Start your own blog. Its free, easy, and you can say virtually anything you want. And if you want to respond in a way in which he will be forced to listen, we have a way to do that as well. Its just not as popular with younger generations.
First of all, I was commenting on a general trend in political blogging. Secondly, I don't write a blog because it would be just another libertarian who has yet another blog. As for "forcing" him to listen, I doubt that any letter will "force" anyone to do anything other than roundfile another piece of paper.
I produce rebuttals in the most effective way possible: I attend political gatherings where precinct captians are elected. Real arguments lead to real results at the grassroots level.
I've noticed that many blogs now require registration before you can submit a comment. I'm sure that is in response to the flood of spam and crap that gets posted in response to the blog content. The unfortunate thing about this particular trend is that it is turning blogs into monologs. I'm not sure if that is what they were intended to be, but that is how they are going to end up without rebuttal and commentary.
Speaker Hastert isn't any different in his blog approach than the issue ads pushed by the RNC on their site - or the issue ads on the Democratic Party site. In fact, I haven't found many political blogs that still allow unfiltered comments on their sites.
It is so much easier to defend your position when you don't have to deal with opposing viewpoints.
I wish there was a way to get both the deterrence factor of punishment and the regulation and taxation of ceasing prohibition.
Use alcohol as a model. The only time you are arrested is for what you do when you are drunk (i.e., driving while intoxicated, fighting), not because you drank alcohol.
What Google does with Google Print, however, is to take content from a medium (books) that probably never were intended to be transmitted in this manner.
I don't know if this is universally true. The technology did not exist when some of the print copies were made, but you can bet that publishers are jockying for position to sell their wares as ebooks.
YOU may trust Google but not everyone in the world shares that view.
I don't automatically trust anyone. Because this system is only the subject of discussion and not available for use by the public, everything I have written in defense of Google has been on general principle.
If you have some evidence of the nefarious intent of Google, then feel free to contact your local US Attorney. I'm sure that their is some enterprising future mayor who is just waiting to cut their teeth on a giant of the industry.
They may simply not be comfortable handing over the keys to the kingdom because Google says "we're here to help".
If they were growing their own drugs you would sort of have a point. But their meth/crack/weed money goes to some fairly nasty people (encouragement and power to them), who don't do drug stuff exclusively.
Then you should be against prohibition. The Italian and Irish organized crime organizations of the early 20th Century were just a minor nuisance until alcohol prohibition made them rich.
And if it became accepted to do crack, and more people did it, less cool stuff would be done in the real world, because more people would have fun doing crack instead.
And you have *what* evidence for this? The evidence is quite the opposite: alcholism rates did NOT skyrocket after the end of prohibition.
So, stfu. Just because everyone and their sister smokes pot in the US doesn't mean it's a good thing.I'm not a believer in morality as an absolute, aka religious stuff, but if you put it into (beneficial|detractive) for (me|some group|society|the human race), I'd say drugs are on the detractive side.
Great! Sign your entire paycheck over to the government so that they can spend it taking care of the drug addicts. As for me, I tend to believe that people will get help when they need it. If you keep incarcerating them you only extend the problem and ADD cost to the TAXPAYERS.
Of course, you don't give a shit about that. Just so long as some person next door isn't getting shitfaced on dope. He can get drunk off his ass, but God Forbid that he do meth.
Maybe not for the individual crackhead (probably though), but the laws are (ideally, some crap exists) there to guide society onto a route that is beneficial for society, not dopeheads.
You can't point to one success in the War on Drugs yet you are willing to claim that it has some great benefit to society.
So you make everything against the law and then lock up everyone who breaks a law.
How long before your economy collapses because there aren't enough people on the outside making money to pay for keeping people on the inside.
How much has the **AA lawsuits deterred copyright violations? How much has the Drug War deterred drug smugglers?
Enough to justify the cost to track, prosecute, and incarcerate them?
Add up all of the costs associated with the Drug War - military and civilian - and then divide that by the number of addits. Can you seriously tell me that these costs are lower than just putting addicts in rehab?
Deterrance only works when people respect the rule of law.
In reality they were actually too stupid (or blinded by their biases) to realize that crime was down BECAUSE the jails were full. Cause and affect. Go figure.
Yes, crime is down for several categories of the penal code. But if you keep adding categories, then the jails will never see a decrease in prison population.
There are too many offenses that require jail time.
I've added the emphasis to show why there is a problem for many people with this. You can't advertise it as a full text search of every book every written while justifying it by claiming it's just a card catalog.
Because.....?
Last time I stopped in at the local library, the card catalog indexed a brief descriptive blurb, publishing date, printing, editor, publisher, author, page count and title.
And if they had a more automated system then you think they wouldn't offer more?
It did not contain the contents of said book.
But even after you get a hit on the search parameters, you don't get the whole book for free, do you?
I still fail to see how having a digital copy on their hard drive constitutes a copyright violation. If they were to make that image available without charge, then they would be violating the copyright.
Unfortunately, some people who are not dangerous are not detered by anything short of prison. Even after some prison time, some will still repeat the offense.
How many of those repeat offenders are drug cases? How many are property violations? How many are violent offenders?
My point is that if someone is only harming themselves, why should I be asked to shell out my hard-earned cash to lock them up? I'd rather they were holding down a job, helping grow the economy, and paying their OWN fucking taxes.
When we reach the point where we need sophisticated computer systems to track release dates for the number of prisoners we have, then perhaps it is time to re-evaluate the criminal justice system.
I guess the number of people we incarcerate is irrelevant to you? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you've offered criticism without showing me where I've confused the issue.
If we incarcerated only a couple of thousand prisoners in state-wide prison systems, you could almost keep their release dates on 3x5" index cards. When we have 10's of thousands in prison, we need to decide why we are wearhousing so many people.
Every person living in prison represents lost economic productivity, lost tax revenue, and a burden on state coffers. I tend to believe that you only compound the economic burden to taxpayers when you incarcerate those who are only a risk to themselves.
This is about control. I guess I didn't notice the corporate copyright lawyer trawling the library taking photographs of the card catalog, which is an index of books in the library's holdings. Of course our library doesn't *have* a card catalog any more; it has an online search utility. Funny that didn't get mentioned in the lawsuit.
Who cares if Google has copied every book ever printed. As long as the copyrights of the author and publisher are honored (they don't give copies away for free), the who cares? If I took every book off the shelf from my library, copied them, and then took the copies home and stuffed them in my garage, who would care? That constitutes 'fair use'. But if I start making more copies and giving them away, or give my copy away, now I should be held to account.
The publishers are just ticked because they see themselves losing control over content. Meet the new RIAA.
Even those critics who understand that copyright law is not absolute argue that making a full copy of a given work, even just to index it, can never constitute fair use. If this were so, you wouldn't be able to record a TV show to watch it later or use a search engine that indexes billions of Web pages.
Is Schmidt the only one who gets the webpage angle? I would beat the publishers over the head with this one. What do you want to bet that they all have copyrighted webpages indexed on Google. Did they ever protest this fact?
Writers of bad checks are gravely dangerous to society.
I never said that they had *no* impact on society, but measured against violent offenders, check kiters are peanuts.
You also forgot to mention that people like mega-corp CEOs will do more damage to the economy than the average check kiter. How much time do all of the convicted CEOs do collectivly? I'll bet it is only a fraction of what your average petty thief gets. That kind of differential only makes the public more suspicious of the criminal justice system.
You want to lock up petty criminals and pay MORE taxes to incarcerate them? Tell me how this helps the economy.
I think the Baptists would take exception at your excluding them from this party. They like controlling people too.
You're locked away not so much because of offenses you commit that harm other people, but for offenses that upset god and baby jesus and mother mary and all that jazz.
And it is only getting worse. Every year some dumbass politician screws the whole world up with just six simple words: "There ought to be a law!"
How else do you explain laws intended to punish 18 year olds having sex with same-sex 15 year olds with 17 years in prison, but punish 18 year olds having sex with female 15 year olds with 15 months in prison?
You can't. Neither can you rationalize incarcerating a person who does drugs, keeps their job, pays their taxes, and doesn't commit any other criminal offense. They *try* to rationalize it by claiming that "they need treatment" as though the criminal justice system is any substitute for medical therapy.
It's all about morality and just because something is considered "immoral" by many doesn't make it harmful to anyone.
A whole 39 days early? Shit! They ought to hunt that bastard down and horsewhip them.
I guess I don't see the 'crisis' in this other than these people were low-level, non-violent offenders. If a software glitch had let a Ted Bundy out for another killing spree, I would probably be more concerned.
Fact is, we have WAAAAAY too many people in jail as it is. If we were to only charge and incarcerate those who pose a safety risk to the rest of society then you could probably monitor the entire population in half as many facilities with 1/3 of the correctional officers we have today.
The US incarcerates people largely to punish them for stuff they do to themselves. If someone is strung out on meth or heroin, they are only a problem to me if they steal something to support their habit. Considering the fact that theft is already a crime, I can't see how locking up people who are casual users and functioning addicts helps society at all.
These prison systems are getting too complex, too expensive, and are locking too many people away for "their own good".
Rep. Rick Jones: " 8 people is too many. I understand the department found another 15, that's too many, even 1 is too many."
Fuck that. Notice he shed no tears for the few that were held too long? I'm glad some of them got out early. The only sad thing in this story is that somebody got held longer than they should have.
I don't think you need to bring my school into this.
It was just an observation. Again, don't read too much into my posts.
It's more that it's hard to know when people are joking in text.
You seemed to find humor in the post that preceded my original observation. It must not be *that* difficult.:)
If I'd been observant enough to notice the cato.org URL, I would've known you couldn't possibly have been serious.
Ummmmm... I guess I don't make the connection between being a libertarian and my comments about America's first human inhabitants. Here is another item that I neglected to mention in my first comment that complicate the interpreation even further: A part of my family decended from the Blackfeet Tribe. The other side includes Irish immigrants who landed here just after the Civil War, as well as a link to the family tree that includes homesteaders and land speculators of Scotch-Irish heritage. There are also German and Norwegian ties as well.
If anything, I took aim at my whole ancestry.
So, it was just me being dense.
Don't be so hard on yourself. My humor tends to be obscure.
As far as your education goes, one of the project managers I work for graduated from MIT in the mid-1970's. He said it was the most fun he ever had in school. I guess my comment was more just my passing along his advice to not take life too seriously while in school. There is plenty of time for that on the outside.
Well there's a standard all comedy should be measured against.
But that may very well be my problem, not yours...
I think you need to avoid reading too much into Slashdot posts.
Just go with the flow. I know your in school and all and everything is uber-competative where you study, but on the outside world most folks are nearly so serious.
Lu, also a former senior government official, was responding to a report released by the China Software Industry Association (CSIA) in late August which called for the government to review its preference for open-source software. The government's "excessive preference" for the open-source Linux platform is harming the domestic software industry, and Linux's business model is flawed as the low, or no, charge is thwarting the profitability of Linux developers, the CSIA asserted in the report.
Now while I am not opposed to people making money from their work, nor am I opposed to people making huge profits from their businesses, I find rediculous the whole idea that government should intercede in a free market because somebody can't make money from a commodity. If you can't make a living or profit from something, then find a new line of work or business. Why should the government demand that something make money?
So what is the solution to their "problem"? Are they going to ban open source software because it drives profit making companies into the ground? Does this mean you have to get a license to write software, or work for a profit-making company to write code? Where does this protection racket end?
I know that many/.ers make a living writing code and take offense at the notion that they should have to give up a living because someone else does their job without asking for money. But consider the fact that no one charges you for the air you breathe. I'm sure that someone, somewhere, would love to charge you for that air and the fact that you get it for free means some poor schmuck can't make a profit from it. Hell, we should demand that the government get involved and require everyone who breathes to pay a toll to some company who will ensure that air is always available for us to breathe.
What is funniest about this whole 'software industry can't make money' discussion is that no one considers the huge profit potential of every thing someone does for another person just because they like them or want to help.
They are called 'immigrants'. The last names "Smith", "Jones", and "Gozales" are all immigrant last names as well. The first human residents of America (also immigrants) were names "Ogg" and "Igg". There weren't too many Europeans living here when they arrived.
I'm sure they probably felt the same angst that white Americans feel now when European settlers started invading their lands, taking all of the jobs and using all of the local services.
Chief Running Cloud probably had a strong election-year platform of immigration reform. It didn't work that well for him either.
Slashdot Mirror
Start your own blog. Its free, easy, and you can say virtually anything you want. And if you want to respond in a way in which he will be forced to listen, we have a way to do that as well. Its just not as popular with younger generations.
First of all, I was commenting on a general trend in political blogging. Secondly, I don't write a blog because it would be just another libertarian who has yet another blog. As for "forcing" him to listen, I doubt that any letter will "force" anyone to do anything other than roundfile another piece of paper.
I produce rebuttals in the most effective way possible: I attend political gatherings where precinct captians are elected. Real arguments lead to real results at the grassroots level.
I've noticed that many blogs now require registration before you can submit a comment. I'm sure that is in response to the flood of spam and crap that gets posted in response to the blog content. The unfortunate thing about this particular trend is that it is turning blogs into monologs. I'm not sure if that is what they were intended to be, but that is how they are going to end up without rebuttal and commentary.
Speaker Hastert isn't any different in his blog approach than the issue ads pushed by the RNC on their site - or the issue ads on the Democratic Party site. In fact, I haven't found many political blogs that still allow unfiltered comments on their sites.
It is so much easier to defend your position when you don't have to deal with opposing viewpoints.
He can't be a Real American(tm). His trigger finger is on his left hand.
I wish there was a way to get both the deterrence factor of punishment and the regulation and taxation of ceasing prohibition.
Use alcohol as a model. The only time you are arrested is for what you do when you are drunk (i.e., driving while intoxicated, fighting), not because you drank alcohol.
What Google does with Google Print, however, is to take content from a medium (books) that probably never were intended to be transmitted in this manner.
I don't know if this is universally true. The technology did not exist when some of the print copies were made, but you can bet that publishers are jockying for position to sell their wares as ebooks.
It seems you have an ulterior motive.
I guess expecting you to explain your points is a "motive".
You just don't want prison to exist, so that all these violent criminals can be let out and free to terrorize the country.
And I can also assume that you are a retard in that my earliest post specifically excluded any discussion of releasing violent criminals.
(ploink!)
Ronald and Nancy Reagan were libtards? I seem to remember 'Just Say No' being a favorite saying of one Nancy Reagan.
I guess that depends on what you consider 'conservative'.
I don't consider using the goverment to force people into treatment to be a 'conservative' value.
If you are looking for the *conservative* view of prohibition, just read a selection of works by a *real* conservative, William F. Buckley, Jr.
If someone rapes and kills your wife/girlfriend, we will let them out early out of some touchy feely need to keep the prison population down.
I guess you can't read. I said non-violent offenders.
YOU may trust Google but not everyone in the world shares that view.
I don't automatically trust anyone. Because this system is only the subject of discussion and not available for use by the public, everything I have written in defense of Google has been on general principle.
If you have some evidence of the nefarious intent of Google, then feel free to contact your local US Attorney. I'm sure that their is some enterprising future mayor who is just waiting to cut their teeth on a giant of the industry.
They may simply not be comfortable handing over the keys to the kingdom because Google says "we're here to help".
And they could also be dickheads.
No it isn't. Librarying is not fair use.
So every copy of every article or book I've made for research or other fair use reason should be destroyed after I've completed the task?
I don't think you are correct on that one.
If they were growing their own drugs you would sort of have a point. But their meth/crack/weed money goes to some fairly nasty people (encouragement and power to them), who don't do drug stuff exclusively.
Then you should be against prohibition. The Italian and Irish organized crime organizations of the early 20th Century were just a minor nuisance until alcohol prohibition made them rich.
And if it became accepted to do crack, and more people did it, less cool stuff would be done in the real world, because more people would have fun doing crack instead.
And you have *what* evidence for this? The evidence is quite the opposite: alcholism rates did NOT skyrocket after the end of prohibition.
So, stfu. Just because everyone and their sister smokes pot in the US doesn't mean it's a good thing.I'm not a believer in morality as an absolute, aka religious stuff, but if you put it into (beneficial|detractive) for (me|some group|society|the human race), I'd say drugs are on the detractive side.
Great! Sign your entire paycheck over to the government so that they can spend it taking care of the drug addicts. As for me, I tend to believe that people will get help when they need it. If you keep incarcerating them you only extend the problem and ADD cost to the TAXPAYERS.
Of course, you don't give a shit about that. Just so long as some person next door isn't getting shitfaced on dope. He can get drunk off his ass, but God Forbid that he do meth.
Maybe not for the individual crackhead (probably though), but the laws are (ideally, some crap exists) there to guide society onto a route that is beneficial for society, not dopeheads.
You can't point to one success in the War on Drugs yet you are willing to claim that it has some great benefit to society.
Talk about liberalism run amok.
Deterrance?
So you make everything against the law and then lock up everyone who breaks a law.
How long before your economy collapses because there aren't enough people on the outside making money to pay for keeping people on the inside.
How much has the **AA lawsuits deterred copyright violations? How much has the Drug War deterred drug smugglers?
Enough to justify the cost to track, prosecute, and incarcerate them?
Add up all of the costs associated with the Drug War - military and civilian - and then divide that by the number of addits. Can you seriously tell me that these costs are lower than just putting addicts in rehab?
Deterrance only works when people respect the rule of law.
In reality they were actually too stupid (or blinded by their biases) to realize that crime was down BECAUSE the jails were full. Cause and affect. Go figure.
Yes, crime is down for several categories of the penal code. But if you keep adding categories, then the jails will never see a decrease in prison population.
There are too many offenses that require jail time.
I've added the emphasis to show why there is a problem for many people with this. You can't advertise it as a full text search of every book every written while justifying it by claiming it's just a card catalog.
Because.....?
Last time I stopped in at the local library, the card catalog indexed a brief descriptive blurb, publishing date, printing, editor, publisher, author, page count and title.
And if they had a more automated system then you think they wouldn't offer more?
It did not contain the contents of said book.
But even after you get a hit on the search parameters, you don't get the whole book for free, do you?
I still fail to see how having a digital copy on their hard drive constitutes a copyright violation. If they were to make that image available without charge, then they would be violating the copyright.
Unfortunately, some people who are not dangerous are not detered by anything short of prison. Even after some prison time, some will still repeat the offense.
How many of those repeat offenders are drug cases? How many are property violations? How many are violent offenders?
My point is that if someone is only harming themselves, why should I be asked to shell out my hard-earned cash to lock them up? I'd rather they were holding down a job, helping grow the economy, and paying their OWN fucking taxes.
Talk about confusing the issue.
How so?
At stake is the integrity of the system.
When we reach the point where we need sophisticated computer systems to track release dates for the number of prisoners we have, then perhaps it is time to re-evaluate the criminal justice system.
I guess the number of people we incarcerate is irrelevant to you? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you've offered criticism without showing me where I've confused the issue.
If we incarcerated only a couple of thousand prisoners in state-wide prison systems, you could almost keep their release dates on 3x5" index cards. When we have 10's of thousands in prison, we need to decide why we are wearhousing so many people.
Every person living in prison represents lost economic productivity, lost tax revenue, and a burden on state coffers. I tend to believe that you only compound the economic burden to taxpayers when you incarcerate those who are only a risk to themselves.
This is about control. I guess I didn't notice the corporate copyright lawyer trawling the library taking photographs of the card catalog, which is an index of books in the library's holdings. Of course our library doesn't *have* a card catalog any more; it has an online search utility. Funny that didn't get mentioned in the lawsuit.
Who cares if Google has copied every book ever printed. As long as the copyrights of the author and publisher are honored (they don't give copies away for free), the who cares? If I took every book off the shelf from my library, copied them, and then took the copies home and stuffed them in my garage, who would care? That constitutes 'fair use'. But if I start making more copies and giving them away, or give my copy away, now I should be held to account.
The publishers are just ticked because they see themselves losing control over content. Meet the new RIAA.
Even those critics who understand that copyright law is not absolute argue that making a full copy of a given work, even just to index it, can never constitute fair use. If this were so, you wouldn't be able to record a TV show to watch it later or use a search engine that indexes billions of Web pages.
Is Schmidt the only one who gets the webpage angle? I would beat the publishers over the head with this one. What do you want to bet that they all have copyrighted webpages indexed on Google. Did they ever protest this fact?
Writers of bad checks are gravely dangerous to society.
I never said that they had *no* impact on society, but measured against violent offenders, check kiters are peanuts.
You also forgot to mention that people like mega-corp CEOs will do more damage to the economy than the average check kiter. How much time do all of the convicted CEOs do collectivly? I'll bet it is only a fraction of what your average petty thief gets. That kind of differential only makes the public more suspicious of the criminal justice system.
You want to lock up petty criminals and pay MORE taxes to incarcerate them? Tell me how this helps the economy.
It's essentially the Catholic Justice System.
I think the Baptists would take exception at your excluding them from this party. They like controlling people too.
You're locked away not so much because of offenses you commit that harm other people, but for offenses that upset god and baby jesus and mother mary and all that jazz.
And it is only getting worse. Every year some dumbass politician screws the whole world up with just six simple words: "There ought to be a law!"
How else do you explain laws intended to punish 18 year olds having sex with same-sex 15 year olds with 17 years in prison, but punish 18 year olds having sex with female 15 year olds with 15 months in prison?
You can't. Neither can you rationalize incarcerating a person who does drugs, keeps their job, pays their taxes, and doesn't commit any other criminal offense. They *try* to rationalize it by claiming that "they need treatment" as though the criminal justice system is any substitute for medical therapy.
It's all about morality and just because something is considered "immoral" by many doesn't make it harmful to anyone.
Aye. That about sums it up.
A whole 39 days early? Shit! They ought to hunt that bastard down and horsewhip them.
I guess I don't see the 'crisis' in this other than these people were low-level, non-violent offenders. If a software glitch had let a Ted Bundy out for another killing spree, I would probably be more concerned.
Fact is, we have WAAAAAY too many people in jail as it is. If we were to only charge and incarcerate those who pose a safety risk to the rest of society then you could probably monitor the entire population in half as many facilities with 1/3 of the correctional officers we have today.
The US incarcerates people largely to punish them for stuff they do to themselves. If someone is strung out on meth or heroin, they are only a problem to me if they steal something to support their habit. Considering the fact that theft is already a crime, I can't see how locking up people who are casual users and functioning addicts helps society at all.
These prison systems are getting too complex, too expensive, and are locking too many people away for "their own good".
Rep. Rick Jones: " 8 people is too many. I understand the department found another 15, that's too many, even 1 is too many."
Fuck that. Notice he shed no tears for the few that were held too long? I'm glad some of them got out early. The only sad thing in this story is that somebody got held longer than they should have.
I don't think you need to bring my school into this.
:)
It was just an observation. Again, don't read too much into my posts.
It's more that it's hard to know when people are joking in text.
You seemed to find humor in the post that preceded my original observation. It must not be *that* difficult.
If I'd been observant enough to notice the cato.org URL, I would've known you couldn't possibly have been serious.
Ummmmm... I guess I don't make the connection between being a libertarian and my comments about America's first human inhabitants. Here is another item that I neglected to mention in my first comment that complicate the interpreation even further: A part of my family decended from the Blackfeet Tribe. The other side includes Irish immigrants who landed here just after the Civil War, as well as a link to the family tree that includes homesteaders and land speculators of Scotch-Irish heritage. There are also German and Norwegian ties as well.
If anything, I took aim at my whole ancestry.
So, it was just me being dense.
Don't be so hard on yourself. My humor tends to be obscure.
As far as your education goes, one of the project managers I work for graduated from MIT in the mid-1970's. He said it was the most fun he ever had in school. I guess my comment was more just my passing along his advice to not take life too seriously while in school. There is plenty of time for that on the outside.
The fact that I didn't laugh.
Well there's a standard all comedy should be measured against.
But that may very well be my problem, not yours...
I think you need to avoid reading too much into Slashdot posts.
Just go with the flow. I know your in school and all and everything is uber-competative where you study, but on the outside world most folks are nearly so serious.
Lu, also a former senior government official, was responding to a report released by the China Software Industry Association (CSIA) in late August which called for the government to review its preference for open-source software. The government's "excessive preference" for the open-source Linux platform is harming the domestic software industry, and Linux's business model is flawed as the low, or no, charge is thwarting the profitability of Linux developers, the CSIA asserted in the report.
/.ers make a living writing code and take offense at the notion that they should have to give up a living because someone else does their job without asking for money. But consider the fact that no one charges you for the air you breathe. I'm sure that someone, somewhere, would love to charge you for that air and the fact that you get it for free means some poor schmuck can't make a profit from it. Hell, we should demand that the government get involved and require everyone who breathes to pay a toll to some company who will ensure that air is always available for us to breathe.
Now while I am not opposed to people making money from their work, nor am I opposed to people making huge profits from their businesses, I find rediculous the whole idea that government should intercede in a free market because somebody can't make money from a commodity. If you can't make a living or profit from something, then find a new line of work or business. Why should the government demand that something make money?
So what is the solution to their "problem"? Are they going to ban open source software because it drives profit making companies into the ground? Does this mean you have to get a license to write software, or work for a profit-making company to write code? Where does this protection racket end?
I know that many
What is funniest about this whole 'software industry can't make money' discussion is that no one considers the huge profit potential of every thing someone does for another person just because they like them or want to help.
Charities rob profit-making enterprises.
Easy on the PC rhetoric, there. The GP was just joking around.
So what makes you think I wasn't?
They are called 'immigrants'. The last names "Smith", "Jones", and "Gozales" are all immigrant last names as well. The first human residents of America (also immigrants) were names "Ogg" and "Igg". There weren't too many Europeans living here when they arrived.
I'm sure they probably felt the same angst that white Americans feel now when European settlers started invading their lands, taking all of the jobs and using all of the local services.
Chief Running Cloud probably had a strong election-year platform of immigration reform. It didn't work that well for him either.