Your assuming this will change anything. All this will do is concentrate non-changeable identification information at a single place. That place is not secure, the data bases that store this information are not secure. Many of the personal who access that data only have to pass through minimal screenings. In some cases they don't have to pass any screenings. Go look up what it takes to get hired as a data entry person at the DMV or any other State or Federal agency, most require almost nothing.
The outcome if this passes will be zero effect on preventing illegal immigrants from working here. It will increase the cost of hiring employees. It will increase the number and severity of ID theft. It will cause vast problems as US Citizens have to prove that they are US citizens (as has happened with every such scheme in the last 220 years). Lastly I guarantee that within one year of these cards being put into production you will be able to buy a undetectable counterfeit for a negligible amount.
I can't take credit for the word choice. If I could have picked the word it would have been Garage. Why? Because in English it means Car Hole... Thank you Moe Syzlak...
*Walks away before the rotten fruit comes a flyin'*
When you actually understand the English language and use its rules, you quickly see that many words are simply modifiers on a base word. Here we have the base word "Enfranchise" with the addition of a negative modify "dis" and a past tense modifier of "ed".
The results is Dis*Enfranchise*d. The definition of the word is similarly reflected by modifiers. We take the root word, negate it (as in make it negative or opposite to the original meaning) and also state that the subject it is referring to has already happened (as in the past).
The definition Enfranchise according to Merriam-Webster is as follows:
Main Entry: enfranchise
Pronunciation: \in-fran-chz, en-\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): enfranchised; enfranchising
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French enfranchiss-, stem of enfranchir, from en- + franc free -- more at frank
Date: 15th century
1 : to set free (as from slavery)
2 : to endow with a franchise: as a : to admit to the privileges of a citizen and especially to the right of suffrage b : to admit (a municipality) to political privileges or rights
The first definition, "to set free" is simple enough.
The second definition is simply one who has received a Franchise (our subject is a group of people after all), so let us examine the definition of Franchise. In essence, it is a right to something. (The etymology of the word is interesting, its base having the meaning "free".)
So back to analyzing the summary:
If we assume the summary refers to those people who have no access to a toilet then the definition does match the usage of the word. In addition if you have no alternative other than using a toilet (or perceive no alternative) then the word would be correct in its usage. In either case the word would be correct in usabe bacause the person(s) are certainly not free, they are constrained in either choice or action.
If we assume the usage is to apply to those who don't *like* toilets and would prefer an alternative then the word is misused.
I would recommend reading a book of grammar and the rules of the English language before commenting on the meaning of words. I would also recommend that you stop assuming that you know exactly what group of unnamed people a speaker or author refers to.
I am sure you have heard of the saying about what happens when you assume things. =)
Here would be some examples of dictionary references to the word Franchise:
Main Entry: 1franchise
Pronunciation: \fran-chz\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from franchir to free, from franc free -- more at frank
Date: 14th century
1 : freedom or immunity from some burden or restriction vested in a person or group
2 a : a special privilege granted to an individual or group; especially : the right to be and exercise the powers of a corporation b : a constitutional or statutory right or privilege; especially : the right to vote c (1) : the right or license granted to an individual or group to market a company's goods or services in a particular territory; also : a business granted such a right or license (2) : the territory involved in such a right
3 a : the right of membership in a professional sports league b : a team and its operating organization having such membership
When IBM introduced its PC in 1981, many people attacked Microsoft for its role. These critics said that 8-bit computers, which had 64K of address space, would last forever. They said we were wastefully throwing out great 8-bit programming by moving the world toward 16-bit computers.
We at Microsoft disagreed. We knew that even 16-bit computers, which had 640K of available address space, would be adequate for only four or five years. (The IBM PC had 1 megabyte of logical address space. But 384K of this was assigned to special purposes, leaving 640K of memory available. That's where the now-infamous ``640K barrier'' came from.)
A few minutes ago I went to news.google.com and ran into this story. There are over a dozen articles covering this issue so are just linked from the front of googles news page. Then I came to/. and noticed the same story. I find that a big amusing actually.
What makes this a bit more news worthy is two things. One is the social issue that seems to very clearly be that someone at Citibank does not like a gay themed web site. Two is who is the CEO and author of the blog in question.
One of the other articles I read has a pretty good description:
Now, in case you don't know Goldberg: he's an accomplished Internet entrepreneur, who had stints at the White House, AOL and T-Mobile under his belt before founding Jobster (and raising more than $50 million for the startup) and after that socialmedian (which he sold to Xing in December 2008).
For his latest startup fabulis, Goldberg has raised $625k in seed funding from the likes of Washington Post and Venture Partner at Mayfield Fund Allen Morgan, and essentially aims to become the leading social network and lifestyle website for homosexual men.
You do realize that the over-inflated costs the government charges against toilet seats and hammers are how the NSA and CIA black ops get funded?
Would you like to back this up with citations or facts?
The only two references I have ever seen refer to a $5000 "hammer" that is used to install $250,000 circuits which require a specialized connection. The "hammer" is designed to not crack the circuit as it is attached via multiple pins. The use of a normal hammer, as some suggested using, would result in a quarter million dollar piece of worthless plastic.
The second example was of several objects used on warships. The design of these objects was so that when an item was broken, it would break into very few, non-sharp items. This was to avoid death and dismemberment when the event of an explosion happens (such as when an opposing warship would fire upon our warship).
In both cases the expense was justified in both cost and lives.
The problem with most people is that they are all to quick to read a news headline, not look into the details and complain how something is broken. All when they have no useful or relevant information on the subject. If *you* do have some examples that go into detail please share them. you could be right, but without facts that you can present, I doubt you are.
Well actually OS also equals Open Source. That is how word abbreviation works. OS could also mean Owl Sauce, Open Spoonful, Office Supplies...
On top of that issue, Open Source is not limited to Software. There are many cases of OS hardware or even OS book licenses. Again, in both of these examples, it is correct to use OS (== Open Source) and incorrect to use OSS (== Open Source Software) because they are not examples of software. As the issue in question does regard OS hardware as well as software, *I* would say that OS would be a very correct usage for this conversation.
I do so hate people trying to correct others when they don't have a complete grasp on the situation.
Only in certain circumstances. Those circumstances are VERY narrow under US Federal law.
For example, I could take picture of myself driving a car up the front of the Empire State building and sell those images. What I could not do is claim that the car company or Empire States building was endorsing me or my product.
One of the beautiful (or evil depending on your view) portions of the GPL is that the license terms are non-retractable. Linden Labs gave away certain rights to others when they distributed the project under the GPL. There is nothing they can do to reverse that. Any claim to the contrary is just FUD.
Under the scientific method, proof requires that all alternative possibilities be disproven. In other words, if there are two possibilities that can not be disproven then you have no proof that one is correct.
SCIENTIFICALLY we have only proven that the temperature is rising. Our MOST LIKELY cause is CO2 emissions by humans. As responsible people we should act on the best information we have to correct what we believe to be the case.
HOWEVER that does not mean it is proven. There are several possibilities that can not be disproven, among them is the possibility that we are experiencing a natural high temperature cycle that is un-affected by man. Because there exists these other possibilities that can not be disproven, this particular theory is not scientifically proven.
Often it is necessary to act before all the data is collected and analyzed. You have to work with what you have at the time. Right now the most sensible course is to change the way we have been using energy and the environment to preserve options for future generations. This would still be the most sensible case regardless of the issue of global warming.
All of these factors must be considered before such a change is feasible (in addition to several not mentioned). Many times the change-over costs are less than the benefit. Others the benefits of change are much lower than the cost.
The simple saying, "if it works, don't fix it" does apply to many situations. At my work we have several servers that work fine. The software they are running has an origin four decades ago. While we do update them as needed, there are several source code files that have not been changed since the early 80's. To update this system to a newer operating system/hardware/tech that is more modern would cost more than 15 years worth of maintenance (including software and hardware updates, staff salary and running costs like electricity). In that particular case it makes sense to use the old working system.
Again, my point was that you have to actually take a look at each situation and determine what the costs and benefits are. After you have done that, you can make an informed decision on what is best for that situation.
If this guy wanted to use the Canadian law exemption, he should have also put in a block (which is available to the big guys like the NBC and MLB) that made sure his stream was only available in Canada. He'd have no liability there, but he's breaking copyright law in the USA because he's not NBC, and every other territory where there's an official broadcaster. Remember, if you're positing on the web and not targeting a specific part of the world, you better be ready to comply with laws all over the world.
Under your logic, you could be tried and punished for any speech offensive to other countries, say Iran or North Korea. You better hurry and make sure everything you have ever posted online is blocked from everywhere that it might be illegal!
Wow, what court is that? I've seen way too many U.S. court cases where common sense was chucked out the window in part or in whole, to believe that's the case in the U.S.
Did you attend the case in all its sections? Did you read all of the related motions and other documents pertaining to the case? Did you read copies of the testimony of every witness? Did you read copies of all statements by both parties and the judge? Did you read the ruling and opinion of the court as well referenced cases?
It really takes all that information to understand a case. Without looking at the case with that level of detail you can not make any informed decision on if the ruling was justified. Remember the judge only gets to apply a law to a case and he only gets to act on information presented to him (or her) by the interested parties.
I don't always agree with a ruling, but I have never once not understood why a judge ruled a certain way after looking at what information was presented to him.
There are a lot of weaknesses in your statement, but I will concentrate on one point. It appears that you are not taking into consideration the amount of time, effort and money it costs to change platforms, tech or language. Such change-over costs can be prohibitive.
First consider who would need to learn the new tech/system/language. How long would that take to bring that person up to the same level of competence compared with the old tech/system/language. In the best case scenario you are looking at a full month per employee spent doing practically nothing useful. Alternatively you could send them to take classes, usually an expensive prospect. Do you need to hire additional personnel or fire existing personal to meet the new needs?
Next consider the added complexity of using two sets of tech/system/language. Do you have two separate teams, one to work on the first combination and a second to work on the new combination? Do you cross train everyone? What support systems are in place for the old system that will need to be updated or created for the new system? What policies or procedures will need to be updated or created?
Third we have security concerns. No tech/system/language is entirely secure. In any environment where there will be a large financial liability to a security breach, it is essential that every step is taken to ensure your over all systems are secure. You have to stay on top of newly found security issues to avoid dangerous vulnerabilities. With each added tech/system/language you add more ground to cover, more possibilities for breach.
Fourth we have the issue of updating old/existing systems to use a new tech/system/language. How many scripts/modules/configuration files/documentation files/source code files/test cases must be updated or altered for the new solution to work. Not only this but testing must be done to ensure that each change has not introduced a bug and works correctly. For a large 'business solution' testing alone can consume thousands of man hours to completely ensure that the new solution preforms the same as the old solution.
All of these factors must be considered before such a change is feasible (in addition to several not mentioned). Many times the change-over costs are less than the benefit. Others the benefits of change are much lower than the cost. I can not gainsay the situations you were in or what *I* would have recommended. But to say a change is better without considering all the factors is foolish at best.
Historically you have to still be able to 1) Sign into the same user name, 2) Have the same activation files stored on the hard drive and 3) be able to turn on the system. If you can't do 1, 2 or 3 then you can not de-activate the use. I have had all three happen to me.
Before you blindly say someone is wrong, why don't you do some research on how the systems you are talking about work. perhaps try Googling the subject. Perhaps you could search for old/. articles talking about this subject. Even Wikipedia mentions this issue several times.
I download and try out lots of products both software and media (such as CDs, TV shows, movies). I also have a game collection that include more than 300 purchased games, more than 50 board games, hundreds of movies and thousands of songs on multiple formats. The argument that when someone downloads something it costs a sale is a fallacy. The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of the time the person is like myself, not sure if they really want the product and not wanting to try to go through the hassle of legal product return.
When I decide that the product I have downloaded is something I do want it ends up being purchased. Numerous studies have shown that this is indeed the most common situation. On top of that one purchase, I am much more likely to purchase related items. An example would be the Fallout series. A friend loaned me the first game years ago. I liked it and have purchased every squeal when it came out.
Your statement that "Piracy != capitalism" is correct, but so is the statement that "piracy == lost sales."
Until I need a disk in my CD/DVD drive and/or an Internet connection for single player mode. Or until it's used as an excuse to inflate the price of entertainment.
That is the software maker doing that not a pirate. The pirate did not write the code for the disc check, the pirate did not add a internet connection requirement. As for the price, if a product is worth X amount to a person, they will pay for it. If it is not, they will not pay for it. Welcome to Capitalism.
Your one of those people who say X will always be enough activations/repairs/replacements.
I can assure you that X will NEVER be enough. I have had to purchase a new Xbox 360 because I've had 4 years of RROD's. I have had to call two software companies/hack 4 games to get around "too many activations" limitations due to product defects (all on a single box). I have had to do the same thing for work related commercial software. I have also been involved in activation issue from the software vendors side.
Things happen and no matter what limit you set, you will have legitimate cases where the customer is prevented from using there purchased product for no good reason.
Even I think PDF's have a bit much in the way of features. But I can guarantee that if you singled out one of them and said, "lets take this out," you would have a whole bunch of people objecting, stating that their job depends on that feature. *shrugs*
...document format meant for portable printing consistency...
Except the AI format is NOT meant for printing consistency alone. It turns out that vector based graphics work very well in SEVERAL markets. Specifically AI documents are used in three main markets, printing, web development and special effects (CGI).
Adobe could have made three different products, each with a few less features, one each to target a specific market. Or it could just make one product that meets the needs of all three markets. So you wont use XYZ feature if you are doing only one of them. Big deal, the interface is not cluttered, you can close panels. The program is not any slower, the code behind each feature DOES NOT RUN if you don't use that feature.
The only down side to more features is that the executable code takes up more room on your hard drive. If you took out all features not related to printing then you would say a grand 20MB tops. Even if it halved the size of the program on disk it still would not be worth it to me to not have abilities to save as a SVG or export to After Effects or any of the other features.
You are basically asking for Adobe to charge you the same price for less features. That does not make sense to me.
The Right to Travel is recognized as an essential human right.
My point is that you have a CHOICE to use that right. I am not saying it is a bad choice. You can choose to move, you could choose to not "be economically viable." But the second you say you have no choice it sounds like you are trying to make a scape goat out of why you have no control over your life. You may only have one choice that meets your needs. That choice may be very obvious, but no one is pointing a gun at you and saying you HAVE to do it. You have control over your life. It is your CHOICE to do so.
As for the Tyranny of the Majority issue. Well that is a valid concern, but it does not override the fact that for it to be a valid concern your view must be in the minority. I think both of us would be abhorred if our Government was run by a Tyranny of the minority instead.
I am also sure that many of the things *I* hate about how we are running things you whole heartily support. (Also that we would agree on many others) That is the trade off. Some items you get that I don't like and some I get that you don't like. I can not but feel that is a fair system.
Our next issue of contention is corruption. While agree that the amount of corruption does degrade our representation. I do feel there is a level of corruption, however at least in the U.S. on a State and Federal level, the amount is very limited. I believe campaign finance reform and removing statutes giving corporations the same rights as a citizen would remove the greater portion of these abuses. However my views are currently in the minority on these issues. Am I happy with that, no. Do I think it is fair, yes.
monopoly-on-violence
I am not sure what you are talking about here. My Great Grandfather actually fought in the coal miners rebellion just after the first World War. You probably have not heard of it, most people have not. The background is that Coal companies wanted to force their workers to do more for less. The Coal miners started to Unionize.
The Pinkerton detective agency was hired by the Coal companies to force the miners to work. This conflict devolved into a mass of attacks with machine guns and explosives, murder, kidnapping and destruction on a mass scale.
Several hundred US citizens were killed by other US citizens. Finally the Federal Government called in units of the US army to halt the fighting.
When you say "monopoly-on-violence" I picture my Great Grandfather, his friends and relatives. I picture armed persons giving others a choice of being shot, hung, burned alive or working against their will. I have not heard of any such event involving a company in the US in my life time. What your suggesting would be equivilent to kidnaping children for sex shops.
I would stipulate that what you are describing is one group using economic pressure NOT violence. In fact I would stipulate that any time your life or the life of your family is not in immediate bodily harm, it would not qualify for your description.
Here is a bit more information on the Coal Miners war. It isn't the best source, but the best sources are not online:
Slashdot Mirror
Your assuming this will change anything. All this will do is concentrate non-changeable identification information at a single place. That place is not secure, the data bases that store this information are not secure. Many of the personal who access that data only have to pass through minimal screenings. In some cases they don't have to pass any screenings. Go look up what it takes to get hired as a data entry person at the DMV or any other State or Federal agency, most require almost nothing.
The outcome if this passes will be zero effect on preventing illegal immigrants from working here. It will increase the cost of hiring employees. It will increase the number and severity of ID theft. It will cause vast problems as US Citizens have to prove that they are US citizens (as has happened with every such scheme in the last 220 years). Lastly I guarantee that within one year of these cards being put into production you will be able to buy a undetectable counterfeit for a negligible amount.
I can't take credit for the word choice. If I could have picked the word it would have been Garage. Why? Because in English it means Car Hole... Thank you Moe Syzlak...
*Walks away before the rotten fruit comes a flyin'*
The title could have been, "Man wastes 10 minutes of life for trivial reason". =P
The results is Dis*Enfranchise*d. The definition of the word is similarly reflected by modifiers. We take the root word, negate it (as in make it negative or opposite to the original meaning) and also state that the subject it is referring to has already happened (as in the past).
The definition Enfranchise according to Merriam-Webster is as follows:
Source:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enfranchise
The first definition, "to set free" is simple enough. The second definition is simply one who has received a Franchise (our subject is a group of people after all), so let us examine the definition of Franchise. In essence, it is a right to something. (The etymology of the word is interesting, its base having the meaning "free".)
So back to analyzing the summary:
If we assume the summary refers to those people who have no access to a toilet then the definition does match the usage of the word. In addition if you have no alternative other than using a toilet (or perceive no alternative) then the word would be correct in its usage. In either case the word would be correct in usabe bacause the person(s) are certainly not free, they are constrained in either choice or action.
If we assume the usage is to apply to those who don't *like* toilets and would prefer an alternative then the word is misused.
I would recommend reading a book of grammar and the rules of the English language before commenting on the meaning of words. I would also recommend that you stop assuming that you know exactly what group of unnamed people a speaker or author refers to.
I am sure you have heard of the saying about what happens when you assume things. =)
Here would be some examples of dictionary references to the word Franchise:
From Merriam-Webster:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/franchise
From Reference.com:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/franchise
Except he most likely never said such a thing.
Source Bloomberg Business News circa '96.
Snopes also has some useful info:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Gates#Misattributed
Much like the virility of your comment, my CAPTCHA was "limpness"...
A few minutes ago I went to news.google.com and ran into this story. There are over a dozen articles covering this issue so are just linked from the front of googles news page. Then I came to /. and noticed the same story. I find that a big amusing actually.
What makes this a bit more news worthy is two things. One is the social issue that seems to very clearly be that someone at Citibank does not like a gay themed web site. Two is who is the CEO and author of the blog in question.
One of the other articles I read has a pretty good description:
Now, in case you don't know Goldberg: he's an accomplished Internet entrepreneur, who had stints at the White House, AOL and T-Mobile under his belt before founding Jobster (and raising more than $50 million for the startup) and after that socialmedian (which he sold to Xing in December 2008).
For his latest startup fabulis, Goldberg has raised $625k in seed funding from the likes of Washington Post and Venture Partner at Mayfield Fund Allen Morgan, and essentially aims to become the leading social network and lifestyle website for homosexual men.
Here is the source article:
http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/25/does-citibank-suffer-from-homophobia-or-just-a-general-dislike-for-startups/
You do realize that the over-inflated costs the government charges against toilet seats and hammers are how the NSA and CIA black ops get funded?
Would you like to back this up with citations or facts?
The only two references I have ever seen refer to a $5000 "hammer" that is used to install $250,000 circuits which require a specialized connection. The "hammer" is designed to not crack the circuit as it is attached via multiple pins. The use of a normal hammer, as some suggested using, would result in a quarter million dollar piece of worthless plastic.
The second example was of several objects used on warships. The design of these objects was so that when an item was broken, it would break into very few, non-sharp items. This was to avoid death and dismemberment when the event of an explosion happens (such as when an opposing warship would fire upon our warship).
In both cases the expense was justified in both cost and lives.
The problem with most people is that they are all to quick to read a news headline, not look into the details and complain how something is broken. All when they have no useful or relevant information on the subject. If *you* do have some examples that go into detail please share them. you could be right, but without facts that you can present, I doubt you are.
I preferred to called a privateer...
You would need to get your letter of Marquee signed by Linus Torvalds first...
OS = Operating System, actually.
Well actually OS also equals Open Source. That is how word abbreviation works. OS could also mean Owl Sauce, Open Spoonful, Office Supplies...
On top of that issue, Open Source is not limited to Software. There are many cases of OS hardware or even OS book licenses. Again, in both of these examples, it is correct to use OS (== Open Source) and incorrect to use OSS (== Open Source Software) because they are not examples of software. As the issue in question does regard OS hardware as well as software, *I* would say that OS would be a very correct usage for this conversation.
I do so hate people trying to correct others when they don't have a complete grasp on the situation.
I think we have ran into the dangers of referring to policy or law without clearly stating where in the world we are referring to.
=)
Also remind me never to take pictures next time I am sight seeing in Belgium!
A perfect example is Jack Thompson. He certainly did not need to be anonymous grief with the best of them.
Only in certain circumstances. Those circumstances are VERY narrow under US Federal law.
For example, I could take picture of myself driving a car up the front of the Empire State building and sell those images. What I could not do is claim that the car company or Empire States building was endorsing me or my product.
One of the beautiful (or evil depending on your view) portions of the GPL is that the license terms are non-retractable. Linden Labs gave away certain rights to others when they distributed the project under the GPL. There is nothing they can do to reverse that. Any claim to the contrary is just FUD.
Under the scientific method, proof requires that all alternative possibilities be disproven. In other words, if there are two possibilities that can not be disproven then you have no proof that one is correct.
SCIENTIFICALLY we have only proven that the temperature is rising. Our MOST LIKELY cause is CO2 emissions by humans. As responsible people we should act on the best information we have to correct what we believe to be the case.
HOWEVER that does not mean it is proven. There are several possibilities that can not be disproven, among them is the possibility that we are experiencing a natural high temperature cycle that is un-affected by man. Because there exists these other possibilities that can not be disproven, this particular theory is not scientifically proven.
Often it is necessary to act before all the data is collected and analyzed. You have to work with what you have at the time. Right now the most sensible course is to change the way we have been using energy and the environment to preserve options for future generations. This would still be the most sensible case regardless of the issue of global warming.
I do believe I already answered your question:
All of these factors must be considered before such a change is feasible (in addition to several not mentioned). Many times the change-over costs are less than the benefit. Others the benefits of change are much lower than the cost.
The simple saying, "if it works, don't fix it" does apply to many situations. At my work we have several servers that work fine. The software they are running has an origin four decades ago. While we do update them as needed, there are several source code files that have not been changed since the early 80's. To update this system to a newer operating system/hardware/tech that is more modern would cost more than 15 years worth of maintenance (including software and hardware updates, staff salary and running costs like electricity). In that particular case it makes sense to use the old working system.
Again, my point was that you have to actually take a look at each situation and determine what the costs and benefits are. After you have done that, you can make an informed decision on what is best for that situation.
If this guy wanted to use the Canadian law exemption, he should have also put in a block (which is available to the big guys like the NBC and MLB) that made sure his stream was only available in Canada. He'd have no liability there, but he's breaking copyright law in the USA because he's not NBC, and every other territory where there's an official broadcaster. Remember, if you're positing on the web and not targeting a specific part of the world, you better be ready to comply with laws all over the world.
Under your logic, you could be tried and punished for any speech offensive to other countries, say Iran or North Korea. You better hurry and make sure everything you have ever posted online is blocked from everywhere that it might be illegal!
Wow, what court is that? I've seen way too many U.S. court cases where common sense was chucked out the window in part or in whole, to believe that's the case in the U.S.
Did you attend the case in all its sections? Did you read all of the related motions and other documents pertaining to the case? Did you read copies of the testimony of every witness? Did you read copies of all statements by both parties and the judge? Did you read the ruling and opinion of the court as well referenced cases?
It really takes all that information to understand a case. Without looking at the case with that level of detail you can not make any informed decision on if the ruling was justified. Remember the judge only gets to apply a law to a case and he only gets to act on information presented to him (or her) by the interested parties.
I don't always agree with a ruling, but I have never once not understood why a judge ruled a certain way after looking at what information was presented to him.
There are a lot of weaknesses in your statement, but I will concentrate on one point. It appears that you are not taking into consideration the amount of time, effort and money it costs to change platforms, tech or language. Such change-over costs can be prohibitive.
First consider who would need to learn the new tech/system/language. How long would that take to bring that person up to the same level of competence compared with the old tech/system/language. In the best case scenario you are looking at a full month per employee spent doing practically nothing useful. Alternatively you could send them to take classes, usually an expensive prospect. Do you need to hire additional personnel or fire existing personal to meet the new needs?
Next consider the added complexity of using two sets of tech/system/language. Do you have two separate teams, one to work on the first combination and a second to work on the new combination? Do you cross train everyone? What support systems are in place for the old system that will need to be updated or created for the new system? What policies or procedures will need to be updated or created?
Third we have security concerns. No tech/system/language is entirely secure. In any environment where there will be a large financial liability to a security breach, it is essential that every step is taken to ensure your over all systems are secure. You have to stay on top of newly found security issues to avoid dangerous vulnerabilities. With each added tech/system/language you add more ground to cover, more possibilities for breach.
Fourth we have the issue of updating old/existing systems to use a new tech/system/language. How many scripts/modules/configuration files/documentation files/source code files/test cases must be updated or altered for the new solution to work. Not only this but testing must be done to ensure that each change has not introduced a bug and works correctly. For a large 'business solution' testing alone can consume thousands of man hours to completely ensure that the new solution preforms the same as the old solution.
All of these factors must be considered before such a change is feasible (in addition to several not mentioned). Many times the change-over costs are less than the benefit. Others the benefits of change are much lower than the cost. I can not gainsay the situations you were in or what *I* would have recommended. But to say a change is better without considering all the factors is foolish at best.
Historically you have to still be able to 1) Sign into the same user name, 2) Have the same activation files stored on the hard drive and 3) be able to turn on the system. If you can't do 1, 2 or 3 then you can not de-activate the use. I have had all three happen to me.
Before you blindly say someone is wrong, why don't you do some research on how the systems you are talking about work. perhaps try Googling the subject. Perhaps you could search for old /. articles talking about this subject. Even Wikipedia mentions this issue several times.
I download and try out lots of products both software and media (such as CDs, TV shows, movies). I also have a game collection that include more than 300 purchased games, more than 50 board games, hundreds of movies and thousands of songs on multiple formats. The argument that when someone downloads something it costs a sale is a fallacy. The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of the time the person is like myself, not sure if they really want the product and not wanting to try to go through the hassle of legal product return.
When I decide that the product I have downloaded is something I do want it ends up being purchased. Numerous studies have shown that this is indeed the most common situation. On top of that one purchase, I am much more likely to purchase related items. An example would be the Fallout series. A friend loaned me the first game years ago. I liked it and have purchased every squeal when it came out.
Your statement that "Piracy != capitalism" is correct, but so is the statement that "piracy == lost sales."
Until I need a disk in my CD/DVD drive and/or an Internet connection for single player mode. Or until it's used as an excuse to inflate the price of entertainment.
That is the software maker doing that not a pirate. The pirate did not write the code for the disc check, the pirate did not add a internet connection requirement. As for the price, if a product is worth X amount to a person, they will pay for it. If it is not, they will not pay for it. Welcome to Capitalism.
Your one of those people who say X will always be enough activations/repairs/replacements.
I can assure you that X will NEVER be enough. I have had to purchase a new Xbox 360 because I've had 4 years of RROD's. I have had to call two software companies/hack 4 games to get around "too many activations" limitations due to product defects (all on a single box). I have had to do the same thing for work related commercial software. I have also been involved in activation issue from the software vendors side.
Things happen and no matter what limit you set, you will have legitimate cases where the customer is prevented from using there purchased product for no good reason.
Even I think PDF's have a bit much in the way of features. But I can guarantee that if you singled out one of them and said, "lets take this out," you would have a whole bunch of people objecting, stating that their job depends on that feature. *shrugs*
...document format meant for portable printing consistency...
Except the AI format is NOT meant for printing consistency alone. It turns out that vector based graphics work very well in SEVERAL markets. Specifically AI documents are used in three main markets, printing, web development and special effects (CGI).
Adobe could have made three different products, each with a few less features, one each to target a specific market. Or it could just make one product that meets the needs of all three markets. So you wont use XYZ feature if you are doing only one of them. Big deal, the interface is not cluttered, you can close panels. The program is not any slower, the code behind each feature DOES NOT RUN if you don't use that feature.
The only down side to more features is that the executable code takes up more room on your hard drive. If you took out all features not related to printing then you would say a grand 20MB tops. Even if it halved the size of the program on disk it still would not be worth it to me to not have abilities to save as a SVG or export to After Effects or any of the other features.
You are basically asking for Adobe to charge you the same price for less features. That does not make sense to me.
The Right to Travel is recognized as an essential human right.
My point is that you have a CHOICE to use that right. I am not saying it is a bad choice. You can choose to move, you could choose to not "be economically viable." But the second you say you have no choice it sounds like you are trying to make a scape goat out of why you have no control over your life. You may only have one choice that meets your needs. That choice may be very obvious, but no one is pointing a gun at you and saying you HAVE to do it. You have control over your life. It is your CHOICE to do so.
As for the Tyranny of the Majority issue. Well that is a valid concern, but it does not override the fact that for it to be a valid concern your view must be in the minority. I think both of us would be abhorred if our Government was run by a Tyranny of the minority instead.
I am also sure that many of the things *I* hate about how we are running things you whole heartily support. (Also that we would agree on many others) That is the trade off. Some items you get that I don't like and some I get that you don't like. I can not but feel that is a fair system.
Our next issue of contention is corruption. While agree that the amount of corruption does degrade our representation. I do feel there is a level of corruption, however at least in the U.S. on a State and Federal level, the amount is very limited. I believe campaign finance reform and removing statutes giving corporations the same rights as a citizen would remove the greater portion of these abuses. However my views are currently in the minority on these issues. Am I happy with that, no. Do I think it is fair, yes.
monopoly-on-violence
I am not sure what you are talking about here. My Great Grandfather actually fought in the coal miners rebellion just after the first World War. You probably have not heard of it, most people have not. The background is that Coal companies wanted to force their workers to do more for less. The Coal miners started to Unionize.
The Pinkerton detective agency was hired by the Coal companies to force the miners to work. This conflict devolved into a mass of attacks with machine guns and explosives, murder, kidnapping and destruction on a mass scale.
Several hundred US citizens were killed by other US citizens. Finally the Federal Government called in units of the US army to halt the fighting.
When you say "monopoly-on-violence" I picture my Great Grandfather, his friends and relatives. I picture armed persons giving others a choice of being shot, hung, burned alive or working against their will. I have not heard of any such event involving a company in the US in my life time. What your suggesting would be equivilent to kidnaping children for sex shops.
I would stipulate that what you are describing is one group using economic pressure NOT violence. In fact I would stipulate that any time your life or the life of your family is not in immediate bodily harm, it would not qualify for your description.
Here is a bit more information on the Coal Miners war. It isn't the best source, but the best sources are not online:
http://www.wvculture.org/history/minewars.html