Its all about the numbers now aint it! No one gives a damn about anything else! anymore anway.
Well, what do most computer buyers base their purchase on? "This one's got the most megahertz!" What about cars (150 horsepower...)? Soda (One Calorie)?
A mediocore product with good marketing sells far better far longer than a good product with bad marketing.
For AOL, this meant ignoring their campaign for open access and just bought a cable company instead.
To understand this, you have to ask "What was AOL's goal?". The answer is "To get themselves cable internet.". So, why the heck would they push for some "Open Standard" when it could turn around and bite them later on down the road? Better just to own the cable company outright.
There's got to be some historical reason why the mediocre always come out on top, but I just can't think of it...
Hmmm... I don't think that the "mediocre" ever come out "on top" by definition (unless you're holding a mediocrity contest).
Libertarianism is, for the most part, an Internet political party. It doesn't really exist outside the white, middle-to-upper class internet.
I'm sorry, I didn't know that this was the White Internet.
Why? Well, a lot of reasons, but for the most part, I can almost guarantee you than an out of work steelworker or logger in the pacific northwest isn't singing the praises of the free market.
Yes, they're singing the praises of the Green Party and trade embargos.
Remember, Pepsi never bombed any cities because they've never had to do it themselves. That's what governments are for.
Well, they didn't give away their Harrier..:) Seriously, what could possibly be the motive for Pepsico to bomb people? "Eat at Taco Bell or you'll die?". Sounds like a touch of paranoia to me.
I speak for a lot of people when I say that corporate power is frightening as hell, so I don't think the Libertarians are going to gain many converts in the coming years by going on about how public services should be privatized or eliminated, all the while being conspicuously silent about corporate welfare.
The free market has failed quite a few people, and people are starting to understand that, and take matters into their own hands (Yahoo Search: "Monsanto Karnataka")
So what does a bunch of thugs burning some crops have to do with "the failure of the free market"? It sounds like simple vandalisim to me.
Oh yeah, and here's a surefire way to stump a Libertarian: Ask them about labor issues. What happens if there's a general strike and workers halt production?
Hope that their union buys them groceries.
What about factory occupations?
What about 'em?
What about sweatshops in a "free market?"
I'll assume that "sweatshop" means "bad/unsafe working conditions" here. In a free market, you can quit or go out on strike. If enough people quit, the business goes under. If enough people strike, the business changes its ways, or it goes under. It's simple supply and demand.
Upon whose shoulders does the world *really* rest? Labor? Or CEO's?
In any diversified economy (where there are specialized jobs), everyone has an important job (with the exception of government employees/welfare clients, of course). Of this list, who's the most important: the farmer who grows the food, the trucker who brings it to your store, the mechanic who works on the truck, the fertilizer plant that supplies the farmer, or the power plant that supplies them all?
Another idea (one that may draw the ire of lawyers): Redefine the lawyers role.
Why not just get rid of them? No, not kill them (although that has it's advantages, too), but just put them out of work altogether.
Enact a "Plain English Amendment" which basically states that any law which cannot be understood by a person of normal intelligence and education is not valid. After all, if you have to hire an expert to interpret a law for you, how can you reasonably be expected to comply with it? Of course, since the lawyers control the legal system and Congress, this will never happen. Fun to think about, though.
Can they really be afraid that we are going to pirate a disc of such immense filesize that it would fill our hard drives...
Of course, hard disk space will get larger/cheaper.
...or that we are going to re-create them on media that doesn't exist?
Yet.
They will get their money for the media, and they do deserve it, but by making it illegal for us to "Do it ourselves" they are no better than the pirates they are making us out to be.
You aren't paying for the media, you're paying for the content on the media. It's impossible to tell whether you have a genuine copy of the DVD, except when it's used on their player. However, I don't agree with how they're handling it, and no, I don't believe that the genie will go back into the bottle.
Let me ask, why are you busy playing on the computer, when there are kids without lunches in Spanish Harlem? Why aren't you devoting your time to them? Shouldn't you be working a second job to feed them? Why do you even own a computer, when you could sell it and give the proceeds to hungry children? The yearly income from one minimum-wage job would provide a free lunch for half of the kids in the NYC area for one day.
Which is more important to you? What does that say about your priorities and your humanitarianism?
This is not a flame, by the way.
I'd be more than willing to invest in private space exploration. Look at what NASA's bumbling efforts have produced as far as new technologies and processes. Imagine what a private company could make, driven solely by profit.
You can't really use explosives to fuel your car, for example -- you need a controlled release of energy. Too much energy in too short of time in too small of a space (exploding dynamite in an IC engine cylinder) is a Bad Thing. Maybe in the future, with super-strong materials, now...
From the web page: Under MIT's standard collaboration agreement, MIT will be free to publish the research results. The straightforward intellectual property arrangement provides for joint ownership of patentable inventions and improvements created jointly by MIT and Nanovation personnel, or by Nanovation personnel making significant use of MIT facilities. Intellectual property developed solely by MIT personnel will be owned by MIT. Nanovation, in turn, will own intellectual property developed solely by Nanovation personnel who have not made significant use of MIT facilities. The company has the right to a nonexclusive royalty-free license or an exclusive royalty-bearing license, limited to the MIT research that they have sponsored.
How dare they spend $90 million dollars (stolen from the Workers and Peasants) to steal The People's Ideas! So-called "intellectual property" is the most insidious of all evils, the idea that a Greedy Capitalistic Corporation can infuse a Noble Research Institute with Blood Money, and then own the results of that research! Down with Innovation! Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad!
Anyway I'm not sure if being against intellectual property as opposed to any property can rightly be considered socialist.
IMO, it is socialist -- in the sense that what's yours can be mine, merely because I need/want it. After all, suppose you'd spent ten years and millions of dollars developing the Magic Water Carburetor. No one else could have done it. The question is, who does the MWC belong to?
Captalist answer: It belongs to You. Socialist answer: It belongs to The People.
The underlying basis of capitalist private property, however, does not apply to intellectual property. Intellectual property is not a finite resource. As such, there is no need to create an efficient way to divide it up. Everyone in principal can have access to it.
If this were the case, then why should I bother to give my hypothetical intellectual property away? Can't you tap this "infinite resource" yourself? Intellectual property is a finite resource -- you don't extract it with drills and smelters, but with time and money. After all, if you're smart enough to think of an idea no one else has, isn't that valuable?
An ideal society (a utopia perhaps) would have everyone -pool- any and all ideas they had for peer review and total acceptance and widespread usage.
Ah, yes. Share and share alike. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Of course, we'd need a State Science Commitee to oversee this, with State Science Police to benevolently enforce it. What would you do to an enemy of the People who wouldn't share his idea? Re-education? Liquidation?
The patent office should issue Invention-credit certificates or something that says "Look it, I invented this. See give me credit. If you find it useful, I'd like to put food on my plate." - kind of like the old shareware lisence.
They do issue something that lets you eat off of what you invent -- it's called a patent. Unfortunately for your Utopian fantasies, it still allows someone to (shudder) own something.
Just for drill, can you name three things that Scientific Socialism invented?
It seems to me that epidemic disease has pretty much been a non-event in the western world, despite all of the supposedly drug-resistant microorganisims that modern health care has produced. If what you say is true, then why haven't we seen it yet? Or, why haven't we seen a "reverse plague" -- drug-resistant bacilli from the western world invading the third world countires, who have no modern meds, poor sanitation, malnutrition, etc?
So you aren't killed by viral influenza, but instead by a mutated cold virus? Dead is dead -- being killed by an incurable disease today is the same as being killed by a mutated, formerly-benign disease in ten years. Except, of course, that you've added ten years to your life -- which is kind of the point.
I could easily see all political speech on the internet being regulated by the FEC. Want to post some dumb quote by your favorite legislator? Get a permit. Want to run a website that's similar to a candidate's(whitehouse.com, anyone?)? Let the FEC study the matter for a few months, and then they'll tell you.
And the internet shouldn't be allowed to become some political advertising free-for-all, lest we all be spammed with banner ads proclaiming "Vote Gore!" or pop-up windows advising us, "Get tough on Internet Porn with CyberCop and George W. Bush!".
Yeah! And there's pornography and bad language and computer hackers and crazy people and textbooks on bomb-making, too. Let's ban it all, For The Children.
Do you think regulation is really necessary? Or do you think that the 'net has gotten to where it is by virtue of government intervention?
Account Name: guest Password: This copy of the Ataman Telnetd Server is registered as licensed to: Computer_Services_Group,_Inc Login failed: unknown user name, password or privilege incorrect.
The repetitive strips always use the same gags, and have been around for what seems like forever. Marmaduke. Ziggy. Peanuts. There won't be any earth-shattering ideas, nor anything to shock you. The same-ol', same-ol'. They'll always be popular, because they provide comfort from what you read on the front page.
The creative strips are far more rare. They entertain by their newness, by innovation. The Far Side. Calvin and Hobbes. Dilbert. The creative cartoonists tend to burn out -- Bill Waterson and Gary Larson both couldn't handle the pressure.
Jim Davis won't ever run out of new ideas -- he has all the ones he'll ever need. I hope, though, that Scott Adams hangs around for a few more years.
Aren't those things powered by a chemical, not biologiacal, reaction? I don't think they're the same thing, in any case -- the liquid in those lightsticks is not what you'd want in a squirt gun. Not only does it stain, but it tastes pretty nasty.
About the best rule I've ever heard for getting along is that Old Tyme Religion saying: "An it harm none, do what thou wilt."
I personally don't care if you're making moonshine in your basement, or meth for that matter. Nor do I care whom you sleep with, or even if you're married to him/her/them. All I want is to be left alone.
The problem is that most people seem to have an innate need to dick with other people's lives, all with good intentions. And we know what road those pave, don't we? To truly be secure in your freedoms, you have to be willing and able to defend them.
Non Violence
Non-violent resistance, you say? Non-violence only works when it holds the threat of violence -- when was the last time you saw a law enforced by an unarmed government?. I challenge anyone who thinks that guns are not necessary to freedom to show me an armed culture that has been subjugated. I can show you many countries that have been disarmed, then enslaved.
"Concerning nonviolence: it is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law." Malcolm X
I Can Vote, So My Rights Are Safe.
As I recall, Germany voted in Hitler. That was the last election for a while. (Note that one of Hitler's actions was to register, and then later confiscate, all privately owned guns in Germany.)
"Democracy is four wolves and a sheep voting on dinner." Robert Heinlein
But We Have A Constitution To Protect Us.
In the past, the Blacks in the south and the Chinese on the west coast were protected by the same constitution that we are today. Strange how Judge Lynch, Jim Crow, and the Chinese Exclusion Act never heard of it. Nothing will protect you (with no guns) like the laws of the land, except when the government (with guns) ignores it.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." Patrick Henry
I Don't Believe In Violence.
Great. I'm sure that the person who origionally meant you harm will suddenly change his mind.
"Those who beat their swords into ploughshares will do the ploughing for those who do not." Anon.
When you commit a crime, it not only affects you, but those around you as well.
And possessing a joint and $20,000 simultaneously has such an effect on everyone that it's worth a $20K fine, right? Can you explain why possessing a joint and $1,000 doesn't get you dinged for $19,000 more? Or is this just a case of simple greed?
If a restauranteur is going to put nearly $20,000 and his car in the hands of an employee, he should take certain precautions, such as drug tests and what not.
Therefore, if he doesn't go far above and beyond what he is legally required to do, he should forfeit his money? To prevent this, he'd have had to: 1) Acertain that his employee had nothing illegal on his person. How? Perhaps a strip and body cavity search witnessed by a lawyer would do.
2) Acertain that his employee would do nothing illegal, or indeed anything that would draw attention to him, while he was going to the bank. How? Clairvoyance, maybe?
If the employee ran away with the money, the restauranteur would nonetheless be out $20k. You could probably sue the individual for the property/money, but chances are it would take many decades for them to repay it.
And the employee would do some time, hopefully ensuring that he'd be less likely to do it again. Theft insurance would probably reimburse the business owner. However, when the government is the thief...
If you want to smoke weed, get a whore, make meth, do it on your own time and property. That way the police will seize YOUR car, and YOUR house, and YOUR cash.
Because your car, cash, and house are all violating the law, right?
What if the database that your information is in was copyrighted before you copyrighted your information yourself? Would your copyright be invalid?
The easy way around this, of course, is to change some bit of the information. Go from "Apt. 202" to "Suite 202". But this also works both ways -- they could change some irrelevant thing like your middle initial, and presto-changeo: a new entry, a new copyright.
Since you probably wouldn't be able to copyright your address or phone number (e-mail address? Maybe...), it should be relatively easy for a marketer to take a valid entry and make all of the common permutations (Street, Lane, Drive, etc; All middle initials; Ann, Anne, Annie), then copyright the whole schmeer. They'd have to be cross-referenced, but they'd probably be able to brute-force some combination that you hadn't thought of.
Re:Katz and Social Justice...
on
The Timekeeper
·
· Score: 2
The ONLY answer to the problem of a just dirtribution of wealth and technology can come from the government.
The USSR tried "scientific socialism", distributing wealth and technology to everyone. What notable advances did they produce? That is what you are talking about, of course -- centralized planning. Whether you call it "justice" or "Communism" it's still the same thing.
Corporations and "the market" will do nothing but increase the disparity of wealth unless they have the incentive to do otherwise.
So, corporations won't sell to me, because they want to "increase the disparity of wealth"? And here I thought that all they wanted was to make a buck. I haven't heard of AOL refusing new subscribers, or of Motorola rationing cell phones.
Only the government can give this incentive.
Yes, only the government can take from the producers and give to the parasites. Don't have the money for a computer? Don't bother to work harder, just get the Government to take some money from other people and buy one for you.
You might not like big government, but without it nothing can stop big business.
Let's stop big business. Henry Ford? He's anti-semitic, and he's making huge profits at the expense of the proletariat. Stop him. Westinghouse? Why, they're selling radios, and making addicitive radio programs, too. That's a monopoly. Close 'em down. Texas Insturments? They have the majority of the semiconductor market -- that's not fair to the Peepul.
Look at Communisim, and see what it has produced (~60 million dead under Stalin). Now look at Big Business, and see it has produced: The cheap & plentiful food that you eat, never farther away than the all-night store nearest you. Your job(unless you work for the government or are on Welfare, two sides of the same coin). Your computer and 'Net connection, the electricity that powers them, the people that developed the hardware that led up to them, clear back to Bell Labs.
But why wait until someone else changes things for you? Why not do it yourself? I'm sure some underprivledged child somewhere needs your computer more than you do -- why don't you give it to him/her? Why not sell your furniture, and donate the proceeds to someone with NO furniture? Why don't you go get a second job, and give the money away to street people? After all, you'd be redistributing corporate wealth.
Or, is all this talk of "a just dirtribution of wealth and technology" something that you want the government to do to other people?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, what do most computer buyers base their purchase on? "This one's got the most megahertz!" What about cars (150 horsepower...)? Soda (One Calorie)?
A mediocore product with good marketing sells far better far longer than a good product with bad marketing.
--------------------
To understand this, you have to ask "What was AOL's goal?". The answer is "To get themselves cable internet.". So, why the heck would they push for some "Open Standard" when it could turn around and bite them later on down the road? Better just to own the cable company outright.
There's got to be some historical reason why the mediocre always come out on top, but I just can't think of it...
Hmmm... I don't think that the "mediocre" ever come out "on top" by definition (unless you're holding a mediocrity contest).
--------------------
I'm sorry, I didn't know that this was the White Internet.
Why? Well, a lot of reasons, but for the most part, I can almost guarantee you than an out of work steelworker or logger in the pacific northwest isn't singing the praises of the free market.
Yes, they're singing the praises of the Green Party and trade embargos.
Remember, Pepsi never bombed any cities because they've never had to do it themselves. That's what governments are for.
Well, they didn't give away their Harrier.. :) Seriously, what could possibly be the motive for Pepsico to bomb people? "Eat at Taco Bell or you'll die?". Sounds like a touch of paranoia to me.
I speak for a lot of people when I say that corporate power is frightening as hell, so I don't think the Libertarians are going to gain many converts in the coming years by going on about how public services should be privatized or eliminated, all the while being conspicuously silent about corporate welfare.
Which corporations scare you? Pepsi? The corporate power to put a banner ad on Slashdot scares me slightly less than the governm ent power to break down my door and kill me, courtesy of a trumped-up charge. BTW, do you have a link to any "libertarian" who advocates corporate welfare?
The free market has failed quite a few people, and people are starting to understand that, and take matters into their own hands (Yahoo Search: "Monsanto Karnataka")
So what does a bunch of thugs burning some crops have to do with "the failure of the free market"? It sounds like simple vandalisim to me.
Oh yeah, and here's a surefire way to stump a Libertarian: Ask them about labor issues. What happens if there's a general strike and workers halt production?
Hope that their union buys them groceries.
What about factory occupations?
What about 'em?
What about sweatshops in a "free market?"
I'll assume that "sweatshop" means "bad/unsafe working conditions" here. In a free market, you can quit or go out on strike. If enough people quit, the business goes under. If enough people strike, the business changes its ways, or it goes under. It's simple supply and demand.
Upon whose shoulders does the world *really* rest? Labor? Or CEO's?
In any diversified economy (where there are specialized jobs), everyone has an important job (with the exception of government employees/welfare clients, of course). Of this list, who's the most important: the farmer who grows the food, the trucker who brings it to your store, the mechanic who works on the truck, the fertilizer plant that supplies the farmer, or the power plant that supplies them all?
--------------------
Why not just get rid of them? No, not kill them (although that has it's advantages, too), but just put them out of work altogether.
Enact a "Plain English Amendment" which basically states that any law which cannot be understood by a person of normal intelligence and education is not valid. After all, if you have to hire an expert to interpret a law for you, how can you reasonably be expected to comply with it? Of course, since the lawyers control the legal system and Congress, this will never happen. Fun to think about, though.
--------------------
Of course, hard disk space will get larger/cheaper.
Yet.
They will get their money for the media, and they do deserve it, but by making it illegal for us to "Do it ourselves" they are no better than the pirates they are making us out to be.
You aren't paying for the media, you're paying for the content on the media. It's impossible to tell whether you have a genuine copy of the DVD, except when it's used on their player. However, I don't agree with how they're handling it, and no, I don't believe that the genie will go back into the bottle.
--------------------
Which is more important to you? What does that say about your priorities and your humanitarianism?
This is not a flame, by the way.
I'd be more than willing to invest in private space exploration. Look at what NASA's bumbling efforts have produced as far as new technologies and processes. Imagine what a private company could make, driven solely by profit.
--------------------
--------------------
Under MIT's standard collaboration agreement, MIT will be free to publish the research results. The straightforward intellectual property arrangement provides for joint ownership of patentable inventions and improvements created jointly by MIT and Nanovation personnel, or by Nanovation personnel making significant use of MIT facilities. Intellectual property developed solely by MIT personnel will be owned by MIT. Nanovation, in turn, will own intellectual property developed solely by Nanovation personnel who have not made significant use of MIT facilities. The company has the right to a nonexclusive royalty-free license or an exclusive royalty-bearing license, limited to the MIT research that they have sponsored.
How dare they spend $90 million dollars (stolen from the Workers and Peasants) to steal The People's Ideas! So-called "intellectual property" is the most insidious of all evils, the idea that a Greedy Capitalistic Corporation can infuse a Noble Research Institute with Blood Money, and then own the results of that research! Down with Innovation! Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad!
--------------------
IMO, it is socialist -- in the sense that what's yours can be mine, merely because I need/want it. After all, suppose you'd spent ten years and millions of dollars developing the Magic Water Carburetor. No one else could have done it. The question is, who does the MWC belong to?
Captalist answer: It belongs to You.
Socialist answer: It belongs to The People.
--------------------
If this were the case, then why should I bother to give my hypothetical intellectual property away? Can't you tap this "infinite resource" yourself? Intellectual property is a finite resource -- you don't extract it with drills and smelters, but with time and money. After all, if you're smart enough to think of an idea no one else has, isn't that valuable?
--------------------
Ah, yes. Share and share alike. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Of course, we'd need a State Science Commitee to oversee this, with State Science Police to benevolently enforce it. What would you do to an enemy of the People who wouldn't share his idea? Re-education? Liquidation?
The patent office should issue Invention-credit certificates or something that says "Look it, I invented this. See give me credit. If you find it useful, I'd like to put food on my plate." - kind of like the old shareware lisence.
They do issue something that lets you eat off of what you invent -- it's called a patent. Unfortunately for your Utopian fantasies, it still allows someone to (shudder) own something.
Just for drill, can you name three things that Scientific Socialism invented?
--------------------
--------------------
--------------------
--------------------
And the internet shouldn't be allowed to become some political advertising free-for-all, lest we all be spammed with banner ads proclaiming "Vote Gore!" or pop-up windows advising us, "Get tough on Internet Porn with CyberCop and George W. Bush!".
Yeah! And there's pornography and bad language and computer hackers and crazy people and textbooks on bomb-making, too. Let's ban it all, For The Children.
Do you think regulation is really necessary? Or do you think that the 'net has gotten to where it is by virtue of government intervention?
--------------------
07/01/98 01:52PM 8 Ftp.txt
03/01/99 01:07AM 1,029 logosmall.gif
10/11/99 04:12PM Directory mummersftp
04/02/98 12:18PM 1,431 New2.gif
08/22/99 09:07AM 28,804 privacyscanbanner.gif
01/16/98 12:26PM 1,641 stars500x21.gif
07/01/98 02:36PM 386 Test.asp
07/20/99 06:48PM 765 trustefinalmark.gif
-------------------------------------------------
Account Name: guest
Password:
This copy of the Ataman Telnetd Server is
registered as licensed to:
Computer_Services_Group,_Inc
Login failed: unknown user name, password or
privilege incorrect.
--------------------
The repetitive strips always use the same gags, and have been around for what seems like forever. Marmaduke. Ziggy. Peanuts. There won't be any earth-shattering ideas, nor anything to shock you. The same-ol', same-ol'. They'll always be popular, because they provide comfort from what you read on the front page.
The creative strips are far more rare. They entertain by their newness, by innovation. The Far Side. Calvin and Hobbes. Dilbert. The creative cartoonists tend to burn out -- Bill Waterson and Gary Larson both couldn't handle the pressure.
Jim Davis won't ever run out of new ideas -- he has all the ones he'll ever need. I hope, though, that Scott Adams hangs around for a few more years.
Here's to cartoonists.
--------------------
--------------------
"An it harm none, do what thou wilt."
I personally don't care if you're making moonshine in your basement, or meth for that matter. Nor do I care whom you sleep with, or even if you're married to him/her/them. All I want is to be left alone.
The problem is that most people seem to have an innate need to dick with other people's lives, all with good intentions. And we know what road those pave, don't we? To truly be secure in your freedoms, you have to be willing and able to defend them.
Non Violence
Non-violent resistance, you say? Non-violence only works when it holds the threat of violence -- when was the last time you saw a law enforced by an unarmed government?. I challenge anyone who thinks that guns are not necessary to freedom to show me an armed culture that has been subjugated. I can show you many countries that have been disarmed, then enslaved.
I Can Vote, So My Rights Are Safe.
As I recall, Germany voted in Hitler. That was the last election for a while. (Note that one of Hitler's actions was to register, and then later confiscate, all privately owned guns in Germany.)
But We Have A Constitution To Protect Us.
In the past, the Blacks in the south and the Chinese on the west coast were protected by the same constitution that we are today. Strange how Judge Lynch, Jim Crow, and the Chinese Exclusion Act never heard of it. Nothing will protect you (with no guns) like the laws of the land, except when the government (with guns) ignores it.
I Don't Believe In Violence.
Great. I'm sure that the person who origionally meant you harm will suddenly change his mind.
And possessing a joint and $20,000 simultaneously has such an effect on everyone that it's worth a $20K fine, right? Can you explain why possessing a joint and $1,000 doesn't get you dinged for $19,000 more? Or is this just a case of simple greed?
If a restauranteur is going to put nearly $20,000 and his car in the hands of an employee, he should take certain precautions, such as drug tests and what not.
Therefore, if he doesn't go far above and beyond what he is legally required to do, he should forfeit his money? To prevent this, he'd have had to:
1) Acertain that his employee had nothing illegal on his person. How? Perhaps a strip and body cavity search witnessed by a lawyer would do.
2) Acertain that his employee would do nothing illegal, or indeed anything that would draw attention to him, while he was going to the bank. How? Clairvoyance, maybe?
If the employee ran away with the money, the restauranteur would nonetheless be out $20k. You could probably sue the individual for the property/money, but chances are it would take many decades for them to repay it.
And the employee would do some time, hopefully ensuring that he'd be less likely to do it again. Theft insurance would probably reimburse the business owner. However, when the government is the thief...
If you want to smoke weed, get a whore, make meth, do it on your own time and property. That way the police will seize YOUR car, and YOUR house, and YOUR cash.
Because your car, cash, and house are all violating the law, right?
Most cans of sardines have those little keys attatched. That way, you don't need a plow or a can opener.
The virtues of writing are pretty clear. As for numbers, try and balance you check book in Roman numerals.
The easy way around this, of course, is to change some bit of the information. Go from "Apt. 202" to "Suite 202". But this also works both ways -- they could change some irrelevant thing like your middle initial, and presto-changeo: a new entry, a new copyright.
Since you probably wouldn't be able to copyright your address or phone number (e-mail address? Maybe...), it should be relatively easy for a marketer to take a valid entry and make all of the common permutations (Street, Lane, Drive, etc; All middle initials; Ann, Anne, Annie), then copyright the whole schmeer. They'd have to be cross-referenced, but they'd probably be able to brute-force some combination that you hadn't thought of.
The USSR tried "scientific socialism", distributing wealth and technology to everyone. What notable advances did they produce? That is what you are talking about, of course -- centralized planning. Whether you call it "justice" or "Communism" it's still the same thing.
Corporations and "the market" will do nothing but increase the disparity of wealth unless they have the incentive to do otherwise.
So, corporations won't sell to me, because they want to "increase the disparity of wealth"? And here I thought that all they wanted was to make a buck. I haven't heard of AOL refusing new subscribers, or of Motorola rationing cell phones.
Only the government can give this incentive.
Yes, only the government can take from the producers and give to the parasites. Don't have the money for a computer? Don't bother to work harder, just get the Government to take some money from other people and buy one for you.
You might not like big government, but without it nothing can stop big business.
Let's stop big business. Henry Ford? He's anti-semitic, and he's making huge profits at the expense of the proletariat. Stop him. Westinghouse? Why, they're selling radios, and making addicitive radio programs, too. That's a monopoly. Close 'em down. Texas Insturments? They have the majority of the semiconductor market -- that's not fair to the Peepul.
Look at Communisim, and see what it has produced (~60 million dead under Stalin). Now look at Big Business, and see it has produced:
The cheap & plentiful food that you eat, never farther away than the all-night store nearest you. Your job(unless you work for the government or are on Welfare, two sides of the same coin). Your computer and 'Net connection, the electricity that powers them, the people that developed the hardware that led up to them, clear back to Bell Labs.
But why wait until someone else changes things for you? Why not do it yourself? I'm sure some underprivledged child somewhere needs your computer more than you do -- why don't you give it to him/her? Why not sell your furniture, and donate the proceeds to someone with NO furniture? Why don't you go get a second job, and give the money away to street people? After all, you'd be redistributing corporate wealth.
Or, is all this talk of "a just dirtribution of wealth and technology" something that you want the government to do to other people?