No doubt a lot of films have crap put in them, for commercial reasons and what not. But that doesn't really conflict with the principle of the 'art-idea' on itself. Even in more traditional art, like, say, paintings, one has put crap into it to sell it better.
It's still art, though maybe bad (or crappy) art.;-)
Nevertheless, there are also directors who care about their film, and DO consider it art (rightfully so, in some instances).
And yes, directors and film-studios have to shorten or alter things due to commercialisation, but it's still THEIR choice to do so. In TFA I don't see any directors claiming it is unfair that their movies are being edited ater they gave permission to edit it, now do they?
No doubt that, even for the most art-prone moviemaker, it can't be ALL about art: they have to live, after all. Thus, they might concede some points to get fiancial gain. This does not turn it autmagically into non-art, nor do I find it contradictory with eachother. It's a mixture of earning money and creating art, but the line should be drawn by those that create the art (or, in a less fair legal way, the one that has the IP-rights), NOT by third parties which edit it without authorisation and sell it under the name of the creator.
"As a parent I have a duty to ensure my kids are brought up safely by guarding both their intellect, emaotinos and phyiscal form. The world can be a very nasty place, and I have must protect them for things that will do them harm, because children - particularly young children - do not have the capacity to protect themselves."
Yes, well, it's beyond me how a typical (already selfcensored) hollywoodfilm like Titanic (with PG-rating 13, I believe) would involve 'harming' children. I mean, what: it's a love story. If there is any nudity between people that love eachother shown, how is this exactly 'harmful'? And how exactly are children protected from the very 'nasty place that can be the world' by it? To give an analogy: if you protect someone from diseases by making him stay in a completely microbe-free clean-room his whole childhood, will he be better served by it when he walks into the real world, then if he happend to have encountered a bunch of microbes and built resistance to it?
But anyway, we've been over this, and indeed: it remains a subjective matter, and out of principle I regard the right to watch something you own the way you want it as being higher then almost any other consideration. However, *I* feel the integrity of the vision of the creator of the movie/book/etc. is worth something to...clearly other people have a different idea.
"I don't see it as a "show this or show nothing" choice - not in my own home."
Neither do I (it's a false dichotomy, there). I only say, it has importance that the vision is shown as it was meant to too and IF the kids are really too immature to handle the moderate nudity shown in films as Titanic (say, 6 years in your vision perhaps(?)), then they are to immature to comprehend the film at all. I would simply say: I'll let them watch it when they are a bit older. That way, they do get to see the film (contrary to what you claim), AND the integrity of the film is kept intact. You basically say: the integrity of the film isn't worth waiting a few years before showing it to my kids.
I do not agree, neither do the movie-directors, it would seem. You do have a choice, mind you, but it doesn't have to involve altering the vision they created with their film. Now, no-one can actually forbid viewing it like you want, neither should the law get involved in the viewing process (though, to some degree it does already), but it doesn't change the fact one takes a decision to alter their vision because one is purportedly to 'offensed' by parts of the film, but yet too impatient to wait untill ones' kids are old enough to see the film like it is supposed to be seen. I refute the notion that it's better to show a false impression of something, then wait until one can see it like it really was made.
At least one has to acknowledge it is THAT choice one makes.
But further debate about the viewing process is rather mute, as I said. Something entirely different, which I really focused on in my posts, is the fact that other companies DO NOT have the right to alter a movie itself, and then sell it under the name of the author. If I write a book, I can't decide how and if you want to read it, but I sure as hell can prohibit anyone from altering my book without my authorisation, and selling it as if it was mine. This is, because it isn't *my* story anymore, and thus it shouldn't carry my name. (And obviously, selling it under another name would be plagiatism).
For other examples and analogies, see my other posts.
"Okay, how about this: if you want absolute moral rights to your work, you must be raised in a box and never have contact with outside culture."
I can't comment on that, because I don't know what you mean by 'absolute' moral rights. I explicitly said it's a consideration between financial compensation for the work one created, and the integrity one wants to keep. Since it's a mixture of both, 'absolute' didn't enter the picture in *my* post.:-)
Also, your argument is factual wrong: even when one would have moral rights, the argument that one would have to be completely isolated would only be valid if those moral rights would encompass everything for ever. They can't encompass everything if you relinquish some rights for monetary gain, and they shouldn't last 'eternally' neither.
Also, I doubt your central point is correct too: it's is untrue that evrything has been done before, unless we're talking about general ideas, which are covered by patents (which are, IMHO, a pain in the as in most instances). While I even find copyright too much extended and all)encompasing in most of the West, it is not highly unlikely that an exact copy of a book or film has been made before by somebody else (without it being plagiatism, that is). Sure, the big story-lines are often re-used, but it's always told differently.
"Let's take a little tumble down the slippery slope you have set up. Absolute "natural" rights (or the incredibly [...]"
I didn't go down the slippery slope of 'absolute rights' as you envisage, so I decline to tumble down a slope I didn't set up.;-)
"Making art is like making a baby. You make it, you point it in the right direction, and you let go."
A funny analogy, because...well, no-one in real life makes a baby and then let it go;-). But, to continue to use the same analogy: if you notice a stranger abusing your baby (or you perceive it as such), you could kick his ass or at least sue him too, wouldn't you?;-)
"Are we then destroying the artistic integrity of those shows by using DVRs and skipping the commercials?"
Ermmm...even TV-executives wouldn't claim the commercials between the films are part of the artistic work;-) Besides, as I said; one still has the right to view it the way you want. So, let's say a commercial is truelly considered a work of art, and I wanted to skip it...well, then I could. What I wouldn't do, however, is editing that commercial and selling it as if it was the work of the one that created the commercial.
All your other paragraphs deal with viewing, not editing an original and selling that under the name of the original author - which the 'cleansing' companies described in the article were doing.
I wish people read a bit better the arguments and reaonings I gave; I explicitly said it is illogical to have a right to, for instance, completely destroy a dvd you own, but claim one can not view it the way you want to. Thus, I don't understand your argumentation on this particular issue, since it seems to me to be like-minded. If you own the product, your personal use of it overrides most other considerations.
The same is not true if you actually edit the original (or make a copy of it) and sell that to others, or distribute it to the public at large, under the name of the author, because that may destroy the integrity of the author. It's for the one that makes the alteration to get permission from the creator, not vice versa.
I don't understand why some have such problem with this concept. For the more capitalistic minded, I already gave the example of a tradename.
I mean, if you buy a coca cola, then you may decide if and how you will drink it, clear. What you can't do, however, is alter the recipe of the coke, make copies of it, and sell it to other people under the name of coca cola.
I basically agree, that, when it comes *viewing* things, one can't really regulate that, once you payed for it. I mean, if you can burn a DVD, you can decide how you want to watch it too. Another conclusion would be illogical and make my head hurt - it would need a change of redefining property, and to keep that consistent is next to impossible.
Yet, I it does not mean I agree with it, as I explained in the other post.
And frankly, I prefer the european way, with the 'moral rights' more then the 'pragmatical way' (which doesn't mean 'better') of the USA when it comes down to actually editing a movie/etc. without the consent of the authors.
This is, because it is somehow fundamentaly unfair. Yes, I know; in the typically anglo-saxon capitalistic viewpoint, where money is the only thing that matters to have a grip on the 'value' of something, you encounter questions like that of a former poster: "If the artist receives his pay, then what it the problem"? From the perspective of that premise: there is no problem.
But, in reality, the monetary aspect is only one part of the equation, and with artists it's not even always the major part. One may call that 'emotionalism', but the truth is, a society works with that aspect too. Even the USA does, otherwise childlabour wouldn't be outlawed (They are cheaper to employ, and better to control then adults, after all, and thus generate more profit, and thus, purely economically spoken, childlabour would be a good thing for the companies that use them - if it weren't for 'emotionalism' with the consumers and dito laws).
Now, why do I consider editing works of others unfair? Because, indeed, I use another premise then purely the economical one. Yes, I know, an author could say: I don't care how my works are edited, as long as I get payed - and no doubt some think like that. But a lot of them won't. To understand why this is, one must be able to think empathically, and place yourself in the place of an author who really cares about his work, and not - or at least not solely - about the profit he will receive for it. If you can't do that, then there is no point.
I have no difficulty, imagining I wrote a great story, and somebody else edits it, and still sells it if it were mine. In that case, my integrity is violated. What he sells is not what I wrote, so it shouldn't carry my name, surely one can understand that. If I write a story where, say, I show the danger of technology by letting the people at the end die by the very technology they created, and that is my underlying message, then if someone edited the dying, the message would be lost too, and it wouldn't be MY story anymore.
On the other hand, if he took my story, edited parts of it, and put his own name under it, it would be plagiarism, and illegal for the more obvious economic reasons.;-) Since, as I said, most authors value both things, it is *up to them* to decide what and where the treshold lies between the financial recompensation, and the right to keep ones name linked to ones' original work.
I have encountered this myself when writing for an IT-magazine: sometimes what I wrote was altered by the head-editor - mostly I could live with it, seen the fact it were trivial changes, and I got well paid for it. But sometimes the changes were factual incorrect, and with that I had much more of a problem with, because *my* name was under it, and thus, it was *my* integrity that suffered when something was said which was incorrect and apparently comming from me, while I knew it was wrong. I still decided case by case if it was worth it to me
"I can't see where the law should have any say whatsoever here."
Well, I agree in a pragmatical sense that a system like the above, where you don't really edit anything, but one 'avoids' certain parts of the *representation* is very difficult to punish by law, let alone control it. It's like fast-forwarding the parts you don't want to see, sort of.
As a libertarian, I can also agree it's your business what you want to see (though, often, it's more for others you censor it, I presume - notably your kids).
Nevertheless, I don't agree with the principle. While one could claim it's only a commercial business, and typical Hollywood-products often give that impression, it's still a vision that is being created - gratuit violence or sex or not (and let's face it, how many would make the difference between 'gratuit' sex and 'non-gratuit' ones? Most parents who are prude enough to censor Hollywoodian movies (who usually are already pretty self-censored in this respect) will censor those issues whenever they pop up, and won't make an exeption of 'non-gratuit' sex - if they even can make the distinction to begin with.
I see movies as art. Sometimes It's bad art (typical hollywood-film, for instance), and sometimes it's good (foreign movies - though you have some very good USA ones too - who usually do contain a lot more of overt sexuality even in their main movies). But, it's art, and it's a vision of the director (and movie-industry to some extend, granted). If one deprive oneself, or even far worse, someone else from that vision to comform to ones' own prude standards (or let's call it 'moral' standards, because I don't want a debate about what's prude and what not, since this is a subjective issue)... well, then you are doing something..I don't know...wrong.
I mean, imagine you have parents that find nudity on itself offensive, and when their kid has an artbook from school, with a picture of, say, Michael angelo's David in it, and the parents 'blur' out the 'offensive' parts out of it with some device...then one can say just the same:
You only excise a small amount of the artbook, or even the picture. They are not essential to establishing the artbook, or even the genius of the one that created it. They aren't depriving anyone else (apart from those who they show it too, of course) to go see the statue. The law shouldn't have any say in it, etc.
All very true...yet, it wouldn't be right. Art is art; it is an integral part. You always deprive it of something, even if one does it to conform it to your standards. But that's just it: you conform it to your own standards. It's NOT Michael Angelos' David your showing to your kids; it's your own moralised version - a pervertion of the original, small and 'well-intended' as it may be - you created. It got warped in the image of your own wishes: something that may twist the original intent of the creator.
Which is why it are the movie-directors who sued, in TFA.
And it THAT which you show to others. I would rather say: OR you let it be shown as it really is, OR don't show it at all. If one really thinks ones' kids will be traumatised by the partial nudity one can see of the female character on 'Titanic' (as the article gives as an example), then wait untill they are a bit older, for gods' sake. But show it to them as the film/art/books/etc really is, not some corrupted version of it.
And no, it doesn't depend on 'how much': even a mere 5 minute (of what you consider 'offensive material') edit still makes an censored movie.
You know, *I* even find it sad I can't read every book in it's original language (War and Peace, for instance), because I know I'm lacking something, even if it may seem trivial to some. I have difficulties with people actively persuing censorship for themselves, let alone others. Yes, I know; it's in the name of 'education'; but I doubt kids are better educated by being shielded them of from reality. And if it's really that unsuited for their age, then wait untill they are old enough to see t
"This is highly debated in scientific circles, as was clearly shown in the wikipedia articles I linked to. Some scientist, biological and anthropological, believe that there are separate "races" of humans, and there may even be sub species. The point is the term "redneck" can be interpreted as racist based on modern english definition and science, so to say that it is not racist is an incorrect statement."
Well, I can't seem to find much substantiation for that claim, really. I can find the following on the wikipedia:
"Since the 1940s, evolutionary scientists have rejected the view of race according to which a number of finite lists of essential characteristics could be used to determine a like number of races. Many evolutionary and social scientists think common race definitions, or any race definitions pertaining to humans, lack taxonomic rigour and validity. They argue that race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from custom, and that the races observed vary according to the culture examined. They further maintain that "race" as such is best understood as a social construct, and conceptualize and analyze human genotypic and phenotypic variation in terms of populations and clines instead. Other scientists, however, have argued that this position is motivated more by political than scientific reasons."
So, we have a social construct, and political reasons, but not an objective scientific claim of 'race'. You will always have a lunatic claiming something else, or one could reference to some misguided theories during WW2, but in modern science, one would be hard-pressed to find a scientist claiming there were actual different races of humans, as is defined in biology. In that sense, there is clearly only one species of humans left on this world.
"If the statement was that "redneck" does not need to be used in a racist way I might give a little, but in fact it was used at the beginning of this thread to reference a government lead by a ex-resident of "the southern part of the USA". "
I simply can not agree to your conclusion; it is illogical. If a reference to the southern part of the USA is substantiation for calling something racist, then every reference to any part of a population could be argued to be racist. The term would completly loose any value. We both know that the usual usage of a racist term, is a reference towards genetical difference, which are mostly visible (as with the color of skin, like with the word 'nigger' at one time during it's usage).
"In current usage "nigger" has been used as a reference to a close friend, as in "my nigger", regardless of race. Does this mean the word "nigger" is not racist?"
Logic would dictate it is, within that context, not racist in nature.
""Nigger" is also used to reference many people with dark skin, not just those of a particular geographic area."
In this context, it is racist in nature. But I fail to see your argument here: no-one argued the only variable was 'geographical location'. In fact, that was merely one of the possibilities I analysed, based on the definition you yourself gave.
The fact that 'nigger' in this particular context, is racist, is not due to the geographical location (africa or austrialia), but due to the first definition given by dictionnary.com:
"A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics."
The perceived similar characteristic here being the black colored skin.
Alas, with 'redneck', you neither have a distinct geographical location (yes, he might have referenced to the southern USA, but this is neither distinct, nor is the term only used for a particular geographical location - contrary to the 'german race' as the wikipadia gives as an example). But you also don't have a genetically transmitted physical characterstic: the difference claimed is one of sophistication, level of conservatism, etc., NOT genetics. (Though one could claim such with Bush,
"But I think this issue is really not with an understanding of "Redneck" but instead with the understanding of race."
Well, both, I would say.
"Race", on itself, does not even apply to humans (exept as a whole 'the human race') in a true scientific context. someone of the 'black race' is not a different race at all; he's also of the human race. since the extinction of the Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis we don't have different human races anymore.
Dictionary.com says the same at the bottom when you look up 'race', in fact. which is why I thought your analogy with the 'blue' was a bit weak; context-related there are some things that are easy to spot, and some things that aren't. Race is one area which, even according the dictionnary.com itself is a higly subjective term, which, even in a given context, can cause confusion.
But, let's move on to 'redneck'.
Even there it's not really clear if it should be considered racist, EVEN when using your specific definition (and, as said, different definitions are possible, and contrary to your blue example, even within the same context it can lend itself to different interpretations without one being 'wrong' per sé).
"Discrimination or prejudice based on a group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution."
Now, 'common history'...while originally the biggest part of the american rednecks may have been scottish, I do not think that is true anymore, and even if it were, they aren't the only rednecks in the world (and no, they aren't/weren't all scottisch, far from it). Nationality: idem dito. In my country we have 'rednecks' too (though translated in our language, of course;-); much as in america, they describe people who are...how shall I put it?... 'simple'. A bit like: stupid, ignorant 'folkstown' people, conservative and bigottory, who are mostly proud of being so. And as others have said, there are rednecks in Spain, in Italy, etc.
So anyway, it's not limited to the USA, thus nationality doesn't cut it.
Geographical location: well, it follows out of what I said above, that this is not applicable neither.
I think the basic misconception is, that the term 'redneck' is mostly used in connection with the southern part of the USA. Coppled with the fact that there is tendency (especially with rednecks;-) to consider the USA is pretty much the world, one could conceivingly get the impression it is only about a group of people in a distinct country, or geographical location.
Since dictionary.com is american (well, at least anglo-saxon), they have a tendency to focus on this use too (though, one should not, they do explicitly not claim it is ONLY a term used for the geographical area of the southern USA. My own dictionary has no trouble giving the 2) meaning as the first, and doesn't even mention the southern of the USA.
Thus, once one agrees that 'redneck' is not solely confined to location of the southern part of the USA, nor to one country, nor to one common history...
- then logic dictates 'redneck' can not be considered a racist term.
If one refutes the above premise, of course, it's perfectly possible to argument it it.
"It is only for political reasons that Hamas does what it does. They want to be in control of Palestina independently and without Israelian intervention and presence. They resorted to seemingly terroristic tactics simply because they lacked the resources to wage a full scale war.
And this statement can be repeated with only some minor changes about many supposed terrorist groups."
Well...I doubt the latter. Al-quada isn't trying to establish their own country, after all.
But, for arguments' sake, let's say I accept your argumentation for Hamas. Your analogy was quite right in that respect, then: the IRA and Hamas DO have quite a lot in common.
But, could it not also be said that they are both NOT terrorists?
I mean, what, then, constitutes a terrorist? When the americans revolted against their english 'oppressors', weren't they terrorists too? Weren't many of the countries and people who liberated themselves in fact terrorists?
The notion that any side when waging war does not commit attrocities towards civilians is misplaced, so that can't really be a measure to decide neither. What's left?
"The problem with free speech is that some people don't know that just because you have a right to speak freely, doesn't mean that you have a obligation to do so."
That may be thye problem, but it's far outweighted by its benefits.
And even if it weren't; the real solution is not muffling free speech; it's forbidding taking actions based on racism or other forms of discrimination. The line should be drawn THERE, not by 'free speech'.
Arguments about something that *could be* the 'start' is fairly useless, when that start isn't illegal on itself. Dicussions and open debates about virtually anything that is currently illegal (for instance, drug-use) could be seen as a 'start', otherwise. It's the actions that should be punished, not the speech.
I've answered this to your 'debate-oponent' (replying to you because otherwise you might not get any notification):
My, this thread got whiny;-)
Look, it's not too difficult to comprehend: you can both be right (and wrong). This happens when you do not give a clear definition of what one means with 'racism'. Even official definitions don't help always, because sometimes there is more then one meaning to a term too. And then one person has one definition in mind, and the other another.
redneck ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rdnk) n. Offensive Slang 1)Used as a disparaging term for a member of the white rural laboring class, especially in the southern United States. 2)A white person regarded as having a provincial, conservative, often bigoted attitude.
So, you are claiming more in the lines of 1), while he is taking 2) as reference. So you are both right. But is it racism?
racism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm) n. 1)The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. 2)Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
According to these definitions (dictionary.com - which I still find a bit more reliable then wikipedia, frankly), one can not come to the conclusion 'redneck' is a racist term, so I'm inclined to say the former poster was rather correct in his earlier claim.
That said, I do not doubt that somewhere, somehow, another dictionary will give a more broad interpretation, which might lead some substantiation that 'redneck' is (also) a racist term. However, in its original meaning, the word 'racist' invariably and inherently refers to 'race' - and I don't think redneck specifically refers to a race, nor to any ethnical group (anymore).
Thus, you both could argue something else, and to some degree be both right. All in all, I think the former poster was more right then you, however.
Look, it's not too difficult to comprehend: you can both be right (and wrong). This happens when you do not give a clear definition of what one means with 'racism'. Even official definitions don't help always, because sometimes there is more then one meaning to a term too. And then one person has one definition in mind, and the other another.
redneck ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rdnk) n. Offensive Slang 1)Used as a disparaging term for a member of the white rural laboring class, especially in the southern United States. 2)A white person regarded as having a provincial, conservative, often bigoted attitude.
So, you are claiming more in the lines of 1), while he is taking 2) as reference. So you are both right. But is it racism?
racism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm) n. 1)The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. 2)Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
According to these definitions (dictionary.com - which I still find a bit more reliable then wikipedia, frankly), one can not come to the conclusion 'redneck' is a racist term, so I'm inclined to say the former poster was rather correct in his earlier claim.
That said, I do not doubt that somewhere, somehow, another dictionary will give a more broad interpretation, which might lead some substantiation that 'redneck' is (also) a racist term. However, in its original meaning, the word 'racist' invariably and inherently refers to 'race' - and I don't think redneck specifically refers to a race, nor to any ethnical group (anymore).
Thus, you both could argue something else, and to some degree be both right. All in all, I think the former poster was more right then you, however.
I've had these discussions before with these types, and while some are interesting, most are just...well, let's call them blind self-made philosophers, to be kind.
I never had a satisfactory answer yet, from these ultra-capitalistic libertarians (I consider myself to be a libertarian too, though mostly as civil libertarianism is concerned). My question is, much as yours (it's a quite logical thing, after all): if an economic libertarian model is so great for the majority of the people, like in the USA, why is it doing worse (at least in terms of education, absolute amount and relative % of poor(ness), health and health-care, etc.) then countries that follow a less libertarian model, like those in the EU?
Some claim this is due to the fact it's not real libertarianism, but rather corporatism, but I think this is a weak argument for two reasons: it's rather a pseudo-argument, because it can always be used. For example, when communism failed, people said; "it's not communism, it's stalinism that has failed". But...the communism of Chroetsov failed too, and that of all others, including Gorbatsov. Chinese communism failed (apart from lipservice) - was that a failure of the "communism of mao"? When cuba will inevitably fail, will if be 'castro's communism' that has failed? Or is this rather a weak excuse for not acknowledging the obvious, namely that it is communism itself that fails, whomever tries it?
And secondly, even when one would accept the explanation, it still wouldn't explain why a country like the US, who - corporatism or not - still has more libertarian elements in their economy then, say, europe, fares worse then europe in providing 'the best' for the largest amount of people.
Still others respond with a dodge out, like your poster, by claiming the cultures are so different (yeah, right) that it is unlikely that libertarianism would yield better results for anyone exept americans. This makes no sense whatsoever.
And thus, this sort of questions remains immer unanswered by those fanatically believing in the anglo-saxon version of ultra-capitalism - usually USA citicens, I may add.
Most of whome think I'm a socialist, while I'm in fact a liberal, btw;-).
the author of TFA never saw complete CGI films, like FinalFantasyVII: advent children (http://www.adventchildren.net/) or he wouldn't claim such bold statements.
Everyone that has seen that film, knows it's only a matter of time before even real actors can be replaced. At this pace, I predict the first complete CGI films undistinguishable from 'real' movies will come out within the next 5 years.
Some scenes in Advent Children were already so good it was impossible to tell if it was real or not. If they use high-resolution skins througout (which they didn't due to constraint of render-time, I presume) and improve a bit more on their natural human movements (which were already extremely good in some cases), you couldn't see the difference anymore.
So I call it wishful thinking if people claim actors always will have that 'little bit extra', and can't ever be replaced.
Interesting read, though a bit scarce on hard data concerning how widespread the use of this healthcare was under the populace at large, what the quality was, etc.
Red Hat Sued Over Hibernate 3 ORM Patent Infringement Claim Posted by Floyd Marinescu on jun 29, 2006 09:40 PM
Community Java Topics Legal Matters, Data Access, Business Firestar Software has filed a patent claim against Red Hat for infringing on a patent Firestar filed in 2000 covering O/R mapping. The amount of the lawsuit was not disclosed. The complaint centers around JBoss 3, and the patent claims that JBoss was given prior notice that marketing, distribution, and support services violates Firestars patent, and that Firestar "has suffered and will continue to suffer substantial damages." Firestar produces the ObjectSpark, an transactional object mapping engine which appears to not have had a new release since May 2003, according to the Firestars press release page.
The patent covers (from US Patent office patent # 6,101,502): A method for interfacing an object oriented software application with a relational database, comprising the steps of:
selecting an object model; generating a map of at least some relationships between schema in the database and the selected object model; employing the map to create at least one interface object associated with an object corresponding to a class associated with the object oriented software application; and utilizing a runtime engine which invokes said at least one interface object with the object oriented application to access data from the relational database. ide interface objects that are utilized by an object oriented software application to access the relational database. Interestingly, the same patent (follow link for full PDFs) was filed under a different company name to the European patent office back in 1998, but was withdrawn. The patent is not related to yet another patent Mapping architecture for arbitrary data models filed in 2005.
Patent experts told InfoQ that the lawsuit appears to be skillful manoeuvring on Firestar's part; they waited until after the JBoss Red Hat acquisition intentions were announced and notified JBoss about the potential infringement on May 26th, which was within the JBoss Red Hat due dilligence period. This would have required JBoss to either instantly settle with Firestar or be forced to notify Red Hat which could have cancelled the acquisition deal, which was announced as finalized on June 5th (with Red Hat aware of the risks). Firestar then notified Red Hat on June 7th that they were in violation of Firestar's patent. As a further example of manoeuvring, the word among patent experts is that the specific district Firestar selected to perform the lawsuit in (eastern district of Texas) is famous among patent circles because a patent claimant has never lost a lawsuit there.
It seems clear that the timing of the lawsuit was designed to take advantage of the Red Hat acquisition. Firestar certainly had other potential targets, including Oracle (TopLink), BEA (Kodo), and even the JCP (EJB JPA).
"Hm, that's waay to much for me to answer...;)";-)
I think we'll call it an end with this latest posts, indeed. It's an interesting topic, but we could be busy for months, I think.:-)
"I don't think we'd see anythnig like 1000% drop in wages, honestly."
Well, the principles remain the same, even if it's less. To be concurential with chinese workers who work for 20$, we would have to become *a lot* cheaper. Maybe not drop from 2000 euro to 20, because there are the costs of moving to china (for the companies), their would be transport-costs, their would be a matter of productivity (though I don't think chinese are more lazy then europeans), etc. But even considering all that, I don't see how we would be able to compete without substantially lowering the wages. And if you do so, say, you go from 2000 euro to 200, which is still 10 times more then a chinese, you'll encounter the exact same problems as I described earlier. The main point of my example was: all living costs will have to come down to a similar degree at the same time, or else those workers will have a seriously reduced living-quality.
"Concerning the argument that libertarian countries should do better: don't they?"
Not according to the data which prof Peter singer used in his book, which is based on scientific research and public available data, and when you consider the USA to be following the libertarian economic model more then EU countries.
"When Germany was still rather unregulated (compared to today) it did excellent."
Well, three remarks:
I don't know any hard numbers if that was truelly the case. (You will no doubt agree that anecdotal experiences do not constitute something of scientific value, otherwise all old people claiming it was so much better during their time throughout the ages, would always have been right;-)
Secondly, you do not indicate which time-periods you are comparing to eachother...today versus which time? I can't look up any hard data if you do not mention that.
Thirdly, even if one would presume this would be true, then still one would have to be very careful to equate any differences found in different times to differences due to variations of the economic model. For instance, as you said yourself; life in the 19th century *was* hard, and people would be much better off these days (dixit yourself). Thus, if differences were found, is it due to the changing times, or to the particular employed economic model? If you argue the latter, then 19th century ultra-capitalism deals a severe blow to the idea it is better. If you argument the former (as you did), then it follows one can not make judgements about the values of the economic models when you compare different times.
More exact would be, to compare germany with a distinct given economic model, to another country with a more non-libertarian model, in the same timeperiod. I do not know of any studies who have done that, so I couldn't say one way or the other.
The only studies I've seen are those of todays countries, which are, obviously, in the same timeperiod, and thus are more suited to look at the differences of their respective economic model. And, as said, the comparison between the USA and the EU - in regard of providing health and medical care, less poor, better education, etc for the populace as a whole - does not bode well for the USA's more libertarian model.
However one turns it, if one accepts the data, and one claims the libertarian economic model is better in this particular respect (being the 'best off' to the largest amount of people), then it is difficult to comprehend why countries with more libertarian economic models would do worse then countries with less libertarian models. Logic would dictate that it would be the reverse, if the hypothesis and the data are correct.
I see only a limited number of ways to counter this: or, one could claim the data is factual incorrect (
"Communism: no, it doesn't sound great in theory. The supposed outcome sounds great in theory: everybody has enough of everything, but that's clearly utopic, and against all economic theory."
Well, it was 'for the people, by the people', so it did kinda sound cool, if you consider yourself to be one of the people. And especially, like you say, the outcome once the proletariat was freed from the shackles of capitalism.;-) I agree it can and could never work, because it's is too utopian and goes against basic human tendencies (for instance, the tendency to hold on to power).
Which is a bit my complaint about 'pure' libertarianism too, in fact: it sounds too utopian, even when claiming they only follow economic theory. But economic theory has had many changes during it's lifetime; the current model is not the one we had in the 50'ies, and so it is hard to see why our current model would be 'the right one'. And theory and social reality often doesn't mix to good, and that's (I think) due to the fat that people view things in a dichotomy; humans as social beings and humans as economic unities, while I think humans are both, and any theory that doesn't make enough effort to incorporate both will not survive.
As an example of that, I refer to an experiment done with monkeys (Scientific American) where monkey were given a piece of vegetable as compensation for their work (riding a bycicle). All monkeys were content with that, and rode their bycicle, after which they got some token which they could then trade for the food. No problems thusfar. Then researches gave one monkey a grape (which was much more liked then vegetables), where the other monkeys could see it, but gave only a vegetable to the next, while he had done as much work on the bycicle. Result? The monkeys that didn't get a grape got in a tantrum; they refused to give the token, and some threw the vegetable even back at the researchers. Now, according to classical economists, this doesn't make any sense: it would make more sense to accept the vegetable (which they were happy to get ealier) then to get nothing at all.
While humans are not monkeys, it would be foolish to think such sentiments are not present in humans. In fact, it hints at a deep seeted sense of 'fairness' (misguided as it may be), even to the detriment of making decisions which make no sense at all, in an economic model.
Only to show a bit the danger of using only economic models to predict how humans would interact in real life, in a society.
I would like to see a real testcase, however (as do you, I presume) of some island state, which would turn into a completely libertarian society with an ultra-capitalist economic model, and see how long it would keep it up, and if the results would truelly be the best for everyone (measured by the variables of the populace I described earlier). I do not think this would be the case, though it might outlive the communist experiment. As I said, so far, all indications of countries who have gone more capitalistic then europe (Chile during one time, USA, 19th century europe,..) do not show any indication of it being better at providing the best outcome for everybody.
"The outsourcing or "I can't live off my work" problem: well, under a dynamic economic system wages would rise and fall according to supply and demand (in Germany for instance this isn't possible, so businesses move offshore, or simply fire their workers instead, when they can). People would be employed, at their maximum "value" to anyone."
I couldn't have gotten a better example why the theory sounds cool, but the practise would amount to devastation. I understand what you are trying to say, I do. But let's really imagine that you would try to introduce such a dynamic system today, in a western state. Now, imagine companies (or more broad, 'the market') would decide how much you could get as a worker, and imagine they have to fight against chinese wages og 20$ a month. That would be, like, a 1000% reduction of their wages. Now,
"An exchange will only be made if it profits both parties, while a forced intervention (say, taxes + welfare) doesn't create anything; it's only theft that moves money. So that's the simple theory in one sentence."
Ermm..no doubt. Which is why I prefer examples to actually come down to it, because theories can always be made, and can even sound like the next best thing since sliced bread (communism sounds great too, in theory).
So, let's say a person seeks work, and an employer wants work done. They come to an agreement, where both profit. This is, thusfar, according to theory.
Now, let's have an example where there exist such a thing as a world-economy. The employer says: you must work for 20$ a month. The would-be employee says: no, way, josé, I can't live of that! And then the answer is: ok, too bad, we'll move to china, where people DO work for 20$ a month.
so, ermm...where is the choice again? Where is the profit for both?
Now, a welfare state does not remediate this problem, I agree. But it does remediate the immediate consequences of losing your job, or falling sick, etc. I still haven't seen any indication voluntary 'charity' from the rich would ever be enough to remedie this in the same amount as state-spending does. As said earlier, it does not seem to be working in the USA, and while one could claim this is because their is some state intervention, this does not answer why charity falls short even when it is about aiding people in third world countries, where there is no welfare, nor does it explain why charity isn't greater (relative to the %) in the USA then in europe, when in the USA there is considerably less state-sponsoring. I believe Peter singer has some hard data on this too, in his book, and if I remember correctly, current 'charity donations' in the usa only amount to 4% of what the state spends.
One can claim charity would be more efficient, but it would have to be a hell of a lot more efficient to be able to do the same with 4% of the budget - absurdly so. One could also claim, if the state didn't subsidise, the rich would suddenly feel a 2500% increase in empathy for their fellow citizens, but this also seems implausable. And finally, history shows us that charity, at least in the past, was wholy inadequate to remedie the social issues in the 19th century, when there was virtually no state-subsidies in this regard.
In conclusion; I just don't see any indication on what the optimism is based on, that charity would do a better job, as David Gordon and yourself seem to claim. There is no emperical observation, nor any statistics that substantiate such a claim, and in fact, everything points to the contrary.
"I don't think it's bad at all if someone else is super-rich."
I've already answered a similar statement; it has nothing to do with it being 'bad', on itself. The morality of being rich is irrelevant in the discussion whether or not it constitutes the 'best' for everybody. Is the populace at large better off with a small minority of super-rich, and a whole lot of very-poor? Or is it better off with not-so-completely-super-rich, and a lot of not-so-poor?
"The point is that I can still do anything to improve my situation, and capitalism - based on exchange - has many incentives for everybody to do good work, create good products, lower prices, and so forth."
Unless there is an economic crisis or further globalisation and you can't get a job, you fall sick or get an accident, etc... all those things for which a good social network is needed.
"In the short term wealth redistribution sounds cool, because it makes people less poor, but in the medium term something like forced welfare makes people addicted to it."
To a degree I can agree with that; I never claimed the current balance in all european countries has reached its optimum; I only claim that a form of ultra-capitalism will not make things better, at least not when considering the sparse indications one can find thusfar.
" I also can remember that I once took their test "are you Austrian?", which points to articles on points where you differ (which would be a lot I guess)."
Well, I don't know about 'a lot', but I consider myself more of a civil libertarian and a left-libertarian mixed with some humanistic libertarianism and moderate minarchism - so some things may be parallel, and some things may, indeed, differ.
"Secondly: nobody claims that libertarian policy would reduce the divide between rich and poor; we only claim that everybody would be better off (absolutely) under capitalism, while more socialist programs might reduce the (relative) divide, but everybody would be off worse."
First of all: isn't that a false dichotomy? It would follow ultra-capitalism is the best because communism sucks. Well, indeed, communism failed, and capitalism is certainly better in regard to create wealth...but what *kind* of capitalism? It is not said because one extreme failed, the other extreme is the best possible outcome (countries that have (had) an extreme form of capitalism did not provide the proof that people as a whole were better of then in countries with moderate capitalism).
Which leads me to your statement itself, which, I admit, I have difficulty seeing the logic behind. How would everybody be worse off, if there are less poor? Even if one would accept the premise that the more capitalistic a country is, the more it generates wealth, then it is still a matter of how that wealth is distributed to the general populace. If all that extra wealth falls more and more in the hands of a few (which in the USA is more obvious then in the EU; a small percentage of the populace is overwhelmingly rich there, while the poor are 'poorer' then their EU-counterparts), then one can hardly claim the populace, as a whole, is better off.
By closing the economic divide, one makes sure the wealth is better distributed to all of the people, and thus, they would be better off. It is true, that the very rich would be worse off, but in an utilatarian view, when the top-rich people make out 5% of the populace, and the middle- and poor 95%, one would have difficulties claiming 'everyone' is worse off, when 95% is better off.
I do not believe that generating wealth on itself (as with ultra-capitalism) without having some form of major redistributing that wealth under the populace (and charity is inadequate for this, btw) will amount to the best possible outcome for the populace at largest, just like I don't believe a redistribution system on itself (as with communism) which lacks major wealth-generation will be the best possible outcome.
I think the best outcome is with a moderate form of capitalism, where a balance is found between generating wealth, and distributing it towards the people. The search for the 'best' balance may be open to argument and mostly involves a slow search with trial and error, but it is feasable, if one takes parameters like education, health and health-care, the absolute and relative amount of poor, etc., and compare these variables with the systems used.
In this respect, it becomes clear communism was never a succes. But it also shows countries with an anglo-saxon capitalistic system are worse off then more moderate capitalistic EU countries at least, acording to those parameters.
One could also use the overall generation of wealth as a parameter, and then the USA and consorts would probably do better, but as I said, when the purpose is that *everybody* should be better off, and not just the top 5%, it is unwise to claim that everyone is better off, just because the total amount of wealth of a country is bigger. The parameters I just mentionned are a more true indicator of how good the populace is doing, then a general wealth parameter, which doesn't say anything about how that wealth is distributed, and to whome.
Sorry I keep posting about it; it's just such a very interesting topic!:-)
I didn't respond on the original/. articel about it, because I thought: "Ah, what the heck, I'm not going to point out the obvious." But here it comes again, with all the same crap.
In the original article, at the very beginning, it says:
"Yes, it's true that even without the Seti@Home crowd bigfooting the world of distributed computing, we probably still would have incurable diseases and dangerous climate change. But we'd be a lot closer to solutions than we are now, don't you think?"
Well, no, I do not think that.
One might argue quite the oposite, in fact: if seti@home wouldn't have existed and captived the eager attentions of millions, we would probably be a lot further from incurable diseases and dangerous climate changes - as far as it actually helps 'a lot', which isn't proven neither.
The fact is, it was DUE to seti@home and it's popularity, that this kind of mass-distributed-computing took off, and that it has become more then an academic curiousity in the IT-universities. It is DUE to the fact it has become so high-profile, that all those other research have even noted the potential of this kind of program.
So don't give me that totally absurd, unsubstantiated and nonsensical claim that those other research-topics would be far further thanks to this cycle-crunching system, when in reality chances are high they wouldn't even have know it existed, otherwise.
Could you, perhaps, give me direct links to the pages which actually deal with this sort of examples? I would be much obliged.
Also, when reading the page of David Gordon about libertarianism, I encounter something which annoys me to some degree, and is seen often with classical libertarian papers: a overly optimistic viewpoint (bordering on the oversimplify-ing) without actual data backing it up. All the papers thusfar, are very scant with scientific references, sources and statistics which support their claims. And sometimes, this leads to a contradiction, or at least an unsolved discrepancy, between what they claim, and what actually can be observed.
For instance, we can read:
"Murray has evidently forgotten his earlier discussion. If the government has failed to alleviate poverty, will not very wealthy people come to realize that a purely voluntary society will be worth trying? If they are sufficiently wealthy, charitable contributions will not burden them unduly. Why then will they turn to the Plan, which Murray acknowledges is less than ideal?"
So, the author sees it as more ideal, to scrap the retrieval of taxes, and the spending of it on medicare and other social programs, and instead the state should do nothing, and leave it all to 'charitable' donations. This, he argues, would be far more efficient in closing the divide between the poor and rich then any government program.
Alas, he does not substantiate that with actual fact, nor examples that might support this theory. and while it is one thing to claim government programs are not very effective, it is a completely other matter to claim charity from the rich will solve it in a better way. The only time he tries to substatiate it, is by reiterating another author who claimed how well things were during the 19th century, when charity was in, and no government programs were around.
I rather think this is a case of historical revisionism; by all accounts, life for the poor were awfull during those times, and not at all mediated by whatever 'broad network' of charitable donations were in place.
And, more-over, I find this notion hard to reconcile with what we can observe in current times. while the author might lament the fact that the USA-government spends so much money on wellfare, it is, in effect (compared to the GDP) only a fraction of what most european countries spend on wellfare. As we can all agree, the EU-countries are far more socialistic-minded, and government spending on welfare (and taxes are higher because of it) is far greater then in the USA. By all acounts, the USA is in this regard far more behaving in a 'libertarian' way, then EU-countries, even when one would claim it is not fully following libertarianism.
Yet, how do we reconcile the discrepancies, then? If the USA is more libertarian then EU countries, and the libertarian way is more efficient then the government-spending-on-wellfare way,
"Well, I'm getting tired of a discussion which won't lead anywhere anyway."
True; slashdot threads seldom lead to anywhere, though I find the communication of thoughts interesting on itself - sometimes. I've long since abandoned the notion that every discussion has to or even can lead to a mutual satisfactory logical conclusion on/., however.
"Just two cents: I used to be Socialist, so some of your almost-libertarian opinions aren't too far from me."
Well...ermm...good. Though I don't see the link between the two. I'm actually a liberal... so... some of your points aren't far from me(?)
"But (the second cent) I don't think you really understood libertarianism, maybe the rules, but now how it works or used to work."
Well, opinions are free, of course. I think I do have a pretty good idea, and I even think complete libertarianism has never been fully tried in any society, thus 'used to work' is a bit of a stretch.
"Liberty doesn't mean do-as-you-please in all cases. If you're genuinely interested, mises.org has lots of material available for free on property rights, on environmental pollution, and other things, in many cases involving arguments like yours above."
Well, that would depend on the kind of libertarianism you are talking about. There are, in fact, many, many different forms that are viewed as 'libertarianism'. Some sub-categories use *this* philosophy, others *that*, others have minute or big variations, and I've even seen some that had some points that were antithetical to what libertarianism is all about (at least compared to most of the other political/philosophical directions of libertarianism). Maybe part of our miscommunication is due to this, and I would refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism for all the different 'flavours' of libertarianism.
Yet, even apart from that, I can't but feel that, even using your own criteria of 'civil rights' and 'property rights', you can not address all problems *without* ever being forced to use a law that falls outside the scope of those two mentionned rights, or without having a subjective or arbitrary law - especially in the case of public places, where people with diametrically oposed viewpoints have to interact with eachother, as I gave with my examples. And unless one can ofer a solution based solely on your two forms of rights for any of these examples, it is difficult to uphold they suffice for all problems.
Anyway, I will certainly check out your link, since I'm interested in and always open to learning additional viewpoints, and I hope you will consider some of the problems I raised in turn - even if you are of the opinion it is already addressed (it's easy to get complacent in these matters, after all).
But indeed, we could keep this discussion for another time, perhaps. See you!:-)
"A system founded on basic human and property rights can't be circumvented."
There is no system created by humans that can't be circumvented by humans.
"There's a clearly defined right and wrong."
I abhor systems that claim they clearly define right and wrong. Often, the 'clearniness' is due to oversimplification of real life, and ignores the many grey areas which ivariably happens when people interact with eachother. I am all for consistency of laws, mind you, but to claim one has a moral basis for judging any action is only valid as long as that moral premise is shared. Even the "universal rights" of people are prone to that.
""doesn't really tell us where that ends and where that begins" -- you've got property rights for that. Don't burn my lawn, but you may burn your own lawn;)"
No, you don't (always). This is what I mean by oversimplification. Say, you have 2 neigbours and the one has a tree which grows to such height, it sets the other neighbour in a permanent shadow, while *he* wants the sun. 'Property rights' is not a magical word that will automagically decide who is right and who isn't. The first can claim he has the right to grow whatever he wants in his garden, the second that he has the right to enjoy the sun on his property.
Or the latter wants to give a party, while the first wants to have rest and quiet. Then one may claim: I have the right to play music as loud as I want, while the other may claim he has the right to have silence. Now, in our real-life world, this is handled by watching at what time, how late, how long and how hard the music was, etc. before the court will decide who is in his right. But the db of the music, is, again, being chosen rather arbitrarily - so who and how do you choose the parameters? What good does it do to say 'you have property rights for that' when those property rights have to be judged against eachother? They BOTH have propertyrights...so what? A decision still has to be made, and it's often made based on laws that are inherently subjective and arbitrary.
And what if you burn your lawn, but the ashes are dispersed into the air, and all your neighbours are affected; should they not have a say in the matter, then?
But let's say it is not a matter of property-rights. The problem with your kind of libertarian society is that it is unworkable when it has to handle the public space where humans interact. It has taken a while for me to realise this too. For instance, if you claim no laws are necessary exept property-laws and basic civil rights, then what do you do in a situation where some people would walk on the street naked and masturbating themselves? I mean, I know more pleasant things then waiting on the bus while beside me a guy spurts. Or when pedophiles go to watch kindergartens and jerk themselves off in front of the kids.
But, seen in your vision, this is all possible without being punishable: after all, by jerking off they do not violate your civil rights and they do not harm your property, thus; morally or ethically it is ok, and it should not be punishable.
Yet, let's us be honest: how many people would want to live in such a society? Even not the nudists, I presume.
So, this shows how the idea of a totally libertarian state is unworkable in any real-life situation where people have to live with eachother. It is beautiful in theory, but it will never work as long as humans have human tendencies...much as with communism, in fact.
"Regarding patents: you think just because some armed government defends your idea, just because you published the idea first, gives you the moral right to keep me from using that idea too? That's quite totalitarian, IMHO."
IMHO too. But the same company that you claim should be left alone by the state to do as it pleases, can only do so because of those IP-monopolies that it was granted by the state in the first place. Abolish all IP-rights, including copyright and patents, and I would find your argument much more consistent.
"MS does not produce all of a product or service, nor are they superior, according to you."
(?)
No, I said one has to be lenient to call their products reasonably priced and technologically superior. This was meant as an aside-thought with the definition given by your example of answers.com.
"So, is iPod a monopoly in the EU? Is Google? Are they next on the hit list?"
If they get into a position of a monopoly and they abuse that monopoly to monopolise other markets, then yes, they should be next on the hitlist. I fail to see this as a counter-argument.
"This could have a "chilling effect" on technological innovation, when those at the forefront are continuously punished for success."
As said before, they are not punished for succes. It's not illegal to become a monopoly; you just can't abuse it to monopolise other markets. But I understand you completely fail to see the difference, and consider this as a punishement for succes. This is, because you are devoted to the anglo-saxon capitalistic view of the world, in which the market-principles are the only defining standard - even morally and ethically - in society. I refer you to http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=18966 2&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=156202 42#15620970 as to demonstrate that other premises are possible.
"Maybe you think individuals and corps should be restricted by pretty much arbitrary laws. I strongly differ."
The "arbitrary" is too much in that sentence.
Of course individuals and corps should be restricted; we've seen the result when people are not restricted (like with absolute monarchs and dictators) and where corps are not restricted (like during the ultra-capitalism of the 19th century).
"I think that both should do whatever they want, as long as they don't harm anybody."
Since I'm a libertarian myself, I sympathise with the sentiment. However, the more I have thought it over, the more I see that a society that runs completely and solely on hard-core libertarian principles isn't maintainable, at least not in all instances. It is exactly the problem of defining if and what harm is done to whome which needs laws. The much used libertarian stance of 'your rights stop where another ones' begins' is very compelling, but it doesn't really tell us where that ends and where that begins, and for that, we need laws. (When such actuions are taken in private, I would argue, as a libertarian, that no-one has any business with it - but the problem begins when you want to regulate behaviour which is public; given the fact that you must regulate SOME behaviour, it is ALWAYS going to be erbitrary to decide what is, and what is not to be regulated, and when, and why).
"I.e. I can write whatever code I want, as long as I don't harm your property."
Well, actually you can't, if you break their/my copyright or patents.
"MS can build and sell whatever they like, as long as they don't commit fraud, they don't steal, they don't blackmail anyone."
But why only for those 3 things? Isn't this also rather "arbitrary"?
"And in fact all of MS's clients chose their clientship. I'm the existent proof that there is a completely open choice for everybody. I chose Linux, then BSD, now a Mac. That's why MS isn't evil, even if it sucks (IMHO a fair share of their software does)."
Ah, and here we come to the crux of the difference of opinion. when I talk about choice, I mean *free* choice, that is, everything else should remain equal, exept for the choice itself. But does everything remains the same if, say, I choose Linux instead of windows? Heck no; compatibility^problems arise, 3th party software doesn't work on it (which you might actually need to run your business), games can't be played, etc.
Now, I fully understand your argument; according to you this is 'tough luck, you chose for it', but I refute this, because it is not a true free choice: you are limited in your choice by the existing reality that you are severely limited when you chose something else. Saying anything where you can chose is a choice might be right in a literary way, but it can't derive any moral or ethical validation for it. For instance, if kids in 3th world countries prostitute themselves, is this a choice? According to your reasoning; yes, if they have chosen this 'work' instead of something else. I, however, would argue that they might do it out of poverty and they *need* the money to survive, and that being poor limits your choice, and thus, your choice is not any longer a true choice, since it lacks true freedom.
Societies are rife with examples of choices which are not really free choices. when the chinese government says to a dissident that they will shoot dead his whole family if he continue his work - does that dissident have a choice to stop or to continue? again, in your reasoning; yes. and technically spoken, this is true: he could go on and get his family killed. In a more pragmatic sense, however, we all realise that these kinds of choices are not real choices at all; one is compelled by external factors to do something which one wouldn't do if they had truelly free choice.
The same applies with an OS like windows. Even when I would want to get Linux (and since it's free, I wouldn't mind) one is compelled by external factors beyond my reach to actually make that choice.
Slashdot Mirror
No doubt a lot of films have crap put in them, for commercial reasons and what not. But that doesn't really conflict with the principle of the 'art-idea' on itself. Even in more traditional art, like, say, paintings, one has put crap into it to sell it better.
;-)
It's still art, though maybe bad (or crappy) art.
Nevertheless, there are also directors who care about their film, and DO consider it art (rightfully so, in some instances).
And yes, directors and film-studios have to shorten or alter things due to commercialisation, but it's still THEIR choice to do so. In TFA I don't see any directors claiming it is unfair that their movies are being edited ater they gave permission to edit it, now do they?
No doubt that, even for the most art-prone moviemaker, it can't be ALL about art: they have to live, after all. Thus, they might concede some points to get fiancial gain. This does not turn it autmagically into non-art, nor do I find it contradictory with eachother. It's a mixture of earning money and creating art, but the line should be drawn by those that create the art (or, in a less fair legal way, the one that has the IP-rights), NOT by third parties which edit it without authorisation and sell it under the name of the creator.
"As a parent I have a duty to ensure my kids are brought up safely by guarding both their intellect, emaotinos and phyiscal form. The world can be a very nasty place, and I have must protect them for things that will do them harm, because children - particularly young children - do not have the capacity to protect themselves."
Yes, well, it's beyond me how a typical (already selfcensored) hollywoodfilm like Titanic (with PG-rating 13, I believe) would involve 'harming' children. I mean, what: it's a love story. If there is any nudity between people that love eachother shown, how is this exactly 'harmful'? And how exactly are children protected from the very 'nasty place that can be the world' by it? To give an analogy: if you protect someone from diseases by making him stay in a completely microbe-free clean-room his whole childhood, will he be better served by it when he walks into the real world, then if he happend to have encountered a bunch of microbes and built resistance to it?
But anyway, we've been over this, and indeed: it remains a subjective matter, and out of principle I regard the right to watch something you own the way you want it as being higher then almost any other consideration. However, *I* feel the integrity of the vision of the creator of the movie/book/etc. is worth something to...clearly other people have a different idea.
"I don't see it as a "show this or show nothing" choice - not in my own home."
Neither do I (it's a false dichotomy, there). I only say, it has importance that the vision is shown as it was meant to too and IF the kids are really too immature to handle the moderate nudity shown in films as Titanic (say, 6 years in your vision perhaps(?)), then they are to immature to comprehend the film at all. I would simply say: I'll let them watch it when they are a bit older. That way, they do get to see the film (contrary to what you claim), AND the integrity of the film is kept intact. You basically say: the integrity of the film isn't worth waiting a few years before showing it to my kids.
I do not agree, neither do the movie-directors, it would seem. You do have a choice, mind you, but it doesn't have to involve altering the vision they created with their film. Now, no-one can actually forbid viewing it like you want, neither should the law get involved in the viewing process (though, to some degree it does already), but it doesn't change the fact one takes a decision to alter their vision because one is purportedly to 'offensed' by parts of the film, but yet too impatient to wait untill ones' kids are old enough to see the film like it is supposed to be seen. I refute the notion that it's better to show a false impression of something, then wait until one can see it like it really was made.
At least one has to acknowledge it is THAT choice one makes.
But further debate about the viewing process is rather mute, as I said. Something entirely different, which I really focused on in my posts, is the fact that other companies DO NOT have the right to alter a movie itself, and then sell it under the name of the author. If I write a book, I can't decide how and if you want to read it, but I sure as hell can prohibit anyone from altering my book without my authorisation, and selling it as if it was mine. This is, because it isn't *my* story anymore, and thus it shouldn't carry my name. (And obviously, selling it under another name would be plagiatism).
For other examples and analogies, see my other posts.
"Okay, how about this: if you want absolute moral rights to your work, you must be raised in a box and never have contact with outside culture."
:-)
;-)
;-). But, to continue to use the same analogy: if you notice a stranger abusing your baby (or you perceive it as such), you could kick his ass or at least sue him too, wouldn't you? ;-)
;-) Besides, as I said; one still has the right to view it the way you want. So, let's say a commercial is truelly considered a work of art, and I wanted to skip it...well, then I could. What I wouldn't do, however, is editing that commercial and selling it as if it was the work of the one that created the commercial.
I can't comment on that, because I don't know what you mean by 'absolute' moral rights. I explicitly said it's a consideration between financial compensation for the work one created, and the integrity one wants to keep. Since it's a mixture of both, 'absolute' didn't enter the picture in *my* post.
Also, your argument is factual wrong: even when one would have moral rights, the argument that one would have to be completely isolated would only be valid if those moral rights would encompass everything for ever. They can't encompass everything if you relinquish some rights for monetary gain, and they shouldn't last 'eternally' neither.
Also, I doubt your central point is correct too: it's is untrue that evrything has been done before, unless we're talking about general ideas, which are covered by patents (which are, IMHO, a pain in the as in most instances). While I even find copyright too much extended and all)encompasing in most of the West, it is not highly unlikely that an exact copy of a book or film has been made before by somebody else (without it being plagiatism, that is). Sure, the big story-lines are often re-used, but it's always told differently.
"Let's take a little tumble down the slippery slope you have set up. Absolute "natural" rights (or the incredibly [...]"
I didn't go down the slippery slope of 'absolute rights' as you envisage, so I decline to tumble down a slope I didn't set up.
"Making art is like making a baby. You make it, you point it in the right direction, and you let go."
A funny analogy, because...well, no-one in real life makes a baby and then let it go
"Are we then destroying the artistic integrity of those shows by using DVRs and skipping the commercials?"
Ermmm...even TV-executives wouldn't claim the commercials between the films are part of the artistic work
All your other paragraphs deal with viewing, not editing an original and selling that under the name of the original author - which the 'cleansing' companies described in the article were doing.
I wish people read a bit better the arguments and reaonings I gave; I explicitly said it is illogical to have a right to, for instance, completely destroy a dvd you own, but claim one can not view it the way you want to. Thus, I don't understand your argumentation on this particular issue, since it seems to me to be like-minded. If you own the product, your personal use of it overrides most other considerations.
The same is not true if you actually edit the original (or make a copy of it) and sell that to others, or distribute it to the public at large, under the name of the author, because that may destroy the integrity of the author. It's for the one that makes the alteration to get permission from the creator, not vice versa.
I don't understand why some have such problem with this concept. For the more capitalistic minded, I already gave the example of a tradename.
I mean, if you buy a coca cola, then you may decide if and how you will drink it, clear. What you can't do, however, is alter the recipe of the coke, make copies of it, and sell it to other people under the name of coca cola.
"much to the horror of libertarians everywhere."
;-)
;-) Since, as I said, most authors value both things, it is *up to them* to decide what and where the treshold lies between the financial recompensation, and the right to keep ones name linked to ones' original work.
LOL
Well, not ALL of them.
Though, I'm more of a civil libertarian, I'm not much for the ultra-capitalistic viewpoint some libertarians have.
See my remark on http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=190727&cid =15693396
I basically agree, that, when it comes *viewing* things, one can't really regulate that, once you payed for it. I mean, if you can burn a DVD, you can decide how you want to watch it too. Another conclusion would be illogical and make my head hurt - it would need a change of redefining property, and to keep that consistent is next to impossible.
Yet, I it does not mean I agree with it, as I explained in the other post.
And frankly, I prefer the european way, with the 'moral rights' more then the 'pragmatical way' (which doesn't mean 'better') of the USA when it comes down to actually editing a movie/etc. without the consent of the authors.
This is, because it is somehow fundamentaly unfair. Yes, I know; in the typically anglo-saxon capitalistic viewpoint, where money is the only thing that matters to have a grip on the 'value' of something, you encounter questions like that of a former poster: "If the artist receives his pay, then what it the problem"? From the perspective of that premise: there is no problem.
But, in reality, the monetary aspect is only one part of the equation, and with artists it's not even always the major part. One may call that 'emotionalism', but the truth is, a society works with that aspect too. Even the USA does, otherwise childlabour wouldn't be outlawed (They are cheaper to employ, and better to control then adults, after all, and thus generate more profit, and thus, purely economically spoken, childlabour would be a good thing for the companies that use them - if it weren't for 'emotionalism' with the consumers and dito laws).
Now, why do I consider editing works of others unfair? Because, indeed, I use another premise then purely the economical one. Yes, I know, an author could say: I don't care how my works are edited, as long as I get payed - and no doubt some think like that. But a lot of them won't. To understand why this is, one must be able to think empathically, and place yourself in the place of an author who really cares about his work, and not - or at least not solely - about the profit he will receive for it. If you can't do that, then there is no point.
I have no difficulty, imagining I wrote a great story, and somebody else edits it, and still sells it if it were mine. In that case, my integrity is violated. What he sells is not what I wrote, so it shouldn't carry my name, surely one can understand that. If I write a story where, say, I show the danger of technology by letting the people at the end die by the very technology they created, and that is my underlying message, then if someone edited the dying, the message would be lost too, and it wouldn't be MY story anymore.
On the other hand, if he took my story, edited parts of it, and put his own name under it, it would be plagiarism, and illegal for the more obvious economic reasons.
I have encountered this myself when writing for an IT-magazine: sometimes what I wrote was altered by the head-editor - mostly I could live with it, seen the fact it were trivial changes, and I got well paid for it. But sometimes the changes were factual incorrect, and with that I had much more of a problem with, because *my* name was under it, and thus, it was *my* integrity that suffered when something was said which was incorrect and apparently comming from me, while I knew it was wrong. I still decided case by case if it was worth it to me
"I can't see where the law should have any say whatsoever here."
Well, I agree in a pragmatical sense that a system like the above, where you don't really edit anything, but one 'avoids' certain parts of the *representation* is very difficult to punish by law, let alone control it. It's like fast-forwarding the parts you don't want to see, sort of.
As a libertarian, I can also agree it's your business what you want to see (though, often, it's more for others you censor it, I presume - notably your kids).
Nevertheless, I don't agree with the principle. While one could claim it's only a commercial business, and typical Hollywood-products often give that impression, it's still a vision that is being created - gratuit violence or sex or not (and let's face it, how many would make the difference between 'gratuit' sex and 'non-gratuit' ones? Most parents who are prude enough to censor Hollywoodian movies (who usually are already pretty self-censored in this respect) will censor those issues whenever they pop up, and won't make an exeption of 'non-gratuit' sex - if they even can make the distinction to begin with.
I see movies as art. Sometimes It's bad art (typical hollywood-film, for instance), and sometimes it's good (foreign movies - though you have some very good USA ones too - who usually do contain a lot more of overt sexuality even in their main movies). But, it's art, and it's a vision of the director (and movie-industry to some extend, granted). If one deprive oneself, or even far worse, someone else from that vision to comform to ones' own prude standards (or let's call it 'moral' standards, because I don't want a debate about what's prude and what not, since this is a subjective issue)... well, then you are doing something..I don't know...wrong.
I mean, imagine you have parents that find nudity on itself offensive, and when their kid has an artbook from school, with a picture of, say, Michael angelo's David in it, and the parents 'blur' out the 'offensive' parts out of it with some device...then one can say just the same:
You only excise a small amount of the artbook, or even the picture. They are not essential to establishing the artbook, or even the genius of the one that created it. They aren't depriving anyone else (apart from those who they show it too, of course) to go see the statue. The law shouldn't have any say in it, etc.
All very true...yet, it wouldn't be right. Art is art; it is an integral part. You always deprive it of something, even if one does it to conform it to your standards. But that's just it: you conform it to your own standards. It's NOT Michael Angelos' David your showing to your kids; it's your own moralised version - a pervertion of the original, small and 'well-intended' as it may be - you created. It got warped in the image of your own wishes: something that may twist the original intent of the creator.
Which is why it are the movie-directors who sued, in TFA.
And it THAT which you show to others. I would rather say: OR you let it be shown as it really is, OR don't show it at all. If one really thinks ones' kids will be traumatised by the partial nudity one can see of the female character on 'Titanic' (as the article gives as an example), then wait untill they are a bit older, for gods' sake. But show it to them as the film/art/books/etc really is, not some corrupted version of it.
And no, it doesn't depend on 'how much': even a mere 5 minute (of what you consider 'offensive material') edit still makes an censored movie.
You know, *I* even find it sad I can't read every book in it's original language (War and Peace, for instance), because I know I'm lacking something, even if it may seem trivial to some. I have difficulties with people actively persuing censorship for themselves, let alone others. Yes, I know; it's in the name of 'education'; but I doubt kids are better educated by being shielded them of from reality. And if it's really that unsuited for their age, then wait untill they are old enough to see t
"This is highly debated in scientific circles, as was clearly shown in the wikipedia articles I linked to. Some scientist, biological and anthropological, believe that there are separate "races" of humans, and there may even be sub species. The point is the term "redneck" can be interpreted as racist based on modern english definition and science, so to say that it is not racist is an incorrect statement."
Well, I can't seem to find much substantiation for that claim, really. I can find the following on the wikipedia:
"Since the 1940s, evolutionary scientists have rejected the view of race according to which a number of finite lists of essential characteristics could be used to determine a like number of races. Many evolutionary and social scientists think common race definitions, or any race definitions pertaining to humans, lack taxonomic rigour and validity. They argue that race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from custom, and that the races observed vary according to the culture examined. They further maintain that "race" as such is best understood as a social construct, and conceptualize and analyze human genotypic and phenotypic variation in terms of populations and clines instead. Other scientists, however, have argued that this position is motivated more by political than scientific reasons."
So, we have a social construct, and political reasons, but not an objective scientific claim of 'race'. You will always have a lunatic claiming something else, or one could reference to some misguided theories during WW2, but in modern science, one would be hard-pressed to find a scientist claiming there were actual different races of humans, as is defined in biology. In that sense, there is clearly only one species of humans left on this world.
"If the statement was that "redneck" does not need to be used in a racist way I might give a little, but in fact it was used at the beginning of this thread to reference a government lead by a ex-resident of "the southern part of the USA". "
I simply can not agree to your conclusion; it is illogical. If a reference to the southern part of the USA is substantiation for calling something racist, then every reference to any part of a population could be argued to be racist. The term would completly loose any value. We both know that the usual usage of a racist term, is a reference towards genetical difference, which are mostly visible (as with the color of skin, like with the word 'nigger' at one time during it's usage).
"In current usage "nigger" has been used as a reference to a close friend, as in "my nigger", regardless of race. Does this mean the word "nigger" is not racist?"
Logic would dictate it is, within that context, not racist in nature.
""Nigger" is also used to reference many people with dark skin, not just those of a particular geographic area."
In this context, it is racist in nature. But I fail to see your argument here: no-one argued the only variable was 'geographical location'. In fact, that was merely one of the possibilities I analysed, based on the definition you yourself gave.
The fact that 'nigger' in this particular context, is racist, is not due to the geographical location (africa or austrialia), but due to the first definition given by dictionnary.com:
"A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics."
The perceived similar characteristic here being the black colored skin.
Alas, with 'redneck', you neither have a distinct geographical location (yes, he might have referenced to the southern USA, but this is neither distinct, nor is the term only used for a particular geographical location - contrary to the 'german race' as the wikipadia gives as an example). But you also don't have a genetically transmitted physical characterstic: the difference claimed is one of sophistication, level of conservatism, etc., NOT genetics. (Though one could claim such with Bush,
"But I think this issue is really not with an understanding of "Redneck" but instead with the understanding of race."
;-); much as in america, they describe people who are...how shall I put it?... 'simple'. A bit like: stupid, ignorant 'folkstown' people, conservative and bigottory, who are mostly proud of being so. And as others have said, there are rednecks in Spain, in Italy, etc.
;-) to consider the USA is pretty much the world, one could conceivingly get the impression it is only about a group of people in a distinct country, or geographical location.
Well, both, I would say.
"Race", on itself, does not even apply to humans (exept as a whole 'the human race') in a true scientific context. someone of the 'black race' is not a different race at all; he's also of the human race. since the extinction of the Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis we don't have different human races anymore.
Dictionary.com says the same at the bottom when you look up 'race', in fact. which is why I thought your analogy with the 'blue' was a bit weak; context-related there are some things that are easy to spot, and some things that aren't. Race is one area which, even according the dictionnary.com itself is a higly subjective term, which, even in a given context, can cause confusion.
But, let's move on to 'redneck'.
Even there it's not really clear if it should be considered racist, EVEN when using your specific definition (and, as said, different definitions are possible, and contrary to your blue example, even within the same context it can lend itself to different interpretations without one being 'wrong' per sé).
"Discrimination or prejudice based on a group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution."
Now, 'common history'...while originally the biggest part of the american rednecks may have been scottish, I do not think that is true anymore, and even if it were, they aren't the only rednecks in the world (and no, they aren't/weren't all scottisch, far from it). Nationality: idem dito. In my country we have 'rednecks' too (though translated in our language, of course
So anyway, it's not limited to the USA, thus nationality doesn't cut it.
Geographical location: well, it follows out of what I said above, that this is not applicable neither.
I think the basic misconception is, that the term 'redneck' is mostly used in connection with the southern part of the USA. Coppled with the fact that there is tendency (especially with rednecks
Since dictionary.com is american (well, at least anglo-saxon), they have a tendency to focus on this use too (though, one should not, they do explicitly not claim it is ONLY a term used for the geographical area of the southern USA. My own dictionary has no trouble giving the 2) meaning as the first, and doesn't even mention the southern of the USA.
Thus, once one agrees that 'redneck' is not solely confined to location of the southern part of the USA, nor to one country, nor to one common history...
- then logic dictates 'redneck' can not be considered a racist term.
If one refutes the above premise, of course, it's perfectly possible to argument it it.
"It is only for political reasons that Hamas does what it does. They want to be in control of Palestina independently and without Israelian intervention and presence. They resorted to seemingly terroristic tactics simply because they lacked the resources to wage a full scale war.
And this statement can be repeated with only some minor changes about many supposed terrorist groups."
Well...I doubt the latter. Al-quada isn't trying to establish their own country, after all.
But, for arguments' sake, let's say I accept your argumentation for Hamas. Your analogy was quite right in that respect, then: the IRA and Hamas DO have quite a lot in common.
But, could it not also be said that they are both NOT terrorists?
I mean, what, then, constitutes a terrorist? When the americans revolted against their english 'oppressors', weren't they terrorists too? Weren't many of the countries and people who liberated themselves in fact terrorists?
The notion that any side when waging war does not commit attrocities towards civilians is misplaced, so that can't really be a measure to decide neither. What's left?
"The problem with free speech is that some people don't know that just because you have a right to speak freely, doesn't mean that you have a obligation to do so."
o -say-bullocks-some-times.html
That may be thye problem, but it's far outweighted by its benefits.
And even if it weren't; the real solution is not muffling free speech; it's forbidding taking actions based on racism or other forms of discrimination. The line should be drawn THERE, not by 'free speech'.
Arguments about something that *could be* the 'start' is fairly useless, when that start isn't illegal on itself. Dicussions and open debates about virtually anything that is currently illegal (for instance, drug-use) could be seen as a 'start', otherwise. It's the actions that should be punished, not the speech.
(And sometimes, I think it can be warranted even to disregard 'illegal' actions, in some specific cases. See http://newsbyte.blogspot.com/2006/06/lawand-why-t
I've answered this to your 'debate-oponent' (replying to you because otherwise you might not get any notification):
;-)
My, this thread got whiny
Look, it's not too difficult to comprehend: you can both be right (and wrong). This happens when you do not give a clear definition of what one means with 'racism'. Even official definitions don't help always, because sometimes there is more then one meaning to a term too. And then one person has one definition in mind, and the other another.
redneck ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rdnk)
n. Offensive Slang
1)Used as a disparaging term for a member of the white rural laboring class, especially in the southern United States.
2)A white person regarded as having a provincial, conservative, often bigoted attitude.
So, you are claiming more in the lines of 1), while he is taking 2) as reference. So you are both right. But is it racism?
racism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm)
n.
1)The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2)Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
According to these definitions (dictionary.com - which I still find a bit more reliable then wikipedia, frankly), one can not come to the conclusion 'redneck' is a racist term, so I'm inclined to say the former poster was rather correct in his earlier claim.
That said, I do not doubt that somewhere, somehow, another dictionary will give a more broad interpretation, which might lead some substantiation that 'redneck' is (also) a racist term. However, in its original meaning, the word 'racist' invariably and inherently refers to 'race' - and I don't think redneck specifically refers to a race, nor to any ethnical group (anymore).
Thus, you both could argue something else, and to some degree be both right. All in all, I think the former poster was more right then you, however.
My, this thread got whiny ;-)
Look, it's not too difficult to comprehend: you can both be right (and wrong). This happens when you do not give a clear definition of what one means with 'racism'. Even official definitions don't help always, because sometimes there is more then one meaning to a term too. And then one person has one definition in mind, and the other another.
redneck ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rdnk)
n. Offensive Slang
1)Used as a disparaging term for a member of the white rural laboring class, especially in the southern United States.
2)A white person regarded as having a provincial, conservative, often bigoted attitude.
So, you are claiming more in the lines of 1), while he is taking 2) as reference. So you are both right. But is it racism?
racism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm)
n.
1)The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2)Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
According to these definitions (dictionary.com - which I still find a bit more reliable then wikipedia, frankly), one can not come to the conclusion 'redneck' is a racist term, so I'm inclined to say the former poster was rather correct in his earlier claim.
That said, I do not doubt that somewhere, somehow, another dictionary will give a more broad interpretation, which might lead some substantiation that 'redneck' is (also) a racist term. However, in its original meaning, the word 'racist' invariably and inherently refers to 'race' - and I don't think redneck specifically refers to a race, nor to any ethnical group (anymore).
Thus, you both could argue something else, and to some degree be both right. All in all, I think the former poster was more right then you, however.
I've had these discussions before with these types, and while some are interesting, most are just...well, let's call them blind self-made philosophers, to be kind.
;-).
I never had a satisfactory answer yet, from these ultra-capitalistic libertarians (I consider myself to be a libertarian too, though mostly as civil libertarianism is concerned). My question is, much as yours (it's a quite logical thing, after all): if an economic libertarian model is so great for the majority of the people, like in the USA, why is it doing worse (at least in terms of education, absolute amount and relative % of poor(ness), health and health-care, etc.) then countries that follow a less libertarian model, like those in the EU?
Some claim this is due to the fact it's not real libertarianism, but rather corporatism, but I think this is a weak argument for two reasons: it's rather a pseudo-argument, because it can always be used. For example, when communism failed, people said; "it's not communism, it's stalinism that has failed". But...the communism of Chroetsov failed too, and that of all others, including Gorbatsov. Chinese communism failed (apart from lipservice) - was that a failure of the "communism of mao"? When cuba will inevitably fail, will if be 'castro's communism' that has failed? Or is this rather a weak excuse for not acknowledging the obvious, namely that it is communism itself that fails, whomever tries it?
And secondly, even when one would accept the explanation, it still wouldn't explain why a country like the US, who - corporatism or not - still has more libertarian elements in their economy then, say, europe, fares worse then europe in providing 'the best' for the largest amount of people.
Still others respond with a dodge out, like your poster, by claiming the cultures are so different (yeah, right) that it is unlikely that libertarianism would yield better results for anyone exept americans. This makes no sense whatsoever.
And thus, this sort of questions remains immer unanswered by those fanatically believing in the anglo-saxon version of ultra-capitalism - usually USA citicens, I may add.
Most of whome think I'm a socialist, while I'm in fact a liberal, btw
the author of TFA never saw complete CGI films, like FinalFantasyVII: advent children (http://www.adventchildren.net/) or he wouldn't claim such bold statements.
Everyone that has seen that film, knows it's only a matter of time before even real actors can be replaced. At this pace, I predict the first complete CGI films undistinguishable from 'real' movies will come out within the next 5 years.
Some scenes in Advent Children were already so good it was impossible to tell if it was real or not. If they use high-resolution skins througout (which they didn't due to constraint of render-time, I presume) and improve a bit more on their natural human movements (which were already extremely good in some cases), you couldn't see the difference anymore.
So I call it wishful thinking if people claim actors always will have that 'little bit extra', and can't ever be replaced.
I had already figgered that one out. ;-)
Interesting read, though a bit scarce on hard data concerning how widespread the use of this healthcare was under the populace at large, what the quality was, etc.
Red Hat Sued Over Hibernate 3 ORM Patent Infringement Claim
Posted by Floyd Marinescu on jun 29, 2006 09:40 PM
Community Java Topics Legal Matters, Data Access, Business
Firestar Software has filed a patent claim against Red Hat for infringing on a patent Firestar filed in 2000 covering O/R mapping. The amount of the lawsuit was not disclosed. The complaint centers around JBoss 3, and the patent claims that JBoss was given prior notice that marketing, distribution, and support services violates Firestars patent, and that Firestar "has suffered and will continue to suffer substantial damages." Firestar produces the ObjectSpark, an transactional object mapping engine which appears to not have had a new release since May 2003, according to the Firestars press release page.
The patent covers (from US Patent office patent # 6,101,502):
A method for interfacing an object oriented software application with a relational database, comprising the steps of:
selecting an object model;
generating a map of at least some relationships between schema in the database and the selected object model;
employing the map to create at least one interface object associated with an object corresponding to a class associated with the object oriented software application; and
utilizing a runtime engine which invokes said at least one interface object with the object oriented application to access data from the relational database. ide interface objects that are utilized by an object oriented software application to access the relational database.
Interestingly, the same patent (follow link for full PDFs) was filed under a different company name to the European patent office back in 1998, but was withdrawn. The patent is not related to yet another patent Mapping architecture for arbitrary data models filed in 2005.
Patent experts told InfoQ that the lawsuit appears to be skillful manoeuvring on Firestar's part; they waited until after the JBoss Red Hat acquisition intentions were announced and notified JBoss about the potential infringement on May 26th, which was within the JBoss Red Hat due dilligence period. This would have required JBoss to either instantly settle with Firestar or be forced to notify Red Hat which could have cancelled the acquisition deal, which was announced as finalized on June 5th (with Red Hat aware of the risks). Firestar then notified Red Hat on June 7th that they were in violation of Firestar's patent. As a further example of manoeuvring, the word among patent experts is that the specific district Firestar selected to perform the lawsuit in (eastern district of Texas) is famous among patent circles because a patent claimant has never lost a lawsuit there.
It seems clear that the timing of the lawsuit was designed to take advantage of the Red Hat acquisition. Firestar certainly had other potential targets, including Oracle (TopLink), BEA (Kodo), and even the JCP (EJB JPA).
Note: updated June 29th, 10:40pm
"Hm, that's waay to much for me to answer ... ;)" ;-)
:-)
;-)
I think we'll call it an end with this latest posts, indeed. It's an interesting topic, but we could be busy for months, I think.
"I don't think we'd see anythnig like 1000% drop in wages, honestly."
Well, the principles remain the same, even if it's less. To be concurential with chinese workers who work for 20$, we would have to become *a lot* cheaper. Maybe not drop from 2000 euro to 20, because there are the costs of moving to china (for the companies), their would be transport-costs, their would be a matter of productivity (though I don't think chinese are more lazy then europeans), etc. But even considering all that, I don't see how we would be able to compete without substantially lowering the wages. And if you do so, say, you go from 2000 euro to 200, which is still 10 times more then a chinese, you'll encounter the exact same problems as I described earlier. The main point of my example was: all living costs will have to come down to a similar degree at the same time, or else those workers will have a seriously reduced living-quality.
"Concerning the argument that libertarian countries should do better: don't they?"
Not according to the data which prof Peter singer used in his book, which is based on scientific research and public available data, and when you consider the USA to be following the libertarian economic model more then EU countries.
"When Germany was still rather unregulated (compared to today) it did excellent."
Well, three remarks:
I don't know any hard numbers if that was truelly the case. (You will no doubt agree that anecdotal experiences do not constitute something of scientific value, otherwise all old people claiming it was so much better during their time throughout the ages, would always have been right
Secondly, you do not indicate which time-periods you are comparing to eachother...today versus which time? I can't look up any hard data if you do not mention that.
Thirdly, even if one would presume this would be true, then still one would have to be very careful to equate any differences found in different times to differences due to variations of the economic model. For instance, as you said yourself; life in the 19th century *was* hard, and people would be much better off these days (dixit yourself). Thus, if differences were found, is it due to the changing times, or to the particular employed economic model? If you argue the latter, then 19th century ultra-capitalism deals a severe blow to the idea it is better. If you argument the former (as you did), then it follows one can not make judgements about the values of the economic models when you compare different times.
More exact would be, to compare germany with a distinct given economic model, to another country with a more non-libertarian model, in the same timeperiod. I do not know of any studies who have done that, so I couldn't say one way or the other.
The only studies I've seen are those of todays countries, which are, obviously, in the same timeperiod, and thus are more suited to look at the differences of their respective economic model. And, as said, the comparison between the USA and the EU - in regard of providing health and medical care, less poor, better education, etc for the populace as a whole - does not bode well for the USA's more libertarian model.
However one turns it, if one accepts the data, and one claims the libertarian economic model is better in this particular respect (being the 'best off' to the largest amount of people), then it is difficult to comprehend why countries with more libertarian economic models would do worse then countries with less libertarian models. Logic would dictate that it would be the reverse, if the hypothesis and the data are correct.
I see only a limited number of ways to counter this: or, one could claim the data is factual incorrect (
"Communism: no, it doesn't sound great in theory. The supposed outcome sounds great in theory: everybody has enough of everything, but that's clearly utopic, and against all economic theory."
;-) I agree it can and could never work, because it's is too utopian and goes against basic human tendencies (for instance, the tendency to hold on to power).
Well, it was 'for the people, by the people', so it did kinda sound cool, if you consider yourself to be one of the people. And especially, like you say, the outcome once the proletariat was freed from the shackles of capitalism.
Which is a bit my complaint about 'pure' libertarianism too, in fact: it sounds too utopian, even when claiming they only follow economic theory. But economic theory has had many changes during it's lifetime; the current model is not the one we had in the 50'ies, and so it is hard to see why our current model would be 'the right one'. And theory and social reality often doesn't mix to good, and that's (I think) due to the fat that people view things in a dichotomy; humans as social beings and humans as economic unities, while I think humans are both, and any theory that doesn't make enough effort to incorporate both will not survive.
As an example of that, I refer to an experiment done with monkeys (Scientific American) where monkey were given a piece of vegetable as compensation for their work (riding a bycicle). All monkeys were content with that, and rode their bycicle, after which they got some token which they could then trade for the food. No problems thusfar. Then researches gave one monkey a grape (which was much more liked then vegetables), where the other monkeys could see it, but gave only a vegetable to the next, while he had done as much work on the bycicle. Result? The monkeys that didn't get a grape got in a tantrum; they refused to give the token, and some threw the vegetable even back at the researchers. Now, according to classical economists, this doesn't make any sense: it would make more sense to accept the vegetable (which they were happy to get ealier) then to get nothing at all.
While humans are not monkeys, it would be foolish to think such sentiments are not present in humans. In fact, it hints at a deep seeted sense of 'fairness' (misguided as it may be), even to the detriment of making decisions which make no sense at all, in an economic model.
Only to show a bit the danger of using only economic models to predict how humans would interact in real life, in a society.
I would like to see a real testcase, however (as do you, I presume) of some island state, which would turn into a completely libertarian society with an ultra-capitalist economic model, and see how long it would keep it up, and if the results would truelly be the best for everyone (measured by the variables of the populace I described earlier). I do not think this would be the case, though it might outlive the communist experiment. As I said, so far, all indications of countries who have gone more capitalistic then europe (Chile during one time, USA, 19th century europe,..) do not show any indication of it being better at providing the best outcome for everybody.
"The outsourcing or "I can't live off my work" problem: well, under a dynamic economic system wages would rise and fall according to supply and demand (in Germany for instance this isn't possible, so businesses move offshore, or simply fire their workers instead, when they can). People would be employed, at their maximum "value" to anyone."
I couldn't have gotten a better example why the theory sounds cool, but the practise would amount to devastation. I understand what you are trying to say, I do. But let's really imagine that you would try to introduce such a dynamic system today, in a western state. Now, imagine companies (or more broad, 'the market') would decide how much you could get as a worker, and imagine they have to fight against chinese wages og 20$ a month. That would be, like, a 1000% reduction of their wages. Now,
"An exchange will only be made if it profits both parties, while a forced intervention (say, taxes + welfare) doesn't create anything; it's only theft that moves money. So that's the simple theory in one sentence."
Ermm..no doubt. Which is why I prefer examples to actually come down to it, because theories can always be made, and can even sound like the next best thing since sliced bread (communism sounds great too, in theory).
So, let's say a person seeks work, and an employer wants work done. They come to an agreement, where both profit. This is, thusfar, according to theory.
Now, let's have an example where there exist such a thing as a world-economy. The employer says: you must work for 20$ a month. The would-be employee says: no, way, josé, I can't live of that! And then the answer is: ok, too bad, we'll move to china, where people DO work for 20$ a month.
so, ermm...where is the choice again? Where is the profit for both?
Now, a welfare state does not remediate this problem, I agree. But it does remediate the immediate consequences of losing your job, or falling sick, etc. I still haven't seen any indication voluntary 'charity' from the rich would ever be enough to remedie this in the same amount as state-spending does. As said earlier, it does not seem to be working in the USA, and while one could claim this is because their is some state intervention, this does not answer why charity falls short even when it is about aiding people in third world countries, where there is no welfare, nor does it explain why charity isn't greater (relative to the %) in the USA then in europe, when in the USA there is considerably less state-sponsoring. I believe Peter singer has some hard data on this too, in his book, and if I remember correctly, current 'charity donations' in the usa only amount to 4% of what the state spends.
One can claim charity would be more efficient, but it would have to be a hell of a lot more efficient to be able to do the same with 4% of the budget - absurdly so. One could also claim, if the state didn't subsidise, the rich would suddenly feel a 2500% increase in empathy for their fellow citizens, but this also seems implausable. And finally, history shows us that charity, at least in the past, was wholy inadequate to remedie the social issues in the 19th century, when there was virtually no state-subsidies in this regard.
In conclusion; I just don't see any indication on what the optimism is based on, that charity would do a better job, as David Gordon and yourself seem to claim. There is no emperical observation, nor any statistics that substantiate such a claim, and in fact, everything points to the contrary.
"I don't think it's bad at all if someone else is super-rich."
I've already answered a similar statement; it has nothing to do with it being 'bad', on itself. The morality of being rich is irrelevant in the discussion whether or not it constitutes the 'best' for everybody. Is the populace at large better off with a small minority of super-rich, and a whole lot of very-poor? Or is it better off with not-so-completely-super-rich, and a lot of not-so-poor?
"The point is that I can still do anything to improve my situation, and capitalism - based on exchange - has many incentives for everybody to do good work, create good products, lower prices, and so forth."
Unless there is an economic crisis or further globalisation and you can't get a job, you fall sick or get an accident, etc... all those things for which a good social network is needed.
"In the short term wealth redistribution sounds cool, because it makes people less poor, but in the medium term something like forced welfare makes people addicted to it."
To a degree I can agree with that; I never claimed the current balance in all european countries has reached its optimum; I only claim that a form of ultra-capitalism will not make things better, at least not when considering the sparse indications one can find thusfar.
I mean, let's get at l
" I also can remember that I once took their test "are you Austrian?", which points to articles on points where you differ (which would be a lot I guess)."
:-)
Well, I don't know about 'a lot', but I consider myself more of a civil libertarian and a left-libertarian mixed with some humanistic libertarianism and moderate minarchism - so some things may be parallel, and some things may, indeed, differ.
"Secondly: nobody claims that libertarian policy would reduce the divide between rich and poor; we only claim that everybody would be better off (absolutely) under capitalism, while more socialist programs might reduce the (relative) divide, but everybody would be off worse."
First of all: isn't that a false dichotomy? It would follow ultra-capitalism is the best because communism sucks. Well, indeed, communism failed, and capitalism is certainly better in regard to create wealth...but what *kind* of capitalism? It is not said because one extreme failed, the other extreme is the best possible outcome (countries that have (had) an extreme form of capitalism did not provide the proof that people as a whole were better of then in countries with moderate capitalism).
Which leads me to your statement itself, which, I admit, I have difficulty seeing the logic behind. How would everybody be worse off, if there are less poor? Even if one would accept the premise that the more capitalistic a country is, the more it generates wealth, then it is still a matter of how that wealth is distributed to the general populace. If all that extra wealth falls more and more in the hands of a few (which in the USA is more obvious then in the EU; a small percentage of the populace is overwhelmingly rich there, while the poor are 'poorer' then their EU-counterparts), then one can hardly claim the populace, as a whole, is better off.
By closing the economic divide, one makes sure the wealth is better distributed to all of the people, and thus, they would be better off. It is true, that the very rich would be worse off, but in an utilatarian view, when the top-rich people make out 5% of the populace, and the middle- and poor 95%, one would have difficulties claiming 'everyone' is worse off, when 95% is better off.
I do not believe that generating wealth on itself (as with ultra-capitalism) without having some form of major redistributing that wealth under the populace (and charity is inadequate for this, btw) will amount to the best possible outcome for the populace at largest, just like I don't believe a redistribution system on itself (as with communism) which lacks major wealth-generation will be the best possible outcome.
I think the best outcome is with a moderate form of capitalism, where a balance is found between generating wealth, and distributing it towards the people. The search for the 'best' balance may be open to argument and mostly involves a slow search with trial and error, but it is feasable, if one takes parameters like education, health and health-care, the absolute and relative amount of poor, etc., and compare these variables with the systems used.
In this respect, it becomes clear communism was never a succes. But it also shows countries with an anglo-saxon capitalistic system are worse off then more moderate capitalistic EU countries at least, acording to those parameters.
One could also use the overall generation of wealth as a parameter, and then the USA and consorts would probably do better, but as I said, when the purpose is that *everybody* should be better off, and not just the top 5%, it is unwise to claim that everyone is better off, just because the total amount of wealth of a country is bigger. The parameters I just mentionned are a more true indicator of how good the populace is doing, then a general wealth parameter, which doesn't say anything about how that wealth is distributed, and to whome.
Sorry I keep posting about it; it's just such a very interesting topic!
I didn't respond on the original /. articel about it, because I thought: "Ah, what the heck, I'm not going to point out the obvious." But here it comes again, with all the same crap.
In the original article, at the very beginning, it says:
"Yes, it's true that even without the Seti@Home crowd bigfooting the world of distributed computing, we probably still would have incurable diseases and dangerous climate change. But we'd be a lot closer to solutions than we are now, don't you think?"
Well, no, I do not think that.
One might argue quite the oposite, in fact: if seti@home wouldn't have existed and captived the eager attentions of millions, we would probably be a lot further from incurable diseases and dangerous climate changes - as far as it actually helps 'a lot', which isn't proven neither.
The fact is, it was DUE to seti@home and it's popularity, that this kind of mass-distributed-computing took off, and that it has become more then an academic curiousity in the IT-universities. It is DUE to the fact it has become so high-profile, that all those other research have even noted the potential of this kind of program.
So don't give me that totally absurd, unsubstantiated and nonsensical claim that those other research-topics would be far further thanks to this cycle-crunching system, when in reality chances are high they wouldn't even have know it existed, otherwise.
Say, I've been to that site, but it is difficult to find the exact sites/pages where actual examples (like the ones I gave) are handled with what they consider strictly libertarian principles. I mean, I've read http://www.mises.org/story/1784#_ftn16, http://www.mises.org/story/2118
, and http://66.249.93.104/u/Mises?q=cache:_uMdPyltSWQJ: www.mises.org/reasonpapers/pdf/13/rp_13_2.pdf+libe rtarianism&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=20&ie=UTF-8 thusfar, but they are all rather theorethical treaties about the principles of libertarianism (as the author sees it, at least), but none give real-life examples, nor even hypothetical ones, where it is shown how exactly a libertarian society would deal with it (notably something similar as what I described with human interaction in public space).
Could you, perhaps, give me direct links to the pages which actually deal with this sort of examples? I would be much obliged.
Also, when reading the page of David Gordon about libertarianism, I encounter something which annoys me to some degree, and is seen often with classical libertarian papers: a overly optimistic viewpoint (bordering on the oversimplify-ing) without actual data backing it up. All the papers thusfar, are very scant with scientific references, sources and statistics which support their claims. And sometimes, this leads to a contradiction, or at least an unsolved discrepancy, between what they claim, and what actually can be observed.
For instance, we can read:
"Murray has evidently forgotten his earlier discussion. If the government has failed to alleviate poverty, will not very wealthy people come to realize that a purely voluntary society will be worth trying? If they are sufficiently wealthy, charitable contributions will not burden them unduly. Why then will they turn to the Plan, which Murray acknowledges is less than ideal?"
So, the author sees it as more ideal, to scrap the retrieval of taxes, and the spending of it on medicare and other social programs, and instead the state should do nothing, and leave it all to 'charitable' donations. This, he argues, would be far more efficient in closing the divide between the poor and rich then any government program.
Alas, he does not substantiate that with actual fact, nor examples that might support this theory. and while it is one thing to claim government programs are not very effective, it is a completely other matter to claim charity from the rich will solve it in a better way. The only time he tries to substatiate it, is by reiterating another author who claimed how well things were during the 19th century, when charity was in, and no government programs were around.
I rather think this is a case of historical revisionism; by all accounts, life for the poor were awfull during those times, and not at all mediated by whatever 'broad network' of charitable donations were in place.
And, more-over, I find this notion hard to reconcile with what we can observe in current times. while the author might lament the fact that the USA-government spends so much money on wellfare, it is, in effect (compared to the GDP) only a fraction of what most european countries spend on wellfare. As we can all agree, the EU-countries are far more socialistic-minded, and government spending on welfare (and taxes are higher because of it) is far greater then in the USA. By all acounts, the USA is in this regard far more behaving in a 'libertarian' way, then EU-countries, even when one would claim it is not fully following libertarianism.
Yet, how do we reconcile the discrepancies, then? If the USA is more libertarian then EU countries, and the libertarian way is more efficient then the government-spending-on-wellfare way,
"Well, I'm getting tired of a discussion which won't lead anywhere anyway."
/., however.
:-)
True; slashdot threads seldom lead to anywhere, though I find the communication of thoughts interesting on itself - sometimes. I've long since abandoned the notion that every discussion has to or even can lead to a mutual satisfactory logical conclusion on
"Just two cents: I used to be Socialist, so some of your almost-libertarian opinions aren't too far from me."
Well...ermm...good. Though I don't see the link between the two. I'm actually a liberal... so... some of your points aren't far from me(?)
"But (the second cent) I don't think you really understood libertarianism, maybe the rules, but now how it works or used to work."
Well, opinions are free, of course. I think I do have a pretty good idea, and I even think complete libertarianism has never been fully tried in any society, thus 'used to work' is a bit of a stretch.
"Liberty doesn't mean do-as-you-please in all cases. If you're genuinely interested, mises.org has lots of material available for free on property rights, on environmental pollution, and other things, in many cases involving arguments like yours above."
Well, that would depend on the kind of libertarianism you are talking about. There are, in fact, many, many different forms that are viewed as 'libertarianism'. Some sub-categories use *this* philosophy, others *that*, others have minute or big variations, and I've even seen some that had some points that were antithetical to what libertarianism is all about (at least compared to most of the other political/philosophical directions of libertarianism). Maybe part of our miscommunication is due to this, and I would refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism for all the different 'flavours' of libertarianism.
Yet, even apart from that, I can't but feel that, even using your own criteria of 'civil rights' and 'property rights', you can not address all problems *without* ever being forced to use a law that falls outside the scope of those two mentionned rights, or without having a subjective or arbitrary law - especially in the case of public places, where people with diametrically oposed viewpoints have to interact with eachother, as I gave with my examples. And unless one can ofer a solution based solely on your two forms of rights for any of these examples, it is difficult to uphold they suffice for all problems.
Anyway, I will certainly check out your link, since I'm interested in and always open to learning additional viewpoints, and I hope you will consider some of the problems I raised in turn - even if you are of the opinion it is already addressed (it's easy to get complacent in these matters, after all).
But indeed, we could keep this discussion for another time, perhaps. See you!
"A system founded on basic human and property rights can't be circumvented."
;)"
There is no system created by humans that can't be circumvented by humans.
"There's a clearly defined right and wrong."
I abhor systems that claim they clearly define right and wrong. Often, the 'clearniness' is due to oversimplification of real life, and ignores the many grey areas which ivariably happens when people interact with eachother. I am all for consistency of laws, mind you, but to claim one has a moral basis for judging any action is only valid as long as that moral premise is shared. Even the "universal rights" of people are prone to that.
""doesn't really tell us where that ends and where that begins" -- you've got property rights for that. Don't burn my lawn, but you may burn your own lawn
No, you don't (always). This is what I mean by oversimplification. Say, you have 2 neigbours and the one has a tree which grows to such height, it sets the other neighbour in a permanent shadow, while *he* wants the sun. 'Property rights' is not a magical word that will automagically decide who is right and who isn't. The first can claim he has the right to grow whatever he wants in his garden, the second that he has the right to enjoy the sun on his property.
Or the latter wants to give a party, while the first wants to have rest and quiet. Then one may claim: I have the right to play music as loud as I want, while the other may claim he has the right to have silence. Now, in our real-life world, this is handled by watching at what time, how late, how long and how hard the music was, etc. before the court will decide who is in his right. But the db of the music, is, again, being chosen rather arbitrarily - so who and how do you choose the parameters? What good does it do to say 'you have property rights for that' when those property rights have to be judged against eachother? They BOTH have propertyrights...so what? A decision still has to be made, and it's often made based on laws that are inherently subjective and arbitrary.
And what if you burn your lawn, but the ashes are dispersed into the air, and all your neighbours are affected; should they not have a say in the matter, then?
But let's say it is not a matter of property-rights. The problem with your kind of libertarian society is that it is unworkable when it has to handle the public space where humans interact. It has taken a while for me to realise this too. For instance, if you claim no laws are necessary exept property-laws and basic civil rights, then what do you do in a situation where some people would walk on the street naked and masturbating themselves? I mean, I know more pleasant things then waiting on the bus while beside me a guy spurts. Or when pedophiles go to watch kindergartens and jerk themselves off in front of the kids.
But, seen in your vision, this is all possible without being punishable: after all, by jerking off they do not violate your civil rights and they do not harm your property, thus; morally or ethically it is ok, and it should not be punishable.
Yet, let's us be honest: how many people would want to live in such a society? Even not the nudists, I presume.
So, this shows how the idea of a totally libertarian state is unworkable in any real-life situation where people have to live with eachother. It is beautiful in theory, but it will never work as long as humans have human tendencies...much as with communism, in fact.
"Regarding patents: you think just because some armed government defends your idea, just because you published the idea first, gives you the moral right to keep me from using that idea too? That's quite totalitarian, IMHO."
IMHO too. But the same company that you claim should be left alone by the state to do as it pleases, can only do so because of those IP-monopolies that it was granted by the state in the first place. Abolish all IP-rights, including copyright and patents, and I would find your argument much more consistent.
"MS does not produce all of a product or service, nor are they superior, according to you."
6 2&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=156202 42#15620970 as to demonstrate that other premises are possible.
(?)
No, I said one has to be lenient to call their products reasonably priced and technologically superior. This was meant as an aside-thought with the definition given by your example of answers.com.
"So, is iPod a monopoly in the EU? Is Google? Are they next on the hit list?"
If they get into a position of a monopoly and they abuse that monopoly to monopolise other markets, then yes, they should be next on the hitlist. I fail to see this as a counter-argument.
"This could have a "chilling effect" on technological innovation, when those at the forefront are continuously punished for success."
As said before, they are not punished for succes. It's not illegal to become a monopoly; you just can't abuse it to monopolise other markets. But I understand you completely fail to see the difference, and consider this as a punishement for succes. This is, because you are devoted to the anglo-saxon capitalistic view of the world, in which the market-principles are the only defining standard - even morally and ethically - in society. I refer you to http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1896
"Maybe you think individuals and corps should be restricted by pretty much arbitrary laws. I strongly differ."
The "arbitrary" is too much in that sentence.
Of course individuals and corps should be restricted; we've seen the result when people are not restricted (like with absolute monarchs and dictators) and where corps are not restricted (like during the ultra-capitalism of the 19th century).
"I think that both should do whatever they want, as long as they don't harm anybody."
Since I'm a libertarian myself, I sympathise with the sentiment. However, the more I have thought it over, the more I see that a society that runs completely and solely on hard-core libertarian principles isn't maintainable, at least not in all instances. It is exactly the problem of defining if and what harm is done to whome which needs laws. The much used libertarian stance of 'your rights stop where another ones' begins' is very compelling, but it doesn't really tell us where that ends and where that begins, and for that, we need laws. (When such actuions are taken in private, I would argue, as a libertarian, that no-one has any business with it - but the problem begins when you want to regulate behaviour which is public; given the fact that you must regulate SOME behaviour, it is ALWAYS going to be erbitrary to decide what is, and what is not to be regulated, and when, and why).
"I.e. I can write whatever code I want, as long as I don't harm your property."
Well, actually you can't, if you break their/my copyright or patents.
"MS can build and sell whatever they like, as long as they don't commit fraud, they don't steal, they don't blackmail anyone."
But why only for those 3 things? Isn't this also rather "arbitrary"?
"And in fact all of MS's clients chose their clientship. I'm the existent proof that there is a completely open choice for everybody. I chose Linux, then BSD, now a Mac. That's why MS isn't evil, even if it sucks (IMHO a fair share of their software does)."
Ah, and here we come to the crux of the difference of opinion. when I talk about choice, I mean *free* choice, that is, everything else should remain equal, exept for the choice itself. But does everything remains the same if, say, I choose Linux instead of windows? Heck no; compatibility^problems arise, 3th party software doesn't work on it (which you might actually need to run your business), games can't be played, etc.
Now, I fully understand your argument; according to you this is 'tough luck, you chose for it', but I refute this, because it is not a true free choice: you are limited in your choice by the existing reality that you are severely limited when you chose something else. Saying anything where you can chose is a choice might be right in a literary way, but it can't derive any moral or ethical validation for it. For instance, if kids in 3th world countries prostitute themselves, is this a choice? According to your reasoning; yes, if they have chosen this 'work' instead of something else. I, however, would argue that they might do it out of poverty and they *need* the money to survive, and that being poor limits your choice, and thus, your choice is not any longer a true choice, since it lacks true freedom.
Societies are rife with examples of choices which are not really free choices. when the chinese government says to a dissident that they will shoot dead his whole family if he continue his work - does that dissident have a choice to stop or to continue? again, in your reasoning; yes. and technically spoken, this is true: he could go on and get his family killed. In a more pragmatic sense, however, we all realise that these kinds of choices are not real choices at all; one is compelled by external factors to do something which one wouldn't do if they had truelly free choice.
The same applies with an OS like windows. Even when I would want to get Linux (and since it's free, I wouldn't mind) one is compelled by external factors beyond my reach to actually make that choice.