If you pay less taxes by paying your workforce out of stock options, why doesn't everyone do it? If it's an issue about incentives, you can just specify the compensation formula as a condition for owning the stock: "If stockholder is also an employee, dividends are changed to however many hours you worked times $X (the wage)." That way, the wages are essentially the less-taxed dividends.
If you work for yourself, your profits are your wages. If you're not successful, you'll make below minimum wage. Will you be punished for that? Of course not. In America, you get punished for being successful, not for being a failure.
This noble defense of light spamming sentences, stated on a post with his email displayed in such a way as to avoid being spammed. Hello performative contradiction.
One year would be a deterrent, IF everyone who sent lots of spam went to jail. However, in the real world, only a tiny fraction of spammers will get caught, so it makes sense to adjust the sentence so that the risk (magnitude of negative outcome times probability of negative outcome) is great enough to deter.
I must hastily say, there is quite a difference between TV advertising/billboards and spam. Firstly, the existence of television programming is dependent upon the advertisement, whilst email is not dependent upon spam. Secondly, people watch TV, accepting that there will be advertisements, whilst they in no similar way accept spam as a cost of using email. Thirdly, TV advertisments are invited by the content providers, whilst email providers certainly do not invite spam.
That's common knowledge to anyone wanting to become a graduate student. Don't like it? Don't become a graduate student. It's fair in the sense that people know the costs going in.
I was not saying that the "law is the law is the law" I was saying that if you don't like the law then try to get it changed.
And I was trying to saw that that is little comfort to the victims of the immoral laws.
You would probably not succeed since most people feel that artists and other IP creators deserve to be guranteed some compensation for thier work. If you can find a way for everyone to download thier music for free and still make the artists rich, please suggest it because that would fix the problem right away.
Okay, how about what we have right now, where music labels get to enforce a copyright over production of the actual CD, but look the other way regarding underground music downloading (and generally refrain from using strongarm tactics)? In the present system, artists get rich, labels get rich, and people get choice in how they take their music. They can even pay to download from legitimate sites! That seems more fair to everyone than forcing every ISP to police IP theft.
...What is immoral about that?
It is immoral because it assigns ownership to non-scarce resources. Who owns my harddrive? I own it. As such, I should be allowed to order the ones and zeroes on it for my personal use however I want. If I get a good idea from someone (i.e., I hear a song), I should be allowed to order the ones and zeroes on my hard drive based on that.
I just want attention, man, can't you see? Normally I only post on topics in which I can contribute something, but this time I thought I could fake it well enough. Guess not.
Re:A site like this is fine...
on
EZTree Shuts Down
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Oh, wow, go you. That must have really taken some balls to get your Slashdot mod buddies to mod down a post you disagreed with. *jerkoff motion*
A valid point. When we look at the relationship to the Windows/Linux debate, we see a lot of parallels though. For example, in both cases, one offers solid performance, while the other offers a high-quality paradigm. Regarding the book, I thought it had a lot of insights to offer about using Hibernate and Java.
I'm mocking your attitude that "the law is the law is the law" as justification for immoral laws. And you're assuming quite a lot in labeling downloading music as "stealing". Doesn't stealing require the stolen thing to become unavailable to the victim?
Re:A site like this is fine...
on
EZTree Shuts Down
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
That is the load of garbage. Our system of laws says that we can execute Jews for being Jewish. Specificlly the Nuremburg laws. If you don't like that, get the laws changed. I can tell you that I will fight you tooth and nail on this issue. I make my living as a concentration camp officer selling the service of executing Jews and various other people unfit to live.
Mad-lib for trolls. Nothing to see here, move along.
Information dooesn't just "float around." EZTree stole that intellectual property, encoded it for transmission to you, and you downloaded it. EZTree certainly committed a crime.
Yeah, but once the first person made that copy, the information is free for anyone to download and thus impossible to contain. What the RIAA is trying to do here is an absurdity. You might as well pass laws against gravity.
That's a load of garbage. Like I was saying above, nobody owns information. Information is just a combination of ones and zeroes. Are you saying I don't have the right to order the ones and zeroes on my computer however I want? I own this computer, while information just floats around. When informed of it, I order the ones and zeroes on my computer differently. What moral crime have I committed? Who really owns my computer? I own my computer. No one owns information.
That's a load of garbage. Nobody owns information. Information is just a combination of ones and zeroes. Are you saying I don't have the right to order the ones and zeroes on my computer however I want? I own this computer. Information just floats around. When informed of it, I order the ones and zeroes on my computer differently. What moral crime have I committed? Who really owns my computer? I own my computer. No one owns information.
Everyone who ever produced any intellectual work wants people to steal it and only says otherwise because of the big corporations and Microsoft. All attempts to protect intellectual property rights are totally absurd. Everyone who sues for copyright infringement is a hypocrite.
More like an interesting lie. WINDOWS working better than UNIX? Gimme a break. What is this guy, an idiot savant? Instead of being able to multiply large numbers in his head but not eat properly, this guy can make Windows work properly but gets screwed over by UNIX. He's got everything reversed.
Similar experience here. Someone ran up $2000 dollars worth of condoms on my credit card. I turned all the information over the Mounties and by the next day they found the guy. I didn't even have to testify because he confessed, so strong was the evidence. I tried to kick him in the balls, but they wouldn't let me.:-(
Slashdot Mirror
If you pay less taxes by paying your workforce out of stock options, why doesn't everyone do it? If it's an issue about incentives, you can just specify the compensation formula as a condition for owning the stock: "If stockholder is also an employee, dividends are changed to however many hours you worked times $X (the wage)." That way, the wages are essentially the less-taxed dividends.
If you work for yourself, your profits are your wages. If you're not successful, you'll make below minimum wage. Will you be punished for that? Of course not. In America, you get punished for being successful, not for being a failure.
This noble defense of light spamming sentences, stated on a post with his email displayed in such a way as to avoid being spammed. Hello performative contradiction.
One year would be a deterrent, IF everyone who sent lots of spam went to jail. However, in the real world, only a tiny fraction of spammers will get caught, so it makes sense to adjust the sentence so that the risk (magnitude of negative outcome times probability of negative outcome) is great enough to deter.
I must hastily say, there is quite a difference between TV advertising/billboards and spam. Firstly, the existence of television programming is dependent upon the advertisement, whilst email is not dependent upon spam. Secondly, people watch TV, accepting that there will be advertisements, whilst they in no similar way accept spam as a cost of using email. Thirdly, TV advertisments are invited by the content providers, whilst email providers certainly do not invite spam.
That's common knowledge to anyone wanting to become a graduate student. Don't like it? Don't become a graduate student. It's fair in the sense that people know the costs going in.
If telomerase makes cancer cells immortal, is someone working on a way to make, uh, non-cancer cells immortal?
You mean *your* argument, coward.
I was not saying that the "law is the law is the law" I was saying that if you don't like the law then try to get it changed.
...What is immoral about that?
And I was trying to saw that that is little comfort to the victims of the immoral laws.
You would probably not succeed since most people feel that artists and other IP creators deserve to be guranteed some compensation for thier work. If you can find a way for everyone to download thier music for free and still make the artists rich, please suggest it because that would fix the problem right away.
Okay, how about what we have right now, where music labels get to enforce a copyright over production of the actual CD, but look the other way regarding underground music downloading (and generally refrain from using strongarm tactics)? In the present system, artists get rich, labels get rich, and people get choice in how they take their music. They can even pay to download from legitimate sites! That seems more fair to everyone than forcing every ISP to police IP theft.
It is immoral because it assigns ownership to non-scarce resources. Who owns my harddrive? I own it. As such, I should be allowed to order the ones and zeroes on it for my personal use however I want. If I get a good idea from someone (i.e., I hear a song), I should be allowed to order the ones and zeroes on my hard drive based on that.
I just want attention, man, can't you see? Normally I only post on topics in which I can contribute something, but this time I thought I could fake it well enough. Guess not.
Oh, wow, go you. That must have really taken some balls to get your Slashdot mod buddies to mod down a post you disagreed with. *jerkoff motion*
A valid point. When we look at the relationship to the Windows/Linux debate, we see a lot of parallels though. For example, in both cases, one offers solid performance, while the other offers a high-quality paradigm. Regarding the book, I thought it had a lot of insights to offer about using Hibernate and Java.
Wow, it really took some balls to post that as an Anonymous Coward.
I'm mocking your attitude that "the law is the law is the law" as justification for immoral laws. And you're assuming quite a lot in labeling downloading music as "stealing". Doesn't stealing require the stolen thing to become unavailable to the victim?
That is the load of garbage. Our system of laws says that we can execute Jews for being Jewish. Specificlly the Nuremburg laws. If you don't like that, get the laws changed. I can tell you that I will fight you tooth and nail on this issue. I make my living as a concentration camp officer selling the service of executing Jews and various other people unfit to live.
Mad-lib for trolls. Nothing to see here, move along.
Information dooesn't just "float around." EZTree stole that intellectual property, encoded it for transmission to you, and you downloaded it. EZTree certainly committed a crime.
Yeah, but once the first person made that copy, the information is free for anyone to download and thus impossible to contain. What the RIAA is trying to do here is an absurdity. You might as well pass laws against gravity.
That's a load of garbage. Like I was saying above, nobody owns information. Information is just a combination of ones and zeroes. Are you saying I don't have the right to order the ones and zeroes on my computer however I want? I own this computer, while information just floats around. When informed of it, I order the ones and zeroes on my computer differently. What moral crime have I committed? Who really owns my computer? I own my computer. No one owns information.
That's a load of garbage. Nobody owns information. Information is just a combination of ones and zeroes. Are you saying I don't have the right to order the ones and zeroes on my computer however I want? I own this computer. Information just floats around. When informed of it, I order the ones and zeroes on my computer differently. What moral crime have I committed? Who really owns my computer? I own my computer. No one owns information.
what right do they have to sue for damages when they're not even trying to sell the "pirated" product themselves? Where is the loss of revenue?
Everyone who ever produced any intellectual work wants people to steal it and only says otherwise because of the big corporations and Microsoft. All attempts to protect intellectual property rights are totally absurd. Everyone who sues for copyright infringement is a hypocrite.
More like an interesting lie. WINDOWS working better than UNIX? Gimme a break. What is this guy, an idiot savant? Instead of being able to multiply large numbers in his head but not eat properly, this guy can make Windows work properly but gets screwed over by UNIX. He's got everything reversed.
Similar experience here. Someone ran up $2000 dollars worth of condoms on my credit card. I turned all the information over the Mounties and by the next day they found the guy. I didn't even have to testify because he confessed, so strong was the evidence. I tried to kick him in the balls, but they wouldn't let me. :-(
But you've re-arranged someone else's atoms, which is unacceptable.
The internet.
Yes, it's true in Texas, in fact, all the states except Missouri and New York.