Damn dude, although I think you make a good point, I think you overestimate he damage modern capitalism does in relation to the good. By an order or magnitude, or so. There's far more good than bad--even though the bad can be very bad.
That sounds like a good idea if you don't think about it at all. Ultimately, however, you are suggesting letting bureaucrats and politicians make decisions about economics, based on _their_ perceptions of what is "good for America" or "bad for America".
As opposed to the people.
Personally, I think we need a real "Consumer's Union", not Ralph Nader's product testing service, but a real union of actual consumers who negotiate with the big boys on a more level playing field.
You're absolutely right. We should sell every public company on Wall Street for a quick profit _now_, and without regard to the consequences if all those companies fail as a result.
The problem with unrestrained capitalism is this extreme short sitedness, when the world will (hopefully) continue on beyond the next quarter--and we're all going to still need to make a living then. And if people don't have jobs, you have a shantytown ghetto outside the gates of your mansion.
I hate to beat a dead horse, but it seems to me that in a case like this, there's no partiuclar reason for the vendor to lock you out of the system. Why not let you dig around in the OS? You're not even trying to sell me some kind of addon or anything, so there's not even short sited selfish motivation (Sony PSP, etc.) for locking me out.
It's entertainment today, it's all speech, tomorrow.
Don't you realize that if they can keep you from uploading files they don't approve of, they can also prevent you uploading your opinions? The principle is that we cannot let powerful people police the bytes that we exchange between us.
And if we cannot _speak_ freely, we cannot properly solve any other problem.
Frankly, I've been amazed for years at Usenet's continued slipping under the radar. It's interesting that these days it's considered a kind of advanced or very geeky part of the internet, when in the old days it was often our first foray into global networking (after FIDOnet, of course!).
Increasingly, it seems like Usenet is being hosted by a few large, dedicated Usenet providers, and ISP's just subscribe to them for their users, which is understandable. Who wants to maintain an NNTP server?
Only problem is it makes it easier to take down.
The stupids, now that they are starting to finally grasp the true power of the internet, are naturally keen to see it destroyed...because they're stupid. We gotta remember who's right in this struggle, and the importance of protecting unpleasant and unpopular speech--including filez, warez, movies--everything. If you can keep me from sharing data you don't want shared, you can control what I say. There's no two ways about it, you can have one or the other--free speech or control over content.
Besides, didn't I read a year or two ago how some of the big Usenet providers were working with the Feds to try to filter out the kiddie porn? I highly approve of that action, and I think thats where we need to draw the line.
I'm starting to think David Brin is right. There's just so much more information "out there" and attainable. I'm not sure it's possible to stop it, and so the least of the possible evils is just total transparency.
Secureserver.com (Godaddy's email service) has started rejecting logins if you're using Opera.
I don't mind a warning, but for God's sake let me just take my chances, would you? Now I have to switch to Firefox to check mail--fucking retarded.
Hey, I've got an idea--instead of serving custom pages by sniffing user agents, why not make a single set of code that works everywhere? I mean, I know it's horrible to contemplate--but I'm really not interested in your fancy Ajax interface or toys that try to second guess everything I do--I just want to check my fucking mail. And now I can't even do that, 'cuz yer so fancy.
I agree with you completely. That's why I made my own game. I got tired of one well made WW2 or Quake style game after another, and decided to make the game I want to play. And I think you should, too.
The graphics are definitely not first class, but on the other hand I think they're beautiful, because I made it to please me. And at least a few other people like it, too, which is nice.
I'd still be glad to have an artist on board, though:-)
No, you're wrong--Read Ayn. I recommend Atlas Shrugged.
Communism == kleptocracy, as opposed to having ANY good reason to be in power. Capitalism is no paradise, but it's far friendlier to freedom than any other system.
Actually, no. Non-Communist states may not be paradise--true. But Communist states _must_ be authoritarian in order to function, as ultimately some arbitrary person has to make the decision of who gets what, as opposed to the "invisible hand".
Slashdot Mirror
Damn dude, although I think you make a good point, I think you overestimate he damage modern capitalism does in relation to the good. By an order or magnitude, or so. There's far more good than bad--even though the bad can be very bad.
This could mean YOU.
There, fixed that for you :-)
Nah. Throw in incompetence and delusions of grandeur, and even a one man game can still use plenty of resources. See my sig.
"Interesting, yet you continue to buy services from companies that engage in these behaviors"
You seem to think we have a choice.
That sounds like a good idea if you don't think about it at all. Ultimately, however, you are suggesting letting bureaucrats and politicians make decisions about economics, based on _their_ perceptions of what is "good for America" or "bad for America".
As opposed to the people.
Personally, I think we need a real "Consumer's Union", not Ralph Nader's product testing service, but a real union of actual consumers who negotiate with the big boys on a more level playing field.
You're absolutely right. We should sell every public company on Wall Street for a quick profit _now_, and without regard to the consequences if all those companies fail as a result.
The problem with unrestrained capitalism is this extreme short sitedness, when the world will (hopefully) continue on beyond the next quarter--and we're all going to still need to make a living then. And if people don't have jobs, you have a shantytown ghetto outside the gates of your mansion.
And who wants that?
I hate to beat a dead horse, but it seems to me that in a case like this, there's no partiuclar reason for the vendor to lock you out of the system. Why not let you dig around in the OS? You're not even trying to sell me some kind of addon or anything, so there's not even short sited selfish motivation (Sony PSP, etc.) for locking me out.
Actually no, they tried that and they had a bunch of mostly failed missions. That's why they quit doing that.
Space travel isn't that easy for us, yet.
It's entertainment today, it's all speech, tomorrow.
Don't you realize that if they can keep you from uploading files they don't approve of, they can also prevent you uploading your opinions? The principle is that we cannot let powerful people police the bytes that we exchange between us.
And if we cannot _speak_ freely, we cannot properly solve any other problem.
I would be inclined to agree with you, but isn't what you describe just another form of Imaginary Property?
I wish it could be true, what you say--but I just don't think it's realistic.
Frankly, I've been amazed for years at Usenet's continued slipping under the radar. It's interesting that these days it's considered a kind of advanced or very geeky part of the internet, when in the old days it was often our first foray into global networking (after FIDOnet, of course!).
Increasingly, it seems like Usenet is being hosted by a few large, dedicated Usenet providers, and ISP's just subscribe to them for their users, which is understandable. Who wants to maintain an NNTP server?
Only problem is it makes it easier to take down.
The stupids, now that they are starting to finally grasp the true power of the internet, are naturally keen to see it destroyed...because they're stupid. We gotta remember who's right in this struggle, and the importance of protecting unpleasant and unpopular speech--including filez, warez, movies--everything. If you can keep me from sharing data you don't want shared, you can control what I say. There's no two ways about it, you can have one or the other--free speech or control over content.
Besides, didn't I read a year or two ago how some of the big Usenet providers were working with the Feds to try to filter out the kiddie porn? I highly approve of that action, and I think thats where we need to draw the line.
You seem to think there will be a court involved.
And I hope it stays that way. I'd LOVE to just sell advertising space in it, and give it away free forever.
No license software crap.
No worries.
You'd be surprised to learn that the people who run the WTO, IMF, etc. actually believe they are helping they world. Which in fact, they largely are.
TFA is about a G8 meeting, which is the actual leaders of our countries--not the professional economists of the WTO, for example.
So you're wrong.
If slashdot had had an article about it a year ago, I might have heard of it before now.
I'm starting to think David Brin is right. There's just so much more information "out there" and attainable. I'm not sure it's possible to stop it, and so the least of the possible evils is just total transparency.
Why should companies be allowed to donate at all?
Smash Mom's monitor with a hammer.
Secureserver.com (Godaddy's email service) has started rejecting logins if you're using Opera.
I don't mind a warning, but for God's sake let me just take my chances, would you? Now I have to switch to Firefox to check mail--fucking retarded.
Hey, I've got an idea--instead of serving custom pages by sniffing user agents, why not make a single set of code that works everywhere? I mean, I know it's horrible to contemplate--but I'm really not interested in your fancy Ajax interface or toys that try to second guess everything I do--I just want to check my fucking mail. And now I can't even do that, 'cuz yer so fancy.
The graphics are definitely not first class, but on the other hand I think they're beautiful, because I made it to please me. And at least a few other people like it, too, which is nice.
I'd still be glad to have an artist on board, though
The Moon is American, goddammit!
You think legal technicalities will stop them?
You, sir, are a damn fool, and a fool furthermore for siding with these people, as you will no doubt come to rue in the coming years.
No, you're wrong--Read Ayn. I recommend Atlas Shrugged.
Communism == kleptocracy, as opposed to having ANY good reason to be in power. Capitalism is no paradise, but it's far friendlier to freedom than any other system.
Actually, no. Non-Communist states may not be paradise--true. But Communist states _must_ be authoritarian in order to function, as ultimately some arbitrary person has to make the decision of who gets what, as opposed to the "invisible hand".