Now it's backed by faith. How's that working out for everybody?
Gold also only has value because people believe it does - as the GP post said, you can't eat it, you can't really build a shelter out of it, etc.
In any event, why should the money supply be tied to a rare, precious metal? Matching the growth (or shrinkage!) of the money supply based solely on the discovery, loss, or recovery of a particular natural resource hardly seems like a good plan for managing the economy.
As has been said before, any issue that is not black and white will be cut, beaten, reworded, altered, reframed, redefined, polarized, radicalized, and several more things until it becomes black and white, and then the two parties will take sides, each declaring their side to be 100% perfect good, and the other side to be 100% perfect evil. I don't know why you would expect anything else.
The true freedom is that we have options. RMS wants everybody to live by his definition of "freedom", but his is pretty narrow and restrictive, which kinda defeats the purpose of the concept of freedom.
RMS wants to limit your ability to give away your freedom. You can't choose to sell yourself into slavery. Right now, you can choose to give your data to someone who can choose, if they wish, to restrict your freedom. Some people advocate that you should be able to sell yourself into slavery, but I'm not convinced that this is really a good idea...
If the average consumer sees charges of $5 on their bill from based on sending spam, then they have an incentive to get their computer cleaned up and locked down. Right now, it doesn't cost the owners of compromised computers anything (except some speed of their program execution, I guess) to be part of the botnet, so they don't have much incentive to do anything about it.
I'm not saying I support this scheme; that's just the idea behind it.
But it sucks breaking up too, but I don't see too many people lobbying to pass laws requiring girlfriends to give thirty days notice before dumping their asses.
You're right, but then again, your job is ostensibly what you do in order to make money in order to have a place to live and food to eat. Possibly for your family, too. If I split with my girlfriend, I don't have to find another in a very short period of time in order to continue eating, having a home, et cetera.
(Yes, I know this ignores the case of someone living with his girlfriend and depending on her to support him. I'm not sure what you can do about this kind of scenario, but it is VERY different from a hardworking person suddenly fired from his job with a wife, children, and possibly elderly parents to support.)
Let the highly skilled people make more decisions, and defend them when they do so, by making it illegal to sue hospitals for trying to help you -- only for lack of trying. As it is today, if a doctor has a choice between a procedure that slightly improves 70% of the patients and does nothing for the rest, or one that cures 95% and maims 5%, he will almost always have to go for the former, cause the 5% unlucky ones will sue.
Not far enough. The whole tort system needs to be altered to stop paying out money just because something bad happened. The way it used to work, and should work, was that your lawsuit only had merit if you could show the doctor was wrong to choose the 95%-success course of action. If he was, the wrong decision or negligence or whatever is punished. There used to be consideration of what a reasonable (competent in the field) person (doctor) would have done. Not anymore.
Unfortunately, some people just have an axe to grind of some sort, and they will happily throw their opinion into any thread that's even vaguely related to their pet topic.
Also, far too many people live by "disagree with me = bias". But I guess as a lawyer, you deal with all sorts, so it's probably not necessary for me to tell you that...
If you have a solution that is a decent and fair plan that both acknowledges new technologies and the possibilities that they bring AND the rights of the rightholders to be fairly compensated and to reasonably punish/recover from wrongdoers, I for one would be interested in hearing it.
Here's the thing about copyright in the digital age. For software, music, videos, the marginal (per additional copy) cost is zero. Now, given that it takes no effort to copy it, and anybody can do it in his own home (or his parents' I suppose), how can you realistically stop that, without invading everyone's privacy? How can you even really know that they're doing it? Same thing with downloading it: the only way to know is to invade the privacy of the people by monitoring all their transfers. And even then, it's an imperfect system. How do you know what they have the right to down/upload? How do you deal with authorization? What about false positives? False negatives?
Also, your argument about how it's a regressive wealth transfer from the poor to the wealthy is a bit off-track. If the government(s) imposed a tax on everyone that was used to compensate artists for the creation, it will most likely be nowhere near as draconian as you make it seem. It's not like the government will charge a flat tax on everyone. Presumably, like other "progressive" taxes, it will be charged at a percentage, based on your ability to pay. Thus rich people will pay more and poor people will pay less. There will most likely be a group who pays nothing into this at all, like with income tax. Also, is it really a transfer to the wealthy? I know when you think of artists, you imagine the pop sensation of the day who has millions and millions of dollars, but there are still lots of "starving artists" out there.
You're making the issue too emotionally charged by using terms like "regressive wealth transfer from the poor to the wealthy", which a lot of people emotionally oppose. But it's not really like that.
Yes and no. One of the things that people have done over the years is attempt to "retake" words used against them as pejoratives. The best example that comes to mind is "Queer".
"Scientists *say* that cigarette smoking will damage your health. But I know one guy who smoked and lived to a ripe old age. Therefore, these `scientific' findings are clearly the result of some politically-motivated anti-tobacco conspiracy."
And these arguments also ignore the fact that this person might have lived EVEN LONGER, had he not smoked.
Because people, you know, actually use MSN and other formats? For some people, MSN is a killer application - if you install Linux for them and tell them "Sorry, you can't talk to your buddies on MSN anymore", they will say "Give me Windows back". If you think for one second that you think my sister will switch if it means she cannot chat with her friends... think again.
To my knowledge, European Union regulations already require you to check the people to whom you are shipping goods, to see if they are on a list of known terrorists and their associates.
They seem to be overlooking the problem that DVDs are good enough for most people and that Blu-Ray doesn't really confer the same advantage over DVD that DVDs did over VHS.
That problem is not just limited to sending IMs. People call and walk over all the time for tiny questions.
However, the worst part is when they e-mail me the question, and then five minutes later, call or IM me with "Did you get my e-mail?".
Runner up is the "Are you there?" "Well?" "Stop ignoring me!" "Argh!" when I've been away from my desk for 10s...
I also know quite a few people like that. It's the face-to-face aspect that gets them, usually, and have no trouble writing, speaking on the phone, et cetera.
One thing I notice frequently is that introverts don't ever start conversations via IM. I'll be looking at my buddy list and see 40 people online and ostensibly "available", but nobody ever seems to start a conversation unless I start it...
Slashdot Mirror
Remember Scooter Libby? Got thown in jail for Vallery Plame? Except he didn't. He got thrown in jail for "lying".
Erm, you're half right. He didn't get thrown in jail at all. George W. Bush commuted his sentence. Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/02/libby.sentence/index.html
Now it's backed by faith. How's that working out for everybody?
Gold also only has value because people believe it does - as the GP post said, you can't eat it, you can't really build a shelter out of it, etc.
In any event, why should the money supply be tied to a rare, precious metal? Matching the growth (or shrinkage!) of the money supply based solely on the discovery, loss, or recovery of a particular natural resource hardly seems like a good plan for managing the economy.
I think you mean "persecution". I'm pretty sure the legal system is meant to be for prosecution.
As has been said before, any issue that is not black and white will be cut, beaten, reworded, altered, reframed, redefined, polarized, radicalized, and several more things until it becomes black and white, and then the two parties will take sides, each declaring their side to be 100% perfect good, and the other side to be 100% perfect evil. I don't know why you would expect anything else.
The true freedom is that we have options. RMS wants everybody to live by his definition of "freedom", but his is pretty narrow and restrictive, which kinda defeats the purpose of the concept of freedom.
RMS wants to limit your ability to give away your freedom. You can't choose to sell yourself into slavery. Right now, you can choose to give your data to someone who can choose, if they wish, to restrict your freedom. Some people advocate that you should be able to sell yourself into slavery, but I'm not convinced that this is really a good idea...
If the average consumer sees charges of $5 on their bill from based on sending spam, then they have an incentive to get their computer cleaned up and locked down. Right now, it doesn't cost the owners of compromised computers anything (except some speed of their program execution, I guess) to be part of the botnet, so they don't have much incentive to do anything about it.
I'm not saying I support this scheme; that's just the idea behind it.
Except this is wrong. When you consume the competitor's apple, he doesn't have an apple anymore (and can't plant the seeds).
But it sucks breaking up too, but I don't see too many people lobbying to pass laws requiring girlfriends to give thirty days notice before dumping their asses.
You're right, but then again, your job is ostensibly what you do in order to make money in order to have a place to live and food to eat. Possibly for your family, too. If I split with my girlfriend, I don't have to find another in a very short period of time in order to continue eating, having a home, et cetera.
(Yes, I know this ignores the case of someone living with his girlfriend and depending on her to support him. I'm not sure what you can do about this kind of scenario, but it is VERY different from a hardworking person suddenly fired from his job with a wife, children, and possibly elderly parents to support.)
Let the highly skilled people make more decisions, and defend them when they do so, by making it illegal to sue hospitals for trying to help you -- only for lack of trying. As it is today, if a doctor has a choice between a procedure that slightly improves 70% of the patients and does nothing for the rest, or one that cures 95% and maims 5%, he will almost always have to go for the former, cause the 5% unlucky ones will sue.
Not far enough. The whole tort system needs to be altered to stop paying out money just because something bad happened. The way it used to work, and should work, was that your lawsuit only had merit if you could show the doctor was wrong to choose the 95%-success course of action. If he was, the wrong decision or negligence or whatever is punished. There used to be consideration of what a reasonable (competent in the field) person (doctor) would have done. Not anymore.
Unfortunately, some people just have an axe to grind of some sort, and they will happily throw their opinion into any thread that's even vaguely related to their pet topic.
Also, far too many people live by "disagree with me = bias". But I guess as a lawyer, you deal with all sorts, so it's probably not necessary for me to tell you that...
If you have a solution that is a decent and fair plan that both acknowledges new technologies and the possibilities that they bring AND the rights of the rightholders to be fairly compensated and to reasonably punish/recover from wrongdoers, I for one would be interested in hearing it.
Here's the thing about copyright in the digital age. For software, music, videos, the marginal (per additional copy) cost is zero. Now, given that it takes no effort to copy it, and anybody can do it in his own home (or his parents' I suppose), how can you realistically stop that, without invading everyone's privacy? How can you even really know that they're doing it? Same thing with downloading it: the only way to know is to invade the privacy of the people by monitoring all their transfers. And even then, it's an imperfect system. How do you know what they have the right to down/upload? How do you deal with authorization? What about false positives? False negatives?
Also, your argument about how it's a regressive wealth transfer from the poor to the wealthy is a bit off-track. If the government(s) imposed a tax on everyone that was used to compensate artists for the creation, it will most likely be nowhere near as draconian as you make it seem. It's not like the government will charge a flat tax on everyone. Presumably, like other "progressive" taxes, it will be charged at a percentage, based on your ability to pay. Thus rich people will pay more and poor people will pay less. There will most likely be a group who pays nothing into this at all, like with income tax. Also, is it really a transfer to the wealthy? I know when you think of artists, you imagine the pop sensation of the day who has millions and millions of dollars, but there are still lots of "starving artists" out there.
You're making the issue too emotionally charged by using terms like "regressive wealth transfer from the poor to the wealthy", which a lot of people emotionally oppose. But it's not really like that.
Yes and no. One of the things that people have done over the years is attempt to "retake" words used against them as pejoratives. The best example that comes to mind is "Queer".
That's where Monica Lewinsky was, not WMDs. Bush has to look a little further than Clinton did, to find what he was looking for.
Replying to undo incorrect redundant mod. Sorry.
"Scientists *say* that cigarette smoking will damage your health. But I know one guy who smoked and lived to a ripe old age. Therefore, these `scientific' findings are clearly the result of some politically-motivated anti-tobacco conspiracy."
And these arguments also ignore the fact that this person might have lived EVEN LONGER, had he not smoked.
In a skill based game, your chances of winning aren't 1/2... Unless WC3 is what you call flipping a coin... War Coin III!
Not feel. Are.
I already phoned in to my MP, Prentice, Verner, Dion, and Harper. Use this to get your local MP's mailing and phone information.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Compilations/HouseOfCommons/MemberByPostalCode.aspx?Menu=HOC
I plan to write some letters tonight.
Because people, you know, actually use MSN and other formats? For some people, MSN is a killer application - if you install Linux for them and tell them "Sorry, you can't talk to your buddies on MSN anymore", they will say "Give me Windows back". If you think for one second that you think my sister will switch if it means she cannot chat with her friends... think again.
To my knowledge, European Union regulations already require you to check the people to whom you are shipping goods, to see if they are on a list of known terrorists and their associates.
Yes, it was in "For Your Eyes Only". And Bond drove a Lotus then.
They seem to be overlooking the problem that DVDs are good enough for most people and that Blu-Ray doesn't really confer the same advantage over DVD that DVDs did over VHS.
Providing a safe outlet for urges results in less spilling over of these urges and less damage caused by this spilling over. Oh yeah. Big surprise.
Cue the picture of the US murder rate plotted against video games, like Doom, etc...
That problem is not just limited to sending IMs. People call and walk over all the time for tiny questions. However, the worst part is when they e-mail me the question, and then five minutes later, call or IM me with "Did you get my e-mail?". Runner up is the "Are you there?" "Well?" "Stop ignoring me!" "Argh!" when I've been away from my desk for 10s...
I also know quite a few people like that. It's the face-to-face aspect that gets them, usually, and have no trouble writing, speaking on the phone, et cetera. One thing I notice frequently is that introverts don't ever start conversations via IM. I'll be looking at my buddy list and see 40 people online and ostensibly "available", but nobody ever seems to start a conversation unless I start it...