Apparently only those wealthy enough can afford to be saved while the rest of the 1500 people a year that croak because of drowsy driving have to suffer.
And the other traffic participants that are usually being endangered, injured and killed by them are maybe safer than as well.
But then... in the past every safety measure has lead people to just use them to the limit (and over the limit). Why would that be different in this case
I believe it need to be stated that ICANN is in fact violating the anti-trust law. While ICANN has been authorized by Congress, Congress has no legitimate authority to create such a monopoly organization.
The only monopolies Congress is authorized to establish are copyright and patents if they creates progress in sciences and useful art.
I cannot see how this definition fit ICANN. Therefore I believe it is time that ICANN is given back to the people. I believe only then we will see domain name services for acceptable pricing.
This sounds funny. I would think, we Geeks aren't running. Why should they, since they tend to automise everything. They may be running all over the keyboard, but marathon....
Or does is mean he is such extraordinary in running that makes him a Geek in the disciplin of running?
It seems to be a little geeky to have all those nice running aids though....
Antitrust laws are not only used against monopolies (which means it is already too late in some way), but also for anti-competitive behaviour.
It is best for the consumer if all those backroom deals and exclusive contracts disappear and the consumer has the free choice. That would be a concept, wouldn't it?
I think you make it yourself very easy with critique. However, I believe critique should only stick if it is substantiated.
The justice system is by contitution independent. Therefore any lawsuit currently made regarding mp3 are made by the corporations and are dealt with by an independent court. Therefore the current Administration has nothing to do with it
The Administration would only be involved if a law would be passed that would target mp3 users. And as I remember the DMCA was enacted and signed by the former Administration. Maybe they should get your praise as well;-)
Same thing about the time shaving. I have not seen any policy statement or bill persued by the current administration that makes it easier for managers to do it. Therefore were is the proof that it is their fault? In fact, I believe there are already laws on the books making this practice illegal.
I rather believe it would be in order to step back and think if there should be specific requirements on software to make it impossible that one single person can not alter such information in a information system. I.e. at least a line manager and the store director must both independently approve the change in the system.
However, I would think, it would be first in the interest of the corporations not to be in legal trouble all the time and therefore to implement such software. If not maybe people should petition to their congress reps that the draft a bill requiring that employees have a paper proof of their time the moment they check in and out...
That are my 2 cents
Because democraty is out and feudalism is in.
Now it is just time to name the principles of today's feudalitistic system.
I would say politicians and Managers of multi-national company are pretty high on the list.
The other question... How will the revolution against this kind of feudalism look like???
I hope it will not get as bloody as the French revolution or the US Independence...
This is in no way capitalism. In true capitalism there is no acceptance of monpolies. And this is what licenses and patents are. Governmentally granted monopolies.
However interestingly this way of using copyright and patents is even unconstitutional, since Congress does not even have the power to grant such monopolies for the benefit of viability of a business or greed. Copyright and patents are to be granted only for the advancements of sciences and useful arts.
This shows that it is un-American to act like Microsoft and SCO act (at least according to the US Constitution) and kann not be confused with Capitalism but should rather be called neo-feudalism.
In the medieval ages the principalities took the monopoly of ownership and enforcement of ownership of land. At that time for the majority of people land was important to feed them. Therefore it was easy to enslave people on the grounds of ownership of land.
This was called feudalism and was exactly the system the pilgrims tried to escape from and the founding fathers fought against in the independence war.
And wisely the founding fathers put in place a limitation of the right of government in relation to monolpolies into the Constitutuon.
Capitalism on the other hand came to follow the system of feudalism in conjuction with the industrial revolution. It is based on the conjecture of unlimited supply and demand which if it is unlimited (or sufficiently high that it appears to be unlimited) will automatically regulate the value and price of goods and/or services.
However monopolies (which are granted through copyright in some way, and definately through patents) are doing exactly the opposite than allowing a virtually unlimited supply and demand.
One could argue that property rights are part of capitalism. However, while this is an important principle of capitalism, it does not prevail in this situation (IMHO) since it could turn the whole idea of capitalism upside-down and define feudalism as a form of capitalism.
In contrast, historically capitalism allowed non-aristrocratic members of society to step out of the feudalistic system and really a replacement of feudalism.
Comcluding I disagree with the motion that Microsoft's or SCO's interpretation of their rights to intellectual property rights are truly capitalistic, but are rather fitting in a feudalistic system.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently only those wealthy enough can afford to be saved while the rest of the 1500 people a year that croak because of drowsy driving have to suffer.
And the other traffic participants that are usually being endangered, injured and killed by them are maybe safer than as well.
But then... in the past every safety measure has lead people to just use them to the limit (and over the limit). Why would that be different in this case
I believe it need to be stated that ICANN is in fact violating the anti-trust law. While ICANN has been authorized by Congress, Congress has no legitimate authority to create such a monopoly organization.
The only monopolies Congress is authorized to establish are copyright and patents if they creates progress in sciences and useful art.
I cannot see how this definition fit ICANN. Therefore I believe it is time that ICANN is given back to the people. I believe only then we will see domain name services for acceptable pricing.
This sounds funny. I would think, we Geeks aren't running. Why should they, since they tend to automise everything. They may be running all over the keyboard, but marathon....
Or does is mean he is such extraordinary in running that makes him a Geek in the disciplin of running? It seems to be a little geeky to have all those nice running aids though ....
I wish AMD was the only processor manufacturer in the world, then everyone could only buy processors that are high quality for a low price.
I wonder if the price of AMD would be so good if they would be a monopoly ...
I still like choices. Let AMD and Intel and maybe some more companies compete. This creates innovation and good prices
Antitrust laws are not only used against monopolies (which means it is already too late in some way), but also for anti-competitive behaviour.
It is best for the consumer if all those backroom deals and exclusive contracts disappear and the consumer has the free choice. That would be a concept, wouldn't it?
I think you make it yourself very easy with critique. However, I believe critique should only stick if it is substantiated.
The justice system is by contitution independent. Therefore any lawsuit currently made regarding mp3 are made by the corporations and are dealt with by an independent court. Therefore the current Administration has nothing to do with it The Administration would only be involved if a law would be passed that would target mp3 users. And as I remember the DMCA was enacted and signed by the former Administration. Maybe they should get your praise as wellI rather believe it would be in order to step back and think if there should be specific requirements on software to make it impossible that one single person can not alter such information in a information system. I.e. at least a line manager and the store director must both independently approve the change in the system.
However, I would think, it would be first in the interest of the corporations not to be in legal trouble all the time and therefore to implement such software. If not maybe people should petition to their congress reps that the draft a bill requiring that employees have a paper proof of their time the moment they check in and out... That are my 2 centsBecause democraty is out and feudalism is in. Now it is just time to name the principles of today's feudalitistic system. I would say politicians and Managers of multi-national company are pretty high on the list. The other question ... How will the revolution against this kind of feudalism look like???
I hope it will not get as bloody as the French revolution or the US Independence...
Does a car have to be 21 before being allowed to burn alcohol ?
Very interesting thoughts... but 1) Bush speaks fluently Spanish (some say better than English ;-) )
2) Kerry does speak fluently French
This is in no way capitalism. In true capitalism there is no acceptance of monpolies. And this is what licenses and patents are. Governmentally granted monopolies. However interestingly this way of using copyright and patents is even unconstitutional, since Congress does not even have the power to grant such monopolies for the benefit of viability of a business or greed. Copyright and patents are to be granted only for the advancements of sciences and useful arts. This shows that it is un-American to act like Microsoft and SCO act (at least according to the US Constitution) and kann not be confused with Capitalism but should rather be called neo-feudalism. In the medieval ages the principalities took the monopoly of ownership and enforcement of ownership of land. At that time for the majority of people land was important to feed them. Therefore it was easy to enslave people on the grounds of ownership of land. This was called feudalism and was exactly the system the pilgrims tried to escape from and the founding fathers fought against in the independence war. And wisely the founding fathers put in place a limitation of the right of government in relation to monolpolies into the Constitutuon. Capitalism on the other hand came to follow the system of feudalism in conjuction with the industrial revolution. It is based on the conjecture of unlimited supply and demand which if it is unlimited (or sufficiently high that it appears to be unlimited) will automatically regulate the value and price of goods and/or services. However monopolies (which are granted through copyright in some way, and definately through patents) are doing exactly the opposite than allowing a virtually unlimited supply and demand. One could argue that property rights are part of capitalism. However, while this is an important principle of capitalism, it does not prevail in this situation (IMHO) since it could turn the whole idea of capitalism upside-down and define feudalism as a form of capitalism. In contrast, historically capitalism allowed non-aristrocratic members of society to step out of the feudalistic system and really a replacement of feudalism. Comcluding I disagree with the motion that Microsoft's or SCO's interpretation of their rights to intellectual property rights are truly capitalistic, but are rather fitting in a feudalistic system.