to have agreed to pay Amazon a percentage in exchange for the service. It would be irrational and self-destructive for Amazon to provide this service (which costs them) for free.
And I wouldn't trust their privacy policy as far as I could throw it.
Why? The reason Amazon can offer this service is because they have a large user database to offer to their business partners. If the database is stolen, their partners have no more reason to deal with Amazon. The donations are just as safe as buying products on Amazon, and I've not known anyone who had problems with them.
It would be rather easy to slip a web bug into an image for the "donation system."
If someone is too stupid to check the URL of a web site before typing in his credit card information, he's probably too stupid to have money to steal.
If this thing takes off, I'm going to have to delete my amazon cookies. The last thing I want is to have my attention drawn to advertisements.
Can I prevent payboxes from greeting me by name? Yes. You can determine whether the Amazon Honor System payboxes greet you by name. If you would like to turn off name recognition, please visit Your Account at Amazon.com. Under "Your Account Settings," click on "Updating your communication preferences." Then, simply click the appropriate check box.
Edwin A. Locke and Jaana Woiceshyn answer this question in "Why Businessmen Should Be Honest: The Argument From Rational Egoism" from Why Businessmen Need Philosophy. They discuss the major codes of morality (cynical egoism, Christianity, and secular altruism), and conclude that Ayn Rand's theory of Rational Egoism is the only code which provides an acceptable answer.
I think even the most strident freemarket supporter would say that to withhold medical care is wrong.
Why is it wrong? I didn't spend 2 decades of my life in school and more in practice for the privilege of working for free every time some bozo claims a need. Feel free to morally condemn a doctor who refuses to help you in a life-or-death scenario, but the moment you put a gun to his head and demand to be treated, you've violated his rights and he has every right to kill you in self-defense. I don't expect you to exist for my sake. What gives you the moral right to demand that I exist for yours?
Expiring copyrights at the time of copyright holder's death creates incentive to kill the copyright owner. The 70 year delay eliminates this incentive.
I'd hope that whoever wins will set up some sort of public display. That way everyone can enjoy it.
How would "everyone" enjoy it? By looking at it through a window? If I were the owner of the collection, I wouldn't put it in a museum (unless the museum pays me), since I wouldn't be able to enjoy it as much.
Slashdot Mirror
Superficial thinking.
If the alternative OS can really "swim," a retailer can open which does business only with the alternative, and doesn't deal with M$.
The problem is that Linux can't swim. Deal with it. M$ is a scapegoat, nothing else.
Thanks. This is what I wrote to them.
I'm writing to you to voice my support for your shutting down the bnetd project. The den of thieves known as slashdot seems to be believe that they have a right to the products of your minds and efforts. Their talks of boycotts is unjust, and I will probably buy your products more eagerly because you're being unjustly victimized. I just hope there are more sane people out there than the typical slashdot lunatic and that this doesn't hurt you financially. You are perfectly in the right here. Stay selfish. Stay principled. Ignore the bastards.
Here in Sweden a company is legally bound to monitor the health of employees, because if they don't, they can be forced to pay for work-related damages.
That's precisely why MindArk was forced to fire employees who stayed up nights working, or otherwise neglected their health. Employees who neglect their health are considered MindArk's responsibility by Swedish law, and had MindArk not gotten rid of the potential liabilities as fast as possible, the law might have bankrupted them.
I guarantee you I will never choose Sweden as a place of operations for a business. Laws like this make it unnecessarily difficult to run a successful one.
Libertarian Party's Harry Browne's position.
"Your comment violated the postercomment compression filter. Comment aborted"
Because America has taken sides in so many conflicts, because America has armed so many countris' enemies, because America has imposed so many "solutions" on so many people, because American troops occupy so many countries, the world has become dangerous for America.
Foreigners generally love McDonald's but hate our government. Foreign politicians explot that hatred. And now and then foreign terrorists try--or pretend to try--to change our government's policies by bombing American targets here or abroad.
But our policies don't change, because politicians never respond by letting go of their power. So, instead of doing something to eliminate the motive for actual or threatened terrorism, our politicians "fight" it with even more foreign adventures.
And they issue a steady stream of alarms about frightening problems around the world--all of which supposedly require our immediate attention and intervention.
But why should we have anything to fear? Our country is bounded by two friendly nations and two oceans that protect us from invasion. We are open only to the sky. Our first military concern should be to defend ourselves against missiles launched from overseas.
[...]
How would a Libertarian government assure our safety?
Our foreign policy would be simple:
[...]
Harry Browne, The Great Libertarian Offer
It's actually Balance of Judgment. Much better, IMO.
And just how many users are going to understand what is going on?
The ones who don't won't turn smart tags on.
And just how the hell are you going to know which links belong to the author and which were generated by M$?
They look different.
And what makes you think that M$ will do anything other than have sets of links that favor them explicitly?
Maybe they won't. When you choose to activate smart tags on your browser, remember to change the default smart tag.
You're forgetting that this is already fully controlled by M$, there is no room for 'how it should or could be used properly' because Bill hasn't asked and isn't going to. He already knows what he's doing and he's relying on people like you to help him 'show everyone else' what a good thing it is.
It is a good thing. I could import tags from (say) CATO.org or slashdot (if they choose to provide them) and have a constant connection to the content which they find interesting.
Don't you get it? This will allow M$ to turn ALL internet content into M$ content.
No it won't. You're an idiot.
http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/166676.html
"Sanford said that the Smart Tags operate on an open architecture that will allow virtually any group to create a class of Smart Tag links, which Internet Explorer users in turn will be able to download and add to their files. Users will be able to determine whose Smart Tags they use under the IE platform, Sanford added."
"In the initial versions of IE 6.0, the Smart Tag technology will be set to a default setting of 'off.' Users who want to employ the technology will have to turn Smart Tags on, Sanford said."
"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."
Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
If it's so terrible, quit. Employment is voluntary last I checked.
"The Panel does not infer that "-sucks" domain names are immune from scrutiny as being confusingly similar to trademarks to which they are appended. Each case must be considered in light of the facts presented."
And which facts are relevant? How am I to know whether I'm breaking the law or not?
I think it would be better for them to send a check in to the people, despite the convience of this type system. That way you are sure all the money goes to the group it belongs to.
The people you're donating to have agreed to pay Amazon a percentage in exchange for the service. It would be irrational and self-destructive for Amazon to provide this service (which costs them) for free.
And I wouldn't trust their privacy policy as far as I could throw it.
Why? The reason Amazon can offer this service is because they have a large user database to offer to their business partners. If the database is stolen, their partners have no more reason to deal with Amazon. The donations are just as safe as buying products on Amazon, and I've not known anyone who had problems with them.
It would be rather easy to slip a web bug into an image for the "donation system."
If someone is too stupid to check the URL of a web site before typing in his credit card information, he's probably too stupid to have money to steal.
If this thing takes off, I'm going to have to delete my amazon cookies. The last thing I want is to have my attention drawn to advertisements.
Can I prevent payboxes from greeting me by name?
Yes. You can determine whether the Amazon Honor System payboxes greet you by name. If you would like to turn off name recognition, please visit Your Account at Amazon.com. Under "Your Account Settings," click on "Updating your communication preferences." Then, simply click the appropriate check box.
Edwin A. Locke and Jaana Woiceshyn answer this question in "Why Businessmen Should Be Honest: The Argument From Rational Egoism" from Why Businessmen Need Philosophy . They discuss the major codes of morality (cynical egoism, Christianity, and secular altruism), and conclude that Ayn Rand's theory of Rational Egoism is the only code which provides an acceptable answer.
I think even the most strident freemarket supporter would say that to withhold medical care is wrong.
Why is it wrong? I didn't spend 2 decades of my life in school and more in practice for the privilege of working for free every time some bozo claims a need. Feel free to morally condemn a doctor who refuses to help you in a life-or-death scenario, but the moment you put a gun to his head and demand to be treated, you've violated his rights and he has every right to kill you in self-defense. I don't expect you to exist for my sake. What gives you the moral right to demand that I exist for yours?
A free market has no restrictions on the behaviour of corporations whatsoever.
False. You're not talking about a free market but about anarchy. Being in a free market doesn't mean that you have no rights.
They are free to engage in price fixing, formation of monopolies, egregious treatment of employees, sale of dangerous products,
Right, right, right, and right.
false advertising,
Wrong. A lie amounts to use of force and you can be held liable for it.
copying of their competitor's trademarks,
Wrong again. This is a violation of their competitors' right to property, and is a criminal offense.
mislabelling their products contents,
Wrong for the same reason as above.
and whatever forms of environmental rape that result in their greatest profit.
As long as the damage remains restricted to their own property. This includes air pollution and even noise.
A free market does not mean lawlessness. One has to wonder what you're hoping to achieve by claiming that it does.
Expiring copyrights at the time of copyright holder's death creates incentive to kill the copyright owner. The 70 year delay eliminates this incentive.
I'd hope that whoever wins will set up some sort of public display. That way everyone can enjoy it.
How would "everyone" enjoy it? By looking at it through a window? If I were the owner of the collection, I wouldn't put it in a museum (unless the museum pays me), since I wouldn't be able to enjoy it as much.
Alan Greenspan on Antitrust.
For those interested, AvantGo has Cato Daily Commentary and Cato Daily Dispatch channels.
I'm talking about the harm to society as a whole by lost works in the public domain, not the harm to individuals.
What sort of magic are you using to separate individuals and society?
Just scratching an itch...
About time?
Very cool